Tag: police state

Justice Carl Thibault upholds Quebec’s Covid curfew despite finding it violated Charter rights

The Quebec Superior Court has dismissed an appeal challenging Quebec’s controversial COVID-19 curfew, ruling that while the unprecedented measure violated several Charter rights, those infringements were justified under the Constitution because of the pandemic.

In a decision released July 29, Justice Carl Thibault upheld a lower court ruling involving Stéphanie Pépin, who was ticketed on January 9, 2021, after police stopped her while she was driving to attend a peaceful protest against Quebec’s newly imposed nighttime curfew.

Quebec was the only province in Canada to impose a province-wide curfew during the pandemic. Residents were barred from leaving their homes between 8 p.m. and 5 a.m., with fines ranging from $1,000 to $6,000 for violations. The curfew remained in force until May 28, 2021, before being reintroduced from December 31, 2021, to January 17, 2022.

According to evidence presented in court, roughly 46,000 pandemic-related tickets were issued in Quebec between September 2020 and October 2021, including approximately 22,500 curfew tickets, representing an estimated $30 million in fines.

Justice Thibault agreed with the trial judge that the curfew infringed Ms. Pépin’s rights to liberty, freedom of expression, and freedom of peaceful assembly under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court also acknowledged that peaceful political demonstrations held during curfew hours were effectively prohibited because they were not exempted under the regulations.

However, the court concluded those infringements were justified under Section 1 of the Charter, finding the curfew was rationally connected to the government’s objective of slowing Covid-19 transmission and protecting the healthcare system. Justice Thibault emphasized that courts should exercise restraint when reviewing emergency public health decisions made during an unprecedented crisis.

During the original 2023 trial, constitutional lawyer Olivier Séguin cross-examined Quebec’s former National Director of Public Health, Dr. Horacio Arruda, and his strategic medical adviser, Dr. Richard Massé. Both acknowledged the curfew was intended not only to reduce virus transmission but also to reinforce compliance with other public health measures and send a strong message to the public.

“The Court again recognized that Quebec’s Covid curfew infringed fundamental Charter freedoms,” Séguin said following the ruling. “The central question was whether those infringements were justified during a public health emergency.”

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, which funded the litigation, said its lawyers are reviewing the judgment to determine whether to seek further appellate review.

Keep reading

Permission to work: the Crown sends three prosecutors to scrutinize Tamara Lich’s work at Rebel News

When the story of the Freedom Convoy is told, one name keeps surfacing at the centre of the storm: Tamara Lich. In the winter of 2022, as vaccine mandates and lockdown rules stretched into a third year, she was at the forefront with the truckers who drove on Ottawa and parked there. She became a symbol of resistance not because she sought it, but because the system made her one.

And the system still isn’t letting go.

Fresh from the longest mischief trial in Canadian history, indeed in the entire Commonwealth, Lich’s case was back before an Ottawa court. There is a live application before the court seeking to vary her sentence so she can travel more widely to work for Rebel News. Ezra Levant filed an affidavit describing the work she has done over the past six months. The Crown’s response? Three prosecutors, not one, not two, but three, lined up to cross-examine him on it. That is how far things have come: a journalist made to seek the court’s permission simply to travel for her job, and three government lawyers dispatched to argue about it. 

Step outside the Ottawa bubble and the picture changes entirely. Earlier in the month, Ezra and Tamara spent more than twelve hours driving through southern Alberta, from Okotoks to Lethbridge to Medicine Hat. Crowds gathered not because the press told them to, but because they wanted to. People came out in the heat when they could have been doing anything else, just to say hello.

Keep reading

Savannah Mayor Van Johnson’s Animal Farm – Pushes Globalist Flock Line…’It’s For Your Safety’

It’s always ‘for the children’, or ‘for your safety’, as they try and take away your Constitutional rights to install a tyrannical police state, full of corruption and decay. It’s now the Savannah hunger games.

We are all well aware of Savannah Mayor Van Johnson’s refusal to deal with the homeless problem in Savannah, going so far as to defy state law.

It is increasingly obvious that Johnson is simply another globalist puppet installed to enact the globalist agenda of surveillance, high crime, and societal destruction.

Johnson’s comments on the Flock Safety cameras installed throughout the city are just the latest example of this reality.

“On one end you can’t say, you know, ‘Keep us safe, do everything that you can to keep us safe,’ and on the other hand say, ‘But wait, we don’t want these cameras,’” Johnson said. “We’ve got cameras outside, we’ve got cameras of people walking up and down the street, you have cameras when you go into the airport, you have cameras when you walk into the stores, I mean, you know, public safety comes at a cost.”

Excuse us Mayor Johnson, but public safety should not come via a violation of our Constitutional rights.

We have questions for the Mayor.

  • Did you ask the citizens of Savannah if it was ok with them if you installed surveillance cameras throughout the city to track their movement?
  • Have you disclosed to the citizens of Savannah the full extent of the capabilities of the cameras, including blue tooth, audio, and phone surveillance?

Enquiring minds want to know.

We at The Georgia Record think good old fashion police work, and not Minority Report is the way to keep the residents of Savannah safe.

Keep reading

Texas Orders Discord to Run UK-Style Age Checks for State Users

A Texas court has ordered Discord to turn on the age-verification system it built for the United Kingdom’s Online Safety Act for every user in the state. Britain’s age-check regime has reached America by court order, and opening or keeping a Discord account in Texas can now mean a face scan or a government ID.

The agreed temporary injunction, signed by a Collin County judge, gives Discord 90 days to extend its age-assurance and default settings to Texas.

We obtained a copy of the temporary injunction for you here.

The company can still ask the court for more time if it shows the deadline is not feasible. Discord must serve the Texas Attorney General’s Office a confidential progress report every 30 days until it complies, and the order binds the company until final judgment, enforceable by contempt. The order lets Discord identify Texas users from data it already holds rather than gather new categories of personal information.

Today a Texan opens an account with an email address and a self-reported birthday, nothing more. The injunction imports that system instead. By Discord’s own published account, more than 90 percent of users are never asked to confirm their age, facial age estimation runs on the user’s own phone, and identity documents go to a third-party vendor rather than to Discord. The reassurance holds only for the users the system never questions. For everyone else, the account now comes with a face scan or a government ID handed to an outside company.

Under the order, Discord must route messages from strangers into a separate request inbox and block sensitive content for Texas teens unless it confirms the user is an adult. It must also close adult-only spaces to anyone it has not age-assured, according to the attorney general’s office. The state says these are the protections Discord already gives British children under the Online Safety Act and withheld from Texas.

Texas’s expert told the court that extending Discord’s existing safety features to the state was “just a matter of turning it on for Texas.” Discord runs the age-assurance system in the UK, Australia, and Brazil, its witnesses testified. In Texas the company still relies on a self-reported birthday at signup, a fact it did not dispute for the order.

Discord announced in February 2026 that it would roll its protections out worldwide, with the US launch only weeks away. Then it pulled back, telling the public the rollout would wait until the second half of 2026.

Attorney General Ken Paxton called the ruling a historic victory. “Discord built a platform where adult predators could hunt Texas children, then looked parents in the eye and told them it was safe,” he said in a statement. His office says Discord submitted 489,782 reports of suspected child sexual exploitation to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children in 2025, more than 1,300 a day. Under cross-examination, Discord’s lawyers drew out that those reports largely amount to the company flagging crimes it finds on its own platform and passing them to the center.

New Jersey sued before Texas did, and Nevada, Indiana, and Arkansas have taken their own legal action. Texas filed on May 22, 2026, and won a restraining order within weeks. The case heads to a trial on the merits set for June 2027, where the state will seek civil penalties under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, which can reach $10,000 per violation.

Keep reading

UK Committee Hears Calls to Expand the Online Safety Act’s Powers

A row of peers has gathered in Westminster to decide whether the Online Safety Act has been cruel enough to the internet yet. After some hours of evidence, the verdict came back: not nearly.

The Communications and Digital Committee has been quizzing stakeholders about how the law is going, and the charities it called have a grievance: Ofcom is too soft. Andy Burrows of the Molly Rose Foundation put it like this: “I do not get the impression that the companies are quaking in their boots at Ofcom’s enforcement approach.” The boots, by every account, stood steady.

The censorship law, for anyone who missed its arrival, will make Britain the safest place in the world to be online. It says so itself. The maximum fine runs to £18 million ($24M) or a tenth of worldwide revenue, whichever bites harder, which for the biggest platforms would reach into the billions. And still, no boots.

So the room reached for the obvious cure. More of it. Baroness Kidron of the 5Rights Foundation, defending Ofcom and filleting it in the same breath, allowed that “the act is wrong in certain places and does leave certain gaps, and will need some more work.” Some more work. The gaps, you understand, all run in the one direction.

Look at the machinery already bolted on. A platform that performs “Ofcom’s 44 measures, or whichever number it is now” — Kidron’s phrase — is safe. Do the 44 things, claim your safe harbor, go home. Try something cleverer and you forfeit the protection. The law rewards the box-tick over the better idea. A bold design.

And the boxes do get ticked. Nearly two-thirds of daily visits to Britain’s adult sites now pass through an age check. Lord Vaizey told the Lords that Ofcom had begun investigating 47 sites for non-compliance. Ofcom’s own spokesperson said 69. Enforcement is one of those two numbers.

Ofcom says the picture is better than that. Change was already happening, its spokesperson offered; platforms held to account, fast enforcement launched, more protections put forward. Burrows allowed that some of the action already under way might be supervisory, Ofcom working with a firm rather than fining it, though the process is opaque enough that nobody could say how industrious it was.

Meanwhile, the children the whole edifice was raised to protect. On the risk it already knew well, child sexual abuse, Burrows granted Ofcom was doing a good job. His worry was the newer harms. He kept returning to the Com groups; networks largely of teenage boys, whose reported numbers rose sixfold between 2022 and 2024, running a new kind of grooming pointed at suicide and self-harm. The Molly Rose Foundation carries the name of Molly Russell, fourteen, who viewed thousands of images promoting suicide and self-harm before she took her own life.

Rani Govender of the NSPCC laid out the trap: when a platform spots a harm the codes of practice never named, it carries no obligation to act on it. The law covers what the law already wrote down. More scope. More codes. More measures numbered 44, or whichever it is now.

One problem stayed off the agenda. The Act treats two hard engineering questions as things a statute can order into being. The first is reliable age estimation; in the opening days of the new rules, people strolled past the checks using video game avatars to pass as adults. The second is reading encrypted messages without breaking the encryption, which cannot be done, a point Signal made by offering to leave the country rather than build the back door. “If the choice came down to being forced to build a backdoor, or leaving, we’d leave,” its president wrote. A mandate is a wish with a fine attached.

The public has been voting with its downloads. When the age checks landed on July 25, Proton VPN clocked an hourly sign-up increase of over 1,400 percent. Ofcom’s answer was to tell the BBC it would be illegal for platforms to encourage VPN use. To Ofcom, a loophole to close. The verdict in it went unheard.

And the petition to repeal the whole thing has passed 550,000 signatures. Having heard all of this (the avatars, the VPN stampede, the third of a million names) the committee asked whether the age-check regime might also be extended to VPN providers.

Keep reading

Fauci Bragged in His Diary About Forcing California and New York to Shut Down Schools After Years of Claiming ‘I Had Nothing to Do With It’

Newly released entries from Dr. Anthony Fauci’s personal diary show that the longtime NIAID director was not only deeply involved in closing down schools across the country but was actively proud of his role in getting California and New York to send millions of children home as he dictated the nation’s disastrous COVID response.

This directly contradicts Fauci’s repeated public claims that he had “nothing to do with” school closures, a lie he peddled for years even as American kids suffered catastrophic learning loss, mental health crises, and social isolation under the policies he helped create.

The bombshell comes from the 1,141-page “Tony’s Diary” package released this week by Senator Rand Paul, Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, ahead of Fauci’s sworn testimony before the panel on Wednesday.

Fauci has repeatedly insisted publicly that critics were wrong to blame him for the school closures.

“They always come back and say, Fauci was responsible for closing schools. I had nothing to do—I mean, let’s get down to the facts,” he claimed in 2022.

Keep reading

Minority Report: FBI Seeks AI for Political Watch List

The FBI office in charge of maintaining the terrorist watch list is seeking an artificial intelligence system for pre-crime policing, according to procurement documents obtained by Reason. The request for information for vendors, posted by the FBI’s procurement division in March, solicits potential bidders for a project that would supercharge the Threat Screening Center (TSC) with new predictive AI capabilities—just as its focus moves from Islamist terrorism to domestic dissent.

“The solution must leverage existing enterprise datasets that include enriched or enhanced data elements with documented source attribution to develop predictive models. When new data is ingested, the system must analyze similarity, pattern alignment, and attribute correlation against existing records to predict where additional relevant information may be derived across federated systems,” the document reads, listing “Predictive Modeling Using Enhanced Data with Traceable Lineage” as one of six requirements. In other words, the TSC wants to use AI to help predict who might be a terrorist.

The FBI declined Reason‘s request for comment.

The TSC, originally called the Terrorist Screening Center, was founded in 2003. President George W. Bush’s Homeland Security Presidential Directive-6 ordered the FBI to combine all existing government terrorist watch lists into one center with a 24/7 staff on call to respond to queries from other law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Most of the hundreds of thousands of names on the TSC watch list are foreign citizens believed to be tied to jihadist organizations, with fewer than 10,000 Americans on the list at the beginning of President Donald Trump’s second term.

But the second Trump administration has renamed the TSC to focus on broadly defined “threats,” and oriented it toward groups the administration deems subversive—a change that has received little media coverage. Last year, the White House published National Security Presidential Memorandum-7 (NSPM-7), which instructed the entire national security apparatus to focus on incredibly broad threats, including “anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity;…extremism on migration, race, and gender; and hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality.”

The FBI’s procurement request for predictive AI explicitly mentions NSPM-7, although the reference is likely connected to a 2017 directive of the same name that expanded intelligence sharing between federal agencies about watch-listed people and groups. Nonetheless, the TSC is actively involved in carrying out the mandates of the more recent NSPM-7: “TSC also supports law enforcement and other communities at the federal, state, local, tribal, and international partners as established by Homeland Security Presidential Directive 6 and more recently, National Security Presidential Memorandum 7,” the document reads. “To help carry out its mission, the TSC requires enhanced technical solutions that will assist its operational staff by providing automation of time-intensive, repeatable manual tasks entailing large volumes of data across multiple domains.”

Keep reading

The Left Is Using Kids As A Trojan Horse For Total Online Surveillance

It is the oldest trick in the authoritarian playbook. Anytime a Democrat politician looks into a television camera and declares a new policy is “for the kids,” history tells us it is time to do three things: grab your Bill of Rights, lock your wallet, and check your firearms.

The political left has mastered the art of semantic camouflage. Because leftists’ true intentions – total state control and the systematic dismantling of individual liberty – are entirely unpalatable to the average citizen, they must cloak their radical agendas in the warm blanket of public safety.

We are seeing this exact misdirection play out today across two seemingly different battlefronts: the push for Universal Background Checks (UBCs) on firearms, and the sudden, “bipartisan” stampede to pass online child safety legislation. Under the microscope, however, they share the exact same DNA. They were never about protecting children. They are about building lists to target political opponents. Period.

Currently making waves in Congress are the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) in the Senate and the Kids Internet and Digital Safety Act (KIDS) in the House. On paper, the marketing pitch is flawless. Proponents claim these bills will shield innocent children from online predators, groomers, and illicit adult content.

At face value, it sounds reasonable. Who could possibly oppose protecting children?

The answer lies in the structural mechanics of the legislation. Just as gun control advocates use “safety” to pierce the veil of constitutional privacy, digital regulators are using children as human shields to bypass the First Amendment.

To understand the trap being set online, one must first look at the ongoing battle over Universal Background Checks. Under current federal law, licensed firearm dealers must maintain physical ATF Form 4473. Crucially, under the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act (FOPA) and the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) regulations, the federal government is strictly prohibited from centralizing these forms into a master database. If a firearm is used in a crime, investigators must work backward – from manufacturer to dealer to buyer. It is a localized, investigative process that protects law-abiding gun owners from mass government discovery.

Enter the left’s obsession with Universal Background Checks for private transfers. Proponents claim this keeps weapons out of the hands of criminals – ignoring the obvious reality that criminals, by definition, do not obtain weapons through legal channels.

The real objective is structural. A Universal Background Check law is completely unenforceable unless the state knows who owns every firearm in the country beforehand. The law has no teeth without a mandatory, centralized gun registry. It is the ultimate camel’s nose under the liberty tent.

This brings us back to the digital arena. Changing the law would mean de facto digital ID for every American. The database concept that makes UBCs so dangerous is the exact same mechanism driving KOSA and KIDS.

To enforce age restrictions online and block youth from specific platforms, websites cannot simply rely on the honor system. Platforms must mandate strict age verification. To prove your age, you must verify your legal identity. Proponents make it sound like it’s just the kids who must register.

However, they conveniently fail to mention the rest of the action. In order to prove they are not children, adults will be forced to upload government-issued identification simply to access standard political commentary, religious forums, or independent news sites. Platforms will choose the path of least resistance, implementing blanket identity checks to avoid massive federal fines. The immediate casualty of this regime will be political anonymity.

The author has personally witnessed this phenomenon, having friends in the UK with whom we’ve corresponded for many years. They have become extremely guarded in answering certain political-type questions in the past couple of years, basically avoiding commenting. And we all read now about British subjects being arrested for making comments in public or posting online viewpoints that oppose official positions.

Independent outlets like American Thinker rely heavily on robust, pseudonymous comment sections. Thousands of everyday Americans utilize digital pen names to engage in fierce partisan debates. They do not do this out of cowardice; they do it to protect their careers, their livelihoods, and their families from targeted harassment campaigns by the radical Left. KOSA and KIDS would mean the end of the dissident commenter.

If KOSA and KIDS become law, the era of the pseudonymous internet is dead. Email providers, forums, and social platforms will require positive legal identification just to open an account.

When you strip away the emotional appeals, the underlying architecture becomes clear:

  • Step 1: Force the population into centralized databases (whether via gun registries or digital IDs) under the guise of public safety.
  • Step 2: Eliminate the anonymity that allows for free, uninhibited political dissent.
  • Step 3: Weaponize those databases when political fortunes shift.

If progressive Marxists secure unchecked power over the administrative state and the judiciary, they will no longer need to hunt for dissidents. The compliance architecture currently being built in Washington will hand them a pre-verified list of their political opponents on a silver platter. And since they would have already emptied all the prisons, they’d have plenty of beds to hold us all.

Keep reading

GrapheneOS Wipe at Airport Leads to Federal Charge in Atlanta

The Justice Department is asking a federal court in Atlanta to treat a man’s erasure of his own phone as destruction of property, in the first known US prosecution built on a phone’s duress password.

Samuel Tunick faces one count under Title 18, Section 2232(a), a statute covering the destruction of property to stop the government from taking it. Prosecutors say he handed Customs and Border Protection officers a passcode that deleted the contents of his Google Pixel instead of unlocking it. His lawyers appeared before the court for the first time on Monday, arguing that officers ran a custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings, denied him a lawyer, and searched him unlawfully. They want everything obtained from the encounter suppressed.

CBP pulled Tunick into secondary inspection at Hartsfield-Jackson on January 24, 2025, as he returned from the Dominican Republic. An FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force officer and an FBI special agent had coordinated with CBP in advance to question and search him on arrival. The account comes from the defense filing, which draws on the government’s own reports. Officers from CBP’s Tactical Terrorism Response Team opened by telling him they were “looking for people who are pedophiles.”

Officers never read Tunick his Miranda rights. He said early in the interview that he did not want to keep talking without a lawyer, then asked to call one repeatedly. Questioning continued. One officer told him his refusal to talk gave them authority to go through his phone. When he asked again about his attorney, an officer told him customs and immigration work was a different matter, “and we have search authority, we don’t need a warrant.”

Tunick eventually provided a password for his phone and his e-reader. The screen “went blank, flashed several times and the phone appeared to restart,” according to the government’s report. Officers seized the devices anyway and told him they would be returned after thirty days. A third officer took him to another room for a pat-down that was not recorded. A DHS agent then told him he was free to leave once the other agents were finished with him.

The government’s reports contain no indication that anyone suspected Tunick of carrying illegal images, his lawyers wrote. The reports record an interest in his association with Defend the Atlanta Forest, the movement opposing the clearing of the South River Forest for the Atlanta Public Safety Training Center. Opponents call the 85-acre, $115 million police facility Cop City. Federal documents label the movement an “Anti-Government, Anti-Authority Violent Extremist Group.” Tunick has not been charged with any offense connected to it.

Eleventh Circuit precedent favors the government. Its 2018 ruling in United States v. Touset permits forensic searches of electronic devices at the border with no warrant, no probable cause, and no individualized suspicion. Tunick’s lawyers cite decisions from the First, Fourth, and Ninth Circuits going the other way, including a Fourth Circuit holding that warrantless border searches of devices cannot be used to hunt for evidence of domestic crime. They also argue that surrendering a passcode is testimonial, relying on a 2012 Eleventh Circuit decision that decrypting and producing the contents of a hard drive triggers Fifth Amendment protection.

Courts allow suspicionless border searches to keep contraband out of the country. The accusation here is that data left a phone rather than entered the United States, and digital files move across borders over the internet anyway. A ruling on the motion is not expected before the end of October.

GrapheneOS, the hardened Android build that replaces the stock software on Pixel devices, lets an owner set a second PIN or password that irreversibly wipes the device and any installed eSIMs when entered at a credential prompt. No confirmation dialog appears, and nothing distinguishes it from a normal unlock.

Bill Budington, senior staff technologist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Runa Sandvik, founder of the security firm Granitt, both said they had seen no comparable prosecution. Sandvik said she had discussed the scenario with activists and journalists for years and advised travelers to leave sensitive data off devices they carry across borders rather than count on wiping it. Christophe Boutry told the Guardian the prosecution “sends the message that [GrapheneOS] is criminal by default.”

Matthew Dodge, an assistant federal public defender on Tunick’s legal team, said the statute is rarely seen in an indictment. Tunick was arrested about ten months after the airport stop. His crowdfunding page says he was pulled over for a purported tail light fault and cuffed by FBI and DHS officers when he stepped out of the car. He has pleaded not guilty. The single-count indictment  accuses him of acting to delete the digital contents of a Google Pixel to impair the government’s lawful authority to take it, in violation of Title 18 of what the document calls the “Untied States Code.”

Keep reading

America’s Local Police Are Becoming Intelligence Agencies

One of the most revealing investigations this week did not come from Washington. It came from Forbes, which uncovered how an Israeli surveillance company is quietly marketing intelligence-grade technology directly to American police departments. The story is not about another patrol vehicle or upgraded communications equipment. It is about bringing tools originally developed for intelligence and national security operations onto the streets of the United States.

According to Forbes, Texas has purchased four specially equipped Chevrolet Tahoes from Israeli surveillance firm Cognyte in a deal worth roughly $4.5 million. Hidden inside these vehicles is a system known as FalcoNet that functions as a cellular interception platform. The technology imitates legitimate cellphone towers, causing nearby mobile phones to connect to the police vehicle instead of the carrier’s network. Once connected, investigators can identify devices, determine their locations, and gather other cellular information. Forbes also reports that the same technology can be carried in a backpack or mounted on helicopters, allowing surveillance to expand far beyond a single vehicle.

Cognyte is not an ordinary technology company. It was spun off from Verint Systems and built much of its reputation supplying intelligence, counterterrorism, and surveillance capabilities to governments around the world. The company has longstanding roots in Israel’s security sector, where these technologies were developed for national security and intelligence collection. Today those same capabilities are being marketed to sheriffs’ departments, state police agencies, and local law enforcement across America. That should concern anyone who still believes there is a meaningful distinction between intelligence agencies and neighborhood policing.

There was a time when police investigated crimes after they occurred. Increasingly, departments are investing in systems designed to gather enormous quantities of information before anyone has been accused of committing anything. Cellphone interception systems, automated license plate readers, facial recognition software, artificial intelligence, drones, predictive policing algorithms, and massive databases are steadily becoming standard equipment.

Keep reading