Tag: police state

Australia’s proposed “hate crime” bill is not only an attack on free speech; it opens the door to belief-based punishment

The “hate crime” bill that is being rushed through by the Australian government is officially called the ‘Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill’.  It is a sweeping piece of legislation introduced in response to the December Bondi Beach attack, so it is claimed.  

The Bill aims to crack down on “hate speech,” particularly from religious or spiritual leaders (“hate preachers”), with a maximum penalty of 12 years in prison for inciting violence or promoting racial hatred.  

“The ban on hate symbols will be strengthened, including by requiring a person caught displaying a symbol to prove that it was legitimate – a reversal of the burden of proof requiring prosecutors to prove a crime occurred,” The Sydney Morning Herald reports.

Adding, “Changes to migration law will allow the immigration minister to refuse or cancel visas if a person has associated with hate groups or made hateful comments, including online.”

It also introduces a new federal offence for inciting racial hatred or disseminating “ideas of racial superiority,” which carries a potential five-year prison sentence, and grants the Home Affairs Minister power to ban “hate groups” in the same way as terrorist organisations.

“The home affairs minister flagged the National Socialist Network and Hizb-ut-Tahrir as two possible targets of the law, but we don’t yet know which organisations might qualify as hate groups and be listed down the track,” an article in The Conversation pointed out.

Critics, including legal experts, civil liberties groups and opposition figures, have raised serious concerns about the speed and lack of scrutiny of the Bill.  The government released the draft bill with only three days for public submissions and held a snap parliamentary inquiry with limited participation.  

Experts warn the legislation may undermine free speech, fail constitutional tests and risk unintended consequences due to vague language and rushed drafting.  

The Guardian pointed out yesterday that as Members of Parliament (“MPs”) prepare for an early return to Canberra to consider Labor’s draft bill, the bill looks friendless as criticism and opposition to it are coming from all quarters. 

“The Greens represent the only viable pathway for the legislation in the Senate,” The Guardian said.  “[Greens] Leader Larissa Waters said on Friday that negotiations would continue but the risk that the legislation could criminalise legitimate political expression was too great based on the current draft.”

“That is a dangerous path,” Waters said, asking why legal protections would be extended to one vulnerable group in the community but not others.  Labor says it is open to passing new laws to include protections for LGBTQ+ Australians and people with disabilities in the future.

In the following, Nation First looks into how the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026 criminalises belief, punishes influence and puts ordinary Australians at risk for speaking their minds.

Keep reading

DHS Says ICE Officers Have “Federal Immunity.” The Law Is More Complicated.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), long seen as emblematic of dangerously expanding federal power, circulated a video clip asserting that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers enjoy “federal immunity” when performing their duties. Posted on Tuesday, the release comes amid widespread national attention and protests sparked by the fatal shooting of Renee Nicole Good by ICE agent Jonathan Ross during an enforcement operation in Minneapolis on January 7. Good’s death has become a flashpoint in ongoing debates over immigration enforcement, federal use of force, and civil rights, with tens of thousands gathering in Minneapolis and rallies under the banner “ICE Out For Good” held in cities across the country in recent days.

The DHS reposted a clip of Stephen Miller, the White House chief of staff, delivering a message to ICE officers. Miller’s remarks carried a clear implication: Federal officers, he suggested, operate beyond the reach of state and local authority, and anyone who interferes commits a felony. That framing sits uneasily with constitutional text, legal precedent, and long-standing limits on federal power. While immigration enforcement is undeniably a federal responsibility, the Constitution does not grant federal officers blanket immunity from the law, nor does it erase the authority of state and local law enforcement, particularly that of elected sheriffs.

“Reminder”

In the clip, Miller delivered a blunt message to ICE officers. He framed it as both reassurance and warning at once. The language left little room for qualification:

To all ICE officers: You have federal immunity in the conduct of your duties. Anybody who lays a hand on you or tries to stop you or tries to obstruct you is committing a felony. You have immunity to perform your duties, and no one — no city official, no state official, no illegal alien, no leftist agitator or domestic insurrectionist — can prevent you from fulfilling your legal obligations and duties. The Department of Justice has made clear that if officials cross that line into obstruction, into criminal conspiracy against the United States or against ICE officers, then they will face justice.

Miller made the remarks during a period of intense tensions between federal immigration authorities and state and local officials in Illinois. At the time, DHS had launched Operation Midway Blitz, a large-scale enforcement campaign across the Chicago area beginning in early September 2025. The operation immediately triggered legal and political backlash.

That context matters, since the DHS’s “reminder” of the “federal immunity” coincided with active litigation challenging the legality of ICE’s conduct on the ground.

The Illinois Context

This Monday, the state of Illinois and the city of Chicago consolidated those disputes into a sweeping federal lawsuit against the DHS and senior ICE officials. The complaint spans 103 pages and accuses the administration of deploying what plaintiffs describe as unlawful and dangerous immigration enforcement tactics.

According to the filing, ICE agents conducted arrests without valid judicial warrants, detained individuals without probable cause, and carried out enforcement actions that violated both constitutional protections and long-standing federal court orders governing immigration arrests in the region. State and city officials characterized the federal presence as “coercive” and destabilizing. They argued that it bypassed established legal limits on federal law enforcement authority and violated the Tenth Amendment’s reservation of powers to the states.

DHS dismissed the lawsuit as “baseless.” Spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin said the department was looking “forward to proving that in court.”

The Illinois complaint echoed earlier claims raised by civil-rights attorneys representing detainees. In separate federal filings, those attorneys alleged that ICE violated a binding consent decree that restricts when agents may conduct warrantless civil arrests. Those filings documented cases in which U.S. citizens and lawful residents were mistakenly detained, raising serious due-process concerns.

Suing separately is a group of journalists, news organizations, unions and protesters. They accused the federal government of violating the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Fourth Amendment’s ban on excessive force and unreasonable seizures, among other charges.

A judge in Chicago ruled that some of the arrests challenged in court were unlawful, finding that ICE failed to satisfy constitutional and procedural requirements. The court ordered detainees released and warned that continued violations could trigger further judicial oversight.

The Illinois litigation underscores the tension at the heart of DHS’s decision to resurface Miller’s remarks.

Keep reading

WEB WAR: After Shutting All Internet in the Country, Iranian Forces Are Now Jamming Starlink Service, While Users on the Ground Try to Bypass This New Censorship

It’s a technological ‘cat and mouse’ dispute.

As massive protests took to the streets of Iran for days on end, the Ayatollahs’ regime shut down the country’s internet completely.

That left the insurgents relying almost solely on the Starlink services made free by Elon Musk during the confrontations.

So the Iranian government started a two-pronged approach: begin cracking down and seizing all the Starlink terminals it could find, and at the same time, deploy military-grade level jammers to (so far, successfully) disrupt Starlink satellite service.

Both SpaceX engineers and Iranian protesters on the ground are now seeking ways to circumvent this censorship.

France24 reported:

“Iranian authorities cut the public’s access to the internet and telephone communications on January 8. The networks were later partially reinstated, but with severe restrictions. The Iranian regime has been facing a series of protests since late December. In an attempt to crush the movement, the Iranian government also tried to break the last international communication link available to Iranians: Starlink.

Starlink, which provides internet access through a constellation of satellites, was thought to be out of the Iranian authorities’ reach for censorship. However, in recent days, Starlink has been subject to a jamming campaign that has seriously impaired its use.”

Keep reading

DHS Invokes Immigration Enforcement To Justify Gathering Americans’ DNA

Government agencies inevitably turn enforcement responsibilities into opportunities to extend the security state. Every initiative to document, monitor, track, or otherwise spy on Americans starts with a mandate to ensure that people are obeying some rule or law. So it is with immigration policies, which fuel government efforts to gather biometric information not just on those who want to enter the country, but on citizens born and raised here. Fortunately, the scheme is getting pushback.

Massive Data Sweep Hiding in a Proposed Rule Change

On November 3 of last year, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposed a rule change allowing its agents to gather and store more biometric data on anybody associated with applications for “benefits” including family visas, Permanent Resident (green) Cards, and work permits. The DHS summary of the rule states, in part:

DHS proposes to require submission of biometrics by any individual, regardless of age, filing or associated with an immigration benefit request, other request, or collection of information, unless exempted; expand biometrics collection authority upon alien arrest; define “biometrics;” codify reuse requirements; codify and expand DNA testing, use and storage; establish an “extraordinary circumstances” standard to excuse a failure to appear at a biometric services appointment…

According to the proposal, the purpose of gathering biometric data, including fingerprints, photographs, signatures, voice prints, ocular images, and DNA (which is heavily emphasized by DHS) is “identity management” to verify that people are who they say they are.

Immigrants aren’t especially popular in certain U.S. circles at the moment, or perhaps it’s more accurate to say that leniency towards those who want to enter the country is unpopular. But the rule change also ropes in lots of Americans. The proposal specifies that “by ‘associated,’ DHS means a person with substantial involvement or participation in the immigration benefit request, other request, or collection of information, such as a named derivative, beneficiary, petitioner’s signatory, sponsor, or co-applicant.”

As attorneys Alessandra Carbajal, Lee Gibbs Depret-Bixio, and Ryan Mosser  note in an analysis, the new rule would affect not just immigrants but “U.S. citizens, nationals, and lawful permanent residents, regardless of age.” They add that “signatories for employers that serve as sponsors/petitioners may potentially be subject to biometrics requirements. This would mark a departure from current practice, where only foreign nationals seeking benefits typically provide biometrics.”

“This data collection would not be limited to just immigrants, it would also impact millions of American citizens,” agrees Institute for Justice (I.J.) attorney Tahmineh Dehbozorgi. “DHS is claiming this DNA collection is meant to serve one narrow purpose, but realistically, it is creating a vast genetic dragnet that endangers the Fourth Amendment rights of everyone, all without Congress’ approval.”

Keep reading

This Is What Tyranny Looks Like Now: No Crowns. No Coups. Just Unchecked Power.

In January 1776, Thomas Paine published Common Sense, a pamphlet that gave voice to the discontent of a nation struggling to free itself from a tyrannical ruler who believed power flowed from his own will rather than the consent of the governed.

Paine’s warning was not theoretical.

Two hundred and fifty years later, we find ourselves confronting the same dilemma—this time from inside the White House.

When asked by the New York Times what might restrain his power grabs, Donald Trump did not point to the Constitution, the courts, Congress, or the rule of law—as his oath of office and our constitutional republic require. He pointed to himself.

According to Trump, the only thing standing between America and unchecked power is his own morality.

If our freedoms depend on Donald Trump’s self-proclaimed morality, we are in dangerous territory.

Over the course of his nearly 80 years, Trump has been a serial adulterer, philanderer, liar, and convicted felon. He has cheated, stolen, lied, plundered, pillaged, and enriched himself at the expense of others. He is vengeful, petty, unforgiving, foul-mouthed, and crass. His associates include felons, rapists, pedophiles, drug traffickers, sex traffickers, and thieves. He disrespects the law, disregards human life, is ignorant of the Bible, illiterate about the Constitution, takes pleasure in others’ pain and misfortune, and is utterly lacking in mercy, forgiveness, or compassion.

Christian nationalists have tried to whitewash Trump’s behavior by wrapping religion in the national flag and urging Americans to submit to authoritarianism—an appeal that flies in the face of everything the founders risked their lives to establish.

That whitewashing effort matters, because it asks Americans to abandon the very safeguards the Founders put in place to protect them from men like Trump.

Trump speaks in a language of kings, strongmen, and would-be emperors advocating for personal rule over constitutional government. America’s founders rejected that logic, revolted against tyranny, and built for themselves a system of constitutional restraints—checks and balances, divided authority through a separation of powers, and an informed, vigilant populace.

All of their hard work is being undone. Not by accident, and not overnight.

The erosion follows a familiar pattern to any who have studied the rise of authoritarian regimes.

Trump and his army of enablers and enforcers may have co-opted the language of patriotism, but they are channeling the tactics of despots.

This is not about left versus right, or even about whether Trump is a savior or a villain. It is about the danger of concentrating unchecked power in any one individual, regardless of party or personality.

This should be a flashing red warning sign for any who truly care about freedom, regardless of partisan politics.

The ends do not justify the means.

Keep reading

Secret ICE Programs Revealed

Operations Benchwarmer, Tidal Wave, Abracadabra, Dust Off, Fleur De Lis — these are just a few of the secret programs recently undertaken by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. ICE has become a self appointed bouncer for America under Donald Trump, enlisting tens of thousands of federal, state, and local police and intelligence departments and agencies to not just root out “illegals,” but also exploit them for intelligence, leaked documents show.

A Border Patrol official outraged by ICE’s conduct has leaked to me this and other documents providing an unprecedented glimpse into ICE’s undeclared activities across the country. Many of these operations and their codenames have not been previously reported.

A 15-page long document, marked “LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE,” details 21 different “major” ICE operations resulting, so it says, in 6,852 apprehensions since June. From Operation A, a covert effort to develop informants among immigrants in detention, to Operation Benchwarmer, which alone spans the deployment of 2,000 “intelligence assets” across the country, the document gives a sense of how aggressively ICE is scouring neighborhoods and developing sources to spy on immigrants and Americans alike.

Keep reading

Australia’s New Hate Speech Bill Is Reckless, Contradictory, and Repressive

On January 12, Australia’s Attorney-General Michelle Rowland stepped to the podium and announced what she called “the toughest hate laws Australia has ever seen.”

The government plans to push its Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026 through Parliament on January 20, turning Australia’s speech laws into something that reads more like a psychological test than a criminal code.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here (and the memorandum here.)

The same week Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was praising Iranians “standing up for their human rights,” his government was preparing to criminalize speech at home even when no one’s rights or feelings had actually been touched.

The bill’s centerpiece is a new racial vilification offense. It bans “publicly promoting or inciting hatred” based on race, color, or national or ethnic origin, with penalties of up to five years in prison.

The measure’s core novelty is what it removes: proof of harm.

It’s “immaterial,” the draft says, whether “the conduct actually results in hatred” or whether anyone “actually” feels intimidated or fears harassment.

The courts will instead consider what a hypothetical “reasonable” member of the targeted group would feel, even if no such person exists in the case.

Prosecutors, the explanatory note clarifies, “would not be required to prove” any real fear at all.

The message: you can go to prison for causing theoretical discomfort in a theoretical person.

Rowland’s bill doesn’t stop at the town square or the street corner. It explicitly defines a “public place” to include any form of electronic communication, including social media, blogs, livestreams, recordings, and content posted from private property if the public can see it.

In other words, the living room webcam and the backyard podcast are now public arenas. A joke, a meme, or an overheard rant could be weighed for its impact on an imaginary “reasonable person” who never existed.

Keep reading

Former South Korean President Faces Death Penalty by Current Pro-China Administration – They Already Have Him and His Wife in Prison

A special prosecutor has formally sought the death penalty against former President Yoon Suk Yeol, and life imprisonment against former Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun.
The sole basis for this unprecedented move is the declaration of a state of emergency — an authority explicitly granted to the presidency under South Korea’s Constitution.

There were:

– No civilian deaths
– No armed clashes
– No ideological purges or mass repression

Yet prosecutors are now pursuing the maximum possible punishment.

This is not normal law enforcement. It is the retroactive criminalization of constitutional authority. If exercising emergency powers can later be reframed as a capital crime, no future leader will ever act decisively in a real national crisis. Political survival will replace national security judgment.

South Korea is a key U.S. ally. What happens here matters far beyond its borders. If a former president in an allied nation can face execution over a constitutional dispute with zero civilian casualties, it sets a precedent that should alarm every free society.

This is precisely the kind of story that deserves international scrutiny. Silence from the United States only emboldens the use of prosecutorial power as a political weapon.

The former President Yoon Suk Yeol is currently being held in prison by the pro-China regime that took power away from Yoon Suk Yeol and his party. A radical prosecutor has charged Yoon Suk Yeol with rebellion charges in connection with his short-lived imposition of martial law in December 2024.

Yoon Suk Yeol has been persecuted since the new leaders took control of the country.

This is a very serious situation that is not making headlines in the US.

Keep reading

UK drops plans for mandatory digital ID for workers in latest U-turn, media reports

Britain is set to drop plans to make it mandatory for workers to hold a digital identity document, The Times newspaper, the BBC and other media reported on Tuesday, potentially marking another policy U-turn for the Labour government.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced in September last year that his government would require every employee to hold a digital ID in an attempt to tackle illegal migration and reduce the threat from the populist Reform UK party.

The government said the digital ID would be held on people’s mobile phones and become a mandatory part of checks employers must make when hiring staff.

The plan drew criticism from political opponents, with some arguing it would not deter illegal migration and others warning it could infringe on civil liberties.

The Times said the government abandoned the plan amid concerns it could undermine public trust in the scheme, noting that when introduced in 2029, digital IDs would be optional rather than mandatory.

Other forms of documentation, such as an electronic visa or passport, would still be valid, The Times said.

“We are committed to mandatory digital right to work checks,” a government spokesperson said. “We have always been clear that details on the digital ID scheme will be set out following a full public consultation which will launch shortly.”

The spokesperson said current checks rely on a “hodgepodge” of paper-based systems, with no record of whether they were ever carried out, leaving the process open to fraud and abuse.

If plans for a mandatory digital ID are dropped, it would mark another policy climbdown for Starmer.

In December, the government scaled back a plan to raise more tax from farmers, months after it backed down on cuts to welfare spending and scaled back a proposal to reduce subsidies on energy bills for the elderly.

Keep reading

Germany’s Latest War on Freedom

There is no censorship here in Germany,” according to Steffen Meyer, a top spokesman for the German government. In reality, Germans have freedom of speech except for ideas that politicians and government contractors and nonprofit activists don’t like. Germany is providing a road map for freedom that can be squashed throughout the Western world.

Germany was the scene of some of the 20th century’s worst tyranny but today’s German leaders have only noble intentions for oppression. Berlin’s Best and Brightest™ “improved” democracy by turning politicians into a privileged caste. After a conservative editor mocked a top German law enforcement official by posting a meme showing her holding a sign, “I hate freedom of opinion,” he was convicted and sentenced to seven months in jail for “abuse, slander or defamation against persons in political life.” The editor is on probation while the sentence is suspended but many other Germans have been locked up for similar offenses.

The US State Department Human Rights Report stated that German police “routinely raided homes, confiscated electronic devices, interrogated suspects and prosecuted individuals for the exercise of freedom of speech, including online.” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz personally filed almost 5,000 complaints against his online critics, sometimes resulting in police raids against people he accused.

The German media are gung-ho for government censorship of average Germans. TheNew York Times noted, “Authorities in Lower Saxony raid homes up to multiple times per month, sometimes with a local television crew in tow.”  The Times reported that in 2022, “Christian Endt, a journalist in Berlin whose coverage of Covid drew a steady stream of insults online, reached a breaking point. After an anonymous Twitter user had called him ‘stupid’ and mentally ill, he embarked on a mission to see if he could get the person prosecuted.”

The Twitter account didn’t have a real name but Endt used an image search of his picture and tracked it down to a small-business owner. Local prosecutors fined that guy more than a thousand dollars. Endt told the New York Times, “I was not even sure if what this guy wrote was a crime or not. In the end, I’m happy they did something about it and this person got a signal that there are some limits on free speech.” But is there no limit to the cowardliness of some German journalists? Publicly admitting that you ran crying to the authorities after some dweeb called you stupid and crazy makes a journalist unfit for writing about anything that offends anyone.   

Keep reading