Tag: police state

Vatican Accepts Resignation of Jailed Bishop, Raising Questions About Religious Freedom in China

The Vatican replaced detained underground Bishop Joseph Zhang Weizhu in the Apostolic Prefecture of Xinxiang with Bishop Francis Li Jianlin in a December 5 ceremony, drawing praise from the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) but serious concern from China’s underground Catholic community.

Zhang, secretly ordained in 1991 with Vatican approval but never recognized by Beijing, has been detained since May 2021 and his whereabouts remain unknown. He was arrested just after recovering from cancer surgery, along with priests and seminarians, for allegedly violating regulations requiring clergy to register with the state. Chinese authorities barred him from attending his successor’s ordination.

China officially recognizes only five religions: Buddhism, Catholicism, Islam, Protestantism, and Taoism. These groups operate under state-sanctioned patriotic religious associations supervised by the United Front Work Department (UFWD), the CCP’s propaganda and influence arm. In 2018, the State Administration for Religious Affairs was absorbed into the UFWD, bringing all religious affairs under direct Party control.

The constitution protects only “normal religious activities,” without defining what “normal” means, and forbids religion from disrupting public order, impairing citizens’ health, or interfering with education. Clergy must support CCP leadership and adhere to the Sinicization of religion. Religious activity is restricted to approved premises, and the state maintains control over clergy appointments, publications, finances, and seminary enrollment. Minors are forbidden from entering places of worship, and pastors and imams have been instructed to emphasize socialist values in their teachings.

Under the Sinicization campaign, the Three-Self Patriotic Movement and the Chinese Christian Council drafted a five-year plan to retranslate the Old Testament and provide new commentary on the New Testament to align scripture with socialist ideology. A 2020 university textbook even rewrote the Gospel account of the woman caught in adultery, replacing Jesus’ mercy with a fabricated story in which he stones the woman and declares, “I am also a sinner.”

Across Henan province, officials forced Protestant churches to replace the Ten Commandments with Xi Jinping quotes. Authorities have ordered the removal of crosses and replaced images of Christ and the Virgin Mary with portraits of Xi. These campaigns censor religious texts, compel clergy to preach CCP ideology, and mandate the display of political slogans.

Keep reading

North Carolina Woman’s Lawsuit Gives SCOTUS a Chance to Establish National Reciprocity

In January 2021, Eva Marie Gardner was driving in Montgomery County, Maryland when her car was allegedly hit by an assailant who ran her off the road before exiting his vehicle and rushing towards her. Gardner says she first screamed at him to get away, but when he continued advancing she drew her pistol in self-defense, though she never fired a shot. 

When police arrived on scene, they ended up releasing the man who allegedly ran her off the road, but arrested Gardner for illegal possession of a firearm. Gardner, who now lives in North Carolina, had a valid concealed carry permit from Virginia, but Maryland doesn’t recognize carry permits from any other state and she was ultimately convicted despite raising a Second Amendment claim. 

Gardner appealed all the way to the Maryland Supreme Court without success, and in mid-October she took her case to the Supreme Court, filing a cert petition on her own behalf that asks the Court to decide several questions, including whether “Maryland’s prohibition on carrying a handgun without a state permit, as applied to an interstate traveler with a valid Virginia concealed carry permit who displayed a loaded firearm in self-defense against an assailant’s vehicular assault and physical advance, violate the Second Amendment under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, by lacking a historical tradition of disarming law-abiding citizens in such circumstances.”

Gardner also brings a claim under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, arguing that Maryland’s refusal to recognize out-of-state permits violates the Constitution and conflicts with the Firearms Owners Protection Act.

Ordinarily, a pro se petition has little chance of being granted cert by the Supreme Court, with one study finding just 84 cases since 1945. The good news for Gardner is that at least one justice has taken an interest in the case. After Maryland waived its right to respond to her cert petition, the Court requested the state provide one, and Maryland’s reply brief is now due on January 26, 2026. 

Second Amendment Foundation Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros has discovered another new detail that could up the odds of SCOTUS hearing Gardner’s case next year. 

Keep reading

Berlin Approves New Expansion of Police Surveillance Powers

Berlin’s regional parliament has passed a far-reaching overhaul of its “security” law, giving police new authority to conduct both digital and physical surveillance.

The CDU-SPD coalition, supported by AfD votes, approved the reform of the General Security and Public Order Act (ASOG), changing the limits that once protected Berliners from intrusive policing.

Interior Senator Iris Spranger (SPD) argued that the legislation modernizes police work for an era of encrypted communication, terrorism, and cybercrime. But it undermines core civil liberties and reshapes the relationship between citizens and the state.

One of the most controversial elements is the expansion of police powers under paragraphs 26a and 26b. These allow investigators to hack into computers and smartphones under the banner of “source telecommunications surveillance” and “online searches.”

Police may now install state-developed spyware, known as trojans, on personal devices to intercept messages before or after encryption.

If the software cannot be deployed remotely, the law authorizes officers to secretly enter a person’s home to gain access.

This enables police to install surveillance programs directly on hardware without the occupant’s knowledge. Berlin had previously resisted such practices, but now joins other federal states that permit physical entry to install digital monitoring tools.

Keep reading

Ohio Governor Says He’ll Sign Bill To Roll Back Marijuana Legalization And Restrict ‘Juiced-Up Hemp’ Products

Ohio’s Republican governor says he will sign a controversial bill to scale back the state’s voter-approved marijuana law and ban the sale of what he described as “juiced-up hemp” products that fall outside of a recently revised federal definition for the crop unless they’re sold at licensed cannabis dispensaries.

Just days after the legislature gave final approval to the marijuana legislation, Gov. Mike DeWine (R) said on Thursday that he intends to enact it into law.

“To me, it’s a major, major victory, and it’s a long time coming. But it’s a major victory, I think, for kids in the state,” he said, according to The Columbus Dispatch. “There’s going to be some regulation. They won’t be able to have juiced-up hemp gummies. They won’t be able to walk into a gas station and an 11-year-old buy this stuff.”

The governor did not respond to a question about whether the marijuana components of the legislation undermined the will of voters who approved adult-use legalization in 2023.

The bill on DeWine’s desk would recriminalize certain marijuana activity that was legalized under that ballot initiative, and it’d also remove anti-discrimination protections for cannabis consumers that were enacted under that law.

After the House revised the initial Senate-passed legislation, removing certain controversial provisions, the Senate quickly rejected those changes in October. That led to the appointment of a bicameral conference committee to resolve outstanding differences between the chambers. That panel then approved a negotiated form of the bill, which passed the House last month and has since cleared the Senate.

To advocates’ disappointment, the final version of the measure now heading to the governor’s desk would eliminate language in current statute providing anti-discrimination protections for people who lawfully use cannabis. That includes protections meant to prevent adverse actions in the context of child custody rights, the ability to qualify for organ transplants and professional licensing.

It would also recriminalize possessing marijuana from any source that isn’t a state-licensed dispensary in Ohio or from a legal homegrow. As such, people could be charged with a crime for carrying cannabis they bought at a legal retailer in neighboring Michigan.

Additionally, it would ban smoking cannabis at outdoor public locations such as bar patios—and it would allow landlords to prohibit vaping marijuana at rented homes. Violating that latter policy, even if it involves vaping in a person’s own backyard at a rental home, would constitute a misdemeanor offense.

The legislation would also replace what had been a proposed regulatory framework for intoxicating hemp that the House had approved with a broad prohibition on sales outside marijuana dispensaries following a recent federal move to recriminalize such products.

Last month, Sen. Stephen Huffman (R), the primary sponsor, defended the upheaval of the state’s marijuana law, saying voters approved an initiative that amended the state’s revised code, not its Constitution, so they “knew that the General Assembly could come at any time” and “pass a bill to get rid of the entire thing.”

“But we’re not,” he said. “I think overall, for the average person that does recreational or medical marijuana, this bill will make it better… It’s going to be reasonable for most Ohioans.”

Under the bill, hemp items with more than 0.4 mg of total THC per container, or those containing synthetic cannabinoids, could no longer be sold outside of a licensed marijuana dispensary setting. That would align with a newly enacted federal hemp law included in an appropriations package signed by President Donald Trump last month.

Keep reading

A Visit by the German Thought Police

Three armed Berlin police officers arrived at my door this morning with a warrant to search my apartment. They conducted the search, interrogated me and my wife, and confiscated my computer.

The search warrant was issued in connection with a new criminal investigation of me by the Berlin State Prosecutor. Once again, as in 2023, I am accused of disseminating pro-Nazi material, the pro-Nazi “material” in question being my book, The Rise of the New Normal Reich: Consent Factory Essays, Vol. III (2020-2021).

Unlike the previous charges against me, which were based on two Tweets featuring the cover artwork of the book and opposing the so-called Covid measures, this new criminal investigation is based on my publication and distribution of the book.

The book was banned by Amazon in Germany, Austria, and The Netherlands in 2022. Until today, there was never any proof that it had been officially banned in Germany by the German authorities, although it was removed from distribution in Germany at the same time that Amazon banned it. It remains available in all other countries, and is distributed globally by Amazon and Ingram Content Group.

Today’s visit puts any doubt about whether the book is officially banned in Germany to rest. It is officially banned. And I am being criminally investigated and intimidated by the German authorities for the “crime” of writing, publishing, and distributing it.

This new investigation, the search of my home, and confiscation of my computer are blatantly unconstitutional, a brazen violation of my rights as an author and publisher under Germany’s Basic Law (Grundgesetz).

I will of course be taking legal action to defend those rights.

Keep reading

Germany is Officially a Surveillance State – Civil Liberties Destroyed

Germany granted itself legal permission to use AI technology to aggressively monitor the entire population in real-time. The Berlin House of Representatives passed amendments to the General Security and Public Order Act (ASOG) that grants government access to citizens’ personal data by any means necessary, including forcibly entering their private homes.

Interior Senator Iris Spranger (SPD) declared the new laws necessary to fight terrorism in the digital age. German investigators may now legally hack IT systems, but if remote access is unavailable, authorities may “secretly enter and search premises” a suspect’s personal residence to confiscate their digital devices. The government does not need to notify citizens that they are under investigation before entering their homes without warning.

Germany will equip public spaces with advanced surveillance technology. The cell tower query will be expanded to enable the government to access data from all private mobile phones. Network operators must be able to tell the government the movement and location of all citizens. License plate scanners will be installed throughout the nation, and that data will be sent to a centralized database.

Deutschland has finally achieved official “1984” status—the nation is implementing unmanned drones to monitor the population.

All personal data may be used for “training and testing of artificial intelligence systems.” Authorities have free rein to steal data from publicly accessible websites to collect biometric comparisons of faces and voices. The government will implement automated facial recognition software that enables it to identify citizens immediately. The database will tie into the nationwide surveillance platform.

You are being watched. Civil liberties do not exist. Freedom is merely an illusion; your likeness—face, voice, movement, finances, family–exists in an ever-expanding government database that may be used however the government sees fit.

Keep reading

Liberals want to control what you watch online

New regulations from the Liberal Government’s Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) are trying to apply ‘Canadian content’ (CanCon) requirements to online platforms like YouTube and Spotify.

What could this mean for your online experience?

Will content that the Government doesn’t designate as sufficiently ‘Canadian’ disappear from your streaming platforms? Could companies like Netflix decide to pull out of Canada altogether rather than try to comply with onerous requirements?

Host Kris Sims is joined by longtime journalist and former CRTC vice-chair Peter Menzies to discuss what it all means.

Keep reading

Conservative MP calls on religious leaders to oppose Liberal plan to criminalize quoting Scripture

Conservatives are warning that Canadians should be “very afraid” of the Liberals’ proposal to punish quoting Scripture, while advising religious leaders to voice their opposition to the legislation.

During a December 6 session in Parliament, Conservative Member of Parliament (MP) Larry Brock warned Canadians of the very real threat to their religious freedom thanks to proposed amendments to Bill C-9, the “Combating Hate Act,” that would allow priests quoting Scripture to be punished.

“Do Christians need to be concerned about this legislation?” MP Bob Zimmer questioned. “Does it really threaten the Bible and free speech in Canada?”

“They should be very afraid,” Brock responded. “Every faith leader should be very afraid as to what this Liberal government with the support of the Bloc Quebecois wishes to do.”

“As I indicated, religious freedom is under attack at the hands of this Liberal government,” he declared.

Brock stressed the need for religious leaders to “speak out loud and clear” against the proposed amendment and contact their local Liberal and Bloc MPs.

Already, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops penned an open letter to the Carney Liberals, condemning the proposed amendment and calling for its removal.

As LifeSiteNews reported earlier this week, inside government sources revealed that Liberals agreed to remove religious exemptions from Canada’s hate speech laws as part of a deal with the Bloc Québécois to keep Liberals in power.

Bill C-9, as reported by LifeSiteNews, has been blasted by constitutional experts as empowering police and the government to go after those it deems to have violated a person’s “feelings” in a “hateful” way.

Now, the Bloc amendment seeks to further restrict free speech. The amendment would remove the “religious exemption” defense, which has historically protected individuals from conviction for willful promotion of hatred if the statements were made “in good faith” and based on a “religious subject” or a “sincerely held” interpretation of religious texts such as passages from the Bible, Quran, or Torah.

Keep reading

Australia launches youth social media ban it says will be the world’s ‘first domino’

Can children and teenagers be forced off social media en masse? Australia is about to find out.

More than 1 million social media accounts held by users under 16 are set to be deactivated in Australia on Wednesday in a divisive world-first ban that has inflamed a culture war and is being closely watched in the United States and elsewhere.

Social media companies will have to take “reasonable steps” to ensure that under-16s in Australia cannot set up accounts on their platforms and that existing accounts are deactivated or removed.

Australian officials say the landmark ban, which lawmakers swiftly approved late last year, is meant to protect children from addictive social media platforms that experts say can be disastrous for their mental health.

“With one law, we can protect Generation Alpha from being sucked into purgatory by predatory algorithms described by the man who created the feature as ‘behavioral cocaine,’” Communications Minister Anika Wells told the National Press Club in Canberra last week.

While many parents and even their children have welcomed the ban, others say it will hinder young people’s ability to express themselves and connect with others, as well as access online support that is crucial for those from marginalized groups or living in isolated parts of rural Australia. Two 15-year-olds have brought a legal challenge against it to the nation’s highest court.

Supporters say the rest of the world will soon follow the example set by the Australian ban, which faced fierce resistance from social media companies.

“I’ve always referred to this as the first domino, which is why they pushed back,” Julie Inman Grant, who regulates online safety as Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, said at an event in Sydney last week.

Keep reading

Australian Leaders and Legacy Media Celebrates Launch of Online Digital ID Age Verification Law

It was sold as a “historic day,” the kind politicians like to frame with national pride and moral purpose.

Cameras flashed in Canberra as Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese stood at the podium, declaring victory in the fight to “protect children.”

What Australians actually got was a nationwide digital ID system. Starting December 10, every citizen logging into select online platforms must now pass through digital ID verification, biometric scans, face matching, and document checks, all justified as a way to keep under-16s off social media.

Kids are now banned from certain platforms, but it’s the adults who must hand over their faces, IDs, and biometric data to prove they’re not kids.

“Protecting children” has been converted into a universal surveillance upgrade for everyone.

According to Albanese, who once said if he became a dictator the first thing he would do was ban social media, the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 will “change lives.”

He described it as a “profound reform” that will “reverberate around the world,” giving parents “peace of mind” and inspiring “the global community” to copy Australia’s example.

The Prime Minister’s pride, he said, had “never been greater.” Listening to him, you’d think he’d cured cancer rather than making face scans mandatory to log in to Facebook.

Keep reading