Tag: police state

Zelensky Submits Legislation to Extend Martial Law in Ukraine Again

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has submitted legislation to once again extend the decree of martial law, which as part of a suite of wartime powers has the impact of suspending elections, banning opposition parties, and shutting down media organisations.

According to state-run outlet Ukrinform, President Zelensky has submitted bills to the Verkhovna Rada, the Parliament in Kyiv, this week for the extension of martial law and the general mobilisation, which empower the government to conduct large-scale conscription of manpower and other resources to fight the war against Russia.

The current martial law decree will remain in effect until May 4th, and if the bills submitted by Zelensky are approved, it will be extended until at least August 2nd.

The likely passage of the bills will mark the 19th extension of the initial martial law decree, which was signed by Zelensky on February 24, 2022, the same day that Russia launched its invasion of the country over four years ago.

The imposition of martial law has led to the cancellation of elections, including the planned 2024 presidential election and the parliamentary elections scheduled for the autumn of 2023.

Keep reading

Canadian smoking ban ‘being looked into’: health minister

The federal health minister says she is looking into legislation that would permanently ban the sale of tobacco products to anyone born after 2008.

Speaking on Parliament Hill Tuesday, Majorie Michel was asked if Canada would consider legislation similar to the United Kingdom’s recently proposed bill that aims to reduce the use of cigarettes and vapes for young people.

“I am looking into it right now,” she told reporters. “We saw what the U.K. did, but I am looking into it with all partners for now.”

Last week, both houses of the U.K. Parliament passed what’s being called the “Tobacco and Vapes Bill,” aimed to stop anyone born after Jan. 1, 2009, now aged 17, from taking up smoking. The bill still requires royal assent.

Asked whether Health Canada has been tasked with looking into a U.K.-style ban, a spokesperson for the department said they had nothing to add to a statement issued to CTV News last week.

On April 22, Health Canada told CTV News the Government of Canada has invested $66 million annually since 2018 to help Canadians quit smoking and reduce the harms of nicotine addiction. The department did not specifically say whether it was, or had ever, seriously considered a lifetime ban for people aged 17 and younger.

“The Government of Canada works collaboratively with partners and key stakeholders to protect Canadians, especially youth, from the harms of smoking using the best available data and evidence,” said Mark Johnson, a spokesperson for Health Canada.

Canada has set a goal of reducing tobacco use to less than five per cent by 2035. The 2024 Canadian Community Health Survey estimates 11 per cent of Canadians aged 18 years and over reported smoking.

When it comes to vaping, data from Statistics Canada suggests one in 10 Canadians aged 20 to 24, and one in 50 aged 25 and older, use a vape every day.

Keep reading

ROMANIA REBORN? Social Democrats Alliance With Rightwing Patriots May Oust Globalist Government That Was Installed After Elections Were Cancelled

Will Romania rise against Globalist control?

All of us conservatives that are paying attention to what’s happening in Europe were left saddened, frustrated, and angry when Romania canceled the 2024 election won by right-winger and anti-Globalist Calin Georgescu with a half-baked excuse of ‘Russian interference’.

The ‘pro-Europe’ (a.k.a. Globalist) government that emerged from the re-do of the election is now collapsing, and there’s a considerable possibility that the Brussels coup may be undone.

Today, it arises that Romania’s largest party, the Social ‌Democrats, will team up with the rightwing opposition ‘Alliance for Uniting Romanians’ to unseat the liberal Brussels-allied coalition.

Reuters reported:

“The leftist Social Democrats’ ministers resigned from ​Liberal Prime Minister Ilie Bolojan’s coalition last week, depriving it of a parliamentary majority and endangering ​the country’s access to EU funds, sovereign ratings and debt yields.”

Keep reading

Supreme Court To Review Geofencing In Pivotal Case For Privacy Rights

The Supreme Court on April 27 will hear oral arguments in a case with major implications for privacy rights—and how law enforcement uses Americans’ cell phone data while investigating crimes.

The case, Chatrie v. United States, centers on law enforcement’s use of “geofencing warrants”—judge-authorized requests for cell phone location data near the scene of a crime.

Okello Chatrie told the Supreme Court that the government’s use of these warrants, which resulted in a criminal conviction over his robbing a bank while his smart phone was on his person, violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The government, meanwhile, has argued that such data is not protected when provided voluntarily to a “third party” like Google.

The court said it would focus on the circumstances of Chatrie’s case rather than the constitutionality of geofencing more generally. However, experts say that the Supreme Court’s decision will reverberate through future cases concerning privacy in the digital age.

Dr. David Super, a professor of law at the Georgetown University Law Center, described the case to The Epoch Times as “once-in-a-generation,” whatever the outcome.

Chatrie’s Warrant

In 2019, law enforcement received a geofence warrant from a state court seeking anonymized location data for devices within 150 meters (about 500 feet) of the bank robbery. In this form, the data couldn’t be used to identify specific cellphone users.

After Google complied with the first request, law enforcement then sought location data for devices over a longer, two-hour period, without seeking an additional court warrant. Google again provided the information.

Then—still without seeking a warrant—investigators asked Google for “de-anonymized subscriber information for three devices,” and Google complied.

One of those devices belonged to Chatrie, and the information provided the basis for Chatrie’s eventual conviction for armed robbery.

Though Chatrie confessed, his lawyers argue that the geofencing evidence should be tossed because the warrant deprived him of his Fourth Amendment rights, which guarantees that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.”

Chatrie’s lawyers argued that the geofence warrant allowed investigators to gather the location history of people who were near the scene of the crime even though there was no other probable cause.

Super told The Epoch Times that geofencing was “pivotal” to the case against Chatrie. “The question in Chatrie is whether something as dramatic as a geofencing search is limited by the Fourth Amendment and requires the government to show specific needs with a proper basis,” he said.

Keep reading

Apple Fixes Bug That Allowed FBI To Read Deleted Signal Messages

Tech giant Apple has fixed a security flaw that had allowed the FBI to access a Signal user’s deleted messages through their phone’s push notification database, despite the app being deleted and messages being set to disappear.

In a security advisory released on Wednesday, Apple said it had fixed a bug that allowed “notifications marked for deletion” to be “unexpectedly retained on the device.”

In an X post on Wednesday, Signal said the update fixed the issue that made a user’s messages retrievable by law enforcement.

“Apple’s advisory confirmed that the bugs that allowed this to happen have been fixed in the latest iOS release,” Signal said.

Signal uses end-to-end encryption to secure messages between its users. The bug is a reminder that messaging encryption may not be enough to keep data protected when using certain devices or operating systems.

Keep reading

America: Land of the (Not Really) Free

Last week, President Donald Trump commemorated income tax payments being due by having DoorDash deliver food from McDonald’s to the White House. The delivery was intended to highlight the first year of tax-free tips. Removing tax on tips was part of the 2025 Big Beautiful Bill (BBB).

As the sponsor of the first No Tax on Tips legislation introduced in Congress, I was obviously pleased to see this change in tax laws included in the BBB. The bill also included other good tax changes such as removing tax on overtime and extending the 2017 tax cuts. Unfortunately, the bill also increased federal spending and debt.

Supporters of the income tax implicitly endorse the idea that our rights are gifts from government and, thus, can be revoked by government at the will of our rulers. Adoption of the income tax signified the abandonment of the belief that individuals have inalienable rights granted them by the Creator.

Therefore, those who believe in natural rights must reject income taxation. It is also a violation of the people’s rights when the central bank reduces the value of the dollar, and thus the people’s purchasing power, via the hidden inflation tax.

The income tax system’s rejection of natural rights is exemplified by withholding that gives government first claim on an individual’s earnings. The government then may return, via what it calls a refund, some of what was taken. However, a normal refund is when a business returns a customer’s payment because the customer is dissatisfied with the good or service he received, not when a thief returns some of what the thief stole.

Withholding was implemented during World War Two as a “temporary” wartime measure. Yet, it is still with us decades later.

Milton Friedman, as a young economist, played a role in the US government’s development of withholding. Of course, Friedman went on to become a leading advocate for free markets. He also redeemed himself for his work on withholding by becoming a prominent advocate for ending the military draft.

The draft is the worst example of how the government has rejected the principles of the Declaration of Independence. The draft gives government power to force young men (and possibly young women) to join the military and kill or be killed in a war. Contrary to the beliefs of some progressives, support for the draft is not justified by allowing individuals to choose between serving in the military or performing some other form of mandated “service.”

While the US does not have a military draft, the infrastructure for the draft remains in place via Selective Service registration. A provision in this year ‘s National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) allows Selective Service to automatically register all men between the ages of 18 and 25. This makes it easier than ever for government to reinstate a draft.

Income taxes, along with the military draft and other types of mandated “service,” are incompatible with a free society and should be opposed by all who value liberty and peace. As Ronald Reagan said in a statement that could be modified to apply to income taxes, the draft “rests on the assumption that your kids belong to the state…. That assumption isn’t a new one. The Nazis thought it was a great idea.”

Keep reading

Quebec counsellor faces disciplinary complaint over faith-based practice

A Quebec sexologist is facing disciplinary proceedings after offering counselling services that combined professional guidance with Christian teachings, according to lawyers representing her.

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms said it is supporting Maryse Gaudet-Lebrun, who was served with a formal complaint on Dec. 23, 2025.

Gaudet-Lebrun, based in Montreal, holds qualifications in sexology, social work and health sciences, and is a member of the Quebec Order of Sexologists, the body that regulates licensed practitioners in the province.

The complaint reportedly challenges videos on her website in which she discusses sexuality alongside Christian teachings, prayer and biblical principles. It also alleges she promoted heterosexual sexuality within marriage and used a spiritual approach in her counselling practice.

Gaudet-Lebrun primarily serves clients who share her Christian faith and has said she aimed to provide counselling that aligns with both professional standards and clients’ religious beliefs.

Constitutional lawyer Olivier Séguin said the case reflects wider concerns about the reach of professional regulators and the role of religion in client relationships.

Gaudet-Lebrun said the complaint was deeply distressing and that legal support had been significant for her.

The matter is expected to proceed with expert reports, clarification of allegations and preparation for a disciplinary hearing.

Keep reading

Your Car Could Soon Become a Federal Surveillance Device — What to Know

New cars will automatically disable themselves when they detect a drunk or tired driver. The tech promises to save lives, but also raises privacy, cost and other concerns.

Starting in 2027, federally mandated safety technology will begin rolling out in new cars that monitor eye and steering movements and use passive breathalyzers to detect whether a driver is drunk, fatigued or otherwise impaired.

“Yes, you read that right,” says cybersecurity expert Rafay Baloch. “A new active driver alertness system is coming to a car near you in the next three years. But who will actually want it?”

Here is what to know about this new vehicle surveillance tech, from its history, to what it means for road safety, personal privacy and cost.

History of the Laws Leading Here

The push for preemptive surveillance tech began in 2008, with a project called DADSS, or Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety. The effort was a collaboration between the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) and automakers. Back in 2015, the advocacy group MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) also began lobbying for the tech.

Their efforts came to fruition with the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021, which directed NHTSA to require “advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology” to be used in all new passenger vehicles.

Originally, the new tech was supposed to be implemented by the 2026 to 2027 model year window, but as of yet, the tech isn’t ready. So while a few brands are launching preview options, it will probably be another few years before it’s fully in place.

What the Surveillance Tech Does

The system uses passive breath sensors to detect the driver’s blood alcohol concentration. It also uses infrared cameras to monitor eye movement, head position and steering behavior. If it detects impairment from drugs, alcohol, fatigue or health events, the system can lock the ignition or restrict the vehicle’s speed.

Keep reading

EFF Sues DHS and ICE For Records on Subpoenas Seeking to Unmask Online Critics

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) sued the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) today demanding public records about their use of administrative subpoenas to try to identify their online critics.

Court records and news reports show that in the past year, DHS has used administrative subpoenas to unmask or locate people who have documented ICE’s activities in their community, criticized the government, or attended protests. The subpoenas are sent to technology companies to demand information about internet users who are often engaged in protected First Amendment activity.

These subpoenas are dangerous because they don’t require judges’ approval. But they are also unlawful, and the government knows it. When a few users challenged them in court with the help of American Civil Liberties Union affiliates in Northern California and Pennsylvania, DHS withdrew them rather than waiting for a decision.

DHS and ICE have ignored EFF’s public-records requests for documents about the processes behind these subpoenas, so EFF sued Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

“DHS and ICE should not be able to first claim that they have the legal authority to unmask critics and then run from court when users challenge these administrative subpoenas,” said EFF Deputy Legal Director Aaron Mackey. “The public deserves to know what laws the agencies believe give them the power to issue these speech-chilling subpoenas.”

An administrative subpoena cannot be used to obtain the content of communications, but they have been used to try and obtain some basic subscriber information like name, address, IP address, length of service, and session times. If a technology company refuses to comply, an agency’s only recourse is to drop it or go to court and try to convince a judge that the request is lawful.

EFF and the ACLU of Northern California in February ​wrote to Amazon, Apple, Discord, Google, Meta, Microsoft, Reddit, SNAP, TikTok, and X​ to ask that they insist on court intervention and an order before complying with a DHS subpoena; give users as much notice as possible when they are the target of a subpoena, so the users can seek help; and resist gag orders that would prevent the companies from notifying users who are targets of subpoenas.

And EFF last week ​asked California’s and New York’s attorneys general to investigate Google​ for deceptive trade practices for breaking ​its promise​ to notify users before handing their data to law enforcement, citing the case of a doctoral student who was targeted with an ICE subpoena after briefly attending a pro-Palestine protest.

Keep reading

The Technate Was Always Coming

And what you can do about it (besides complaining).

Palantir dropped a manifesto last weekend. 22 bullet points distilled from Alex Karp’s book The Technological Republic, posted to X with the casual framing of “because we get asked a lot.” I haven’t seen a reaction so widespread, unanimously opposed and viscerally aghast since James Damore’s infamous “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber”.

The usual suspects lost their shit. Engadget called it “the ramblings of a comic book villain.”

TechCrunch clutched its pearls at the bits about “regressive” cultures and “vacant and hollow pluralism.”

Bellingcat’s Eliot Higgins observed, (via Bluesky, of course), that these aren’t philosophical musings floating in the ether: they’re the public ideology of a company whose revenue depends on the politics it’s advocating.

He’s not wrong, Palantir sells to ICE, DoD, NYPD, and the intelligence community. It may be a manifesto, but it’s also product literature.

Even Alexander Dugin, the Russian “Fourth Political Theory” philosopher, not exactly known for having a libertarian bent, seemed triggered by it, calling it “the plan of the Western techno-fascism” on X, “Pure Satanism” on his Substack.

Former Greek FM Yanis Varoufakis called it “evil” and put out his own point-for-point on it – he calls it a refutation, it’s actually more of a rant.

So everybody across the horseshoe is big mad. Fine.

The thing is, none of this should surprise anyone. Let’s now look at why the policy this “manifesto” outlines was always going to arrive, with or without Karp’s prosaic stylings.

Karp Didn’t Invent “The Technate”

The merger of corporate power and state apparatus, the “technate” that people are suddenly discovering with horror on a Sunday afternoon, is not a new idea. It’s not even a recent one.

Back in 2013, Eric Schmidt (then Google’s executive chairman) and Jared Cohen (Google Ideas, ex-State Department advisor to Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton) published The New Digital Age. The book was blurbed by Henry Kissinger, Madeleine Albright, Tony Blair, and General Michael Hayden, the former director of the CIA. That’s an elite-class blurb list for a book that explicitly argued for the intersection of Silicon Valley and state power, the fusion of corporate infrastructure with national security logic, and the reshaping of diplomacy through private platforms.

In 2013 it was called “transformational.” Kissinger gushing that it was, “a searching meditation on technology and world order” (he would go on to co-author The Age of AI with Eric Schmidt that should be every bit as concerning as Karp’s Technological Republic).

Not too long after that, Google’s Sergey Brin and Klaus Schwab held a fireside in Davos where Herr Schwab pontificated that with the advent of AI, since the algos would be able to predict election outcomes with 100% certainty, they may as well pick the winners anyway and we could do away with elections altogether.

Nobody batted an eye. My timeline certainly wasn’t overflowing with rage over it and the people who were calling attention to it were using facing all kinds of headwinds.

Keep reading