Tag: police state

File on Bizarre Argentine UFO Event Deemed Classified for National Security Reasons

In an eyebrow-raising story out of Argentina, a police report concerning a recent UFO incident involving mesmerized cattle has been deemed classified for national security reasons by government officials. According to a local media outlet, the bizarre event occurred on August 14th in the village of Candioti when police received word that multiple residents had observed a “white light with violet flashes” floating over the community. An officer dispatched to investigate the UFO sighting was soon alerted to a strange commotion unfolding among the animals at a ranch along the way. Arriving at the location, he likely could not believe his eyes at the wondrous scene before him.

To the astonishment of the officer and other witnesses, the ranch’s cows were eerily walking in a circle beneath the mysterious ball of light hovering overhead. Meanwhile, the property’s horses were thrashing around in a manner suggesting that they were deeply disturbed by what was unfolding around them. After a few minutes, the UFO suddenly vanished. Its disappearance seemingly broke the spell cast over the animals as the horses immediately calmed down, and the cows stopped their ritualistic circling. Silence fell over the field, with the witnesses understandably wondering what they had just seen.

Keep reading

DUBLIN RISES: Irish Citizens Explode in Wrath After Algerian Migrant Rapes 10-Year-Old Girl – Police Attack Protesters

Irish citizens have had enough, and the police protect the illegals. 

It’s a sad, but repetitive story: in the midst of the invasion of Europe by military-aged males posing as ‘asylum seekers’, a ten-year-old girl in Dublin, Ireland, was raped by an Algerian man who is housed, fed, and clothed by the Irish taxpayer’s money.

While in many EU countries the population has been drawn to apathy, in Ireland a fury has spread like fire among the citizenry, and for two nights the protests have centered around the migrant hotel.

The Guarda (Irish police), always ready to protect the invaders, charged on the protesting citizens, and in turn, officers were attacked with bricks, glass bottles and fireworks as the protest turned violent.

The Telegraph reported:

“Thousands gathered at the Citywest Hotel in Saggart after reports that a 10-year-old girl had been sexually assaulted by an asylum seeker.

Witnesses saw a police van set on fire as protesters waved Irish flags and chanted: ‘Get them out’.

The crowd attempted to breach a police cordon outside the hotel, with some carrying garden forks and other tools.”

Keep reading

How the Free Speech Union Turned the Tide on Non-Crime Hate Incidents

As the Metropolitan Police announce the demise of non-crime hate incidents, the Telegraph has run a feature on the Free Speech Union, crediting its years of campaigning against NCHIs and support for cancel culture victims. Here’s an excerpt.

Sir Mark’s decision may well signal a wider turning of the tide on police investigations into “hate crime”. But the force’s decision to backtrack on Linehan’s case, and others like it, got only a lukewarm welcome from Linehan himself, who said he planned to continue his legal action against the Met.

That, however, is not because he has limitless pockets – cancel culture, he says, has cost him much of his lucrative writing gigs. Instead, his lawyers come courtesy of the Free Speech Union (FSU), the British campaign group set up to defend freedom of expression – be it from armed police, an overzealous student campus or HR managers intent on enforcing diversity policies.

Set up five years ago by the former journalist, Toby Young – now Lord Young, having been nominated for a life peerage by Kemi Badenoch last December – the organisation has handled more than 4,500 cases, from members of the public arrested over tweets deemed to be politically incorrect, to office workers disciplined for querying seminars on critical race theory.

For some clients, the FSU has simply won a written apology. But for others, it has secured a £500,000 payout at industrial tribunal.

If there’s one thing most cases have in common, according to Young, it is that they shouldn’t have happened in the first place. Linehan’s arrest, in which the Met acted “like the Stasi”, being a case in point.

“I think this statement from the Met shows that they have got fed up with this stuff – they recognise that the public want them to prioritise serious crimes like burglary, car theft and mugging,” says Young, who has called for all police forces in the country to follow Scotland Yard’s lead.

“I also think that in Linehan’s case, the police realised they’d been manipulated by a trans-rights activist who understood exactly how to weaponise the police guidance on investigating hate crime incidents, and to turn the police into an enforcement wing for their own agendas.”

Young is referring to Lynsey Watson, a transgender ex-police officer who is understood to have reported Linehan to the police over his social media posts, one of which read: “If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the balls.”

Keep reading

Forced adoption redress scheme to offer compensation for impacted Tasmanians

Tasmanian mothers who were subjected to historical forced adoption practices will be able to seek compensation under a redress scheme, the state government has announced.

As many as 250,000 forced adoptions have taken place across Australia since the 1950s, with several state and federal inquiries having highlighted the trauma suffered under the practice.

In 1969, Tasmanian mother Robyn Cohen gave birth at the age of 18.

She said she was denied a chance to cradle or kiss her baby before they were put up for adoption without her consent, a move that laid the ground for years of major trauma and depression.

Ms Cohen said while the scheme “will go one step in my journey towards healing”, she was concerned extensive consultation would delay it.

“I’m 75, many [of the] other women are older than I am,” she said.

Keep reading

Ohio House Passes Bill To Remove Voter-Approved Marijuana Legalization Protections And Restrict Hemp Market

The Ohio House of Representatives has passed a bill that would make significant changes to the state’s voter-approved marijuana legalization law by removing several protections for consumers while also adding a series of new restrictions on hemp products that are intended to align the two sectors of the cannabis industry.

After moving through several House committees this week, with substantive amendments, the full chamber approved the legislation from Sen. Stephen Huffman (R) in a 87-8 vote on Wednesday.

While the measure previously passed the Senate in earlier form it will need to return to that chamber for concurrence, or go to a bicameral conference committee, before potentially heading to the governor’s desk.

Certain controversial provisions of the bill as passed by the Senate were scaled back by the House, but advocates are concerned that it would still make major changes to the marijuana law voters approved in 2023.

Rep. Brian Stewart (R), who has shepherded the legislation through the House, argued ahead of the floor vote that the legislation effectively reaches a “carefully crafted compromise” between lawmakers with differing perspectives on cannabis issues.

“This bill has been very difficult to wrangle, but most of our substantive bills usually are. Rather than being some kind of mushy muddle of weak sauce tie-breakers, this bill does what we all claim that we wanted to come to Columbus to do,” he said. “It tackles the issue head-on. It makes tough decisions. It respects and implements the feedback from residents and advocates across the affected industries. This bill wisely balances between Ohioans’ individual liberties, their safety, the financial wellbeing of our local communities and the need to protect the health and safety of Ohio’s children.”

Rep. Jamie Callender (R), who sponsored marijuana legalization legislation ahead of voters’ approval of the reform at the ballot, said the bill is “not perfect” but argued that lawmakers “have to act” to address intoxicating hemp and other pending issues.

“This is the revised code we’re writing,” he said. “I anticipate there will be numerous other bills on these topics in the near- and long-term future, as there should be… I’ll keep working with everyone to make it better.”

While its supporters have described it as a less heavy-handed approach compared to the original Senate bill, the measure would make substantive changes to the existing legalization law—with several provisions that advocates say directly contradict the will of voters and represent overreach on the part of lawmakers.

For example, the proposal 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.

Karen O’Keefe, director of states policies at the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP), said in a letter to House lawmakers on Wednesday that SB 56 as currently drafted “eliminates essential protections from the voter-enacted law and recriminalizes innocuous conduct that voters legalized.”

“Please reject this erosion of freedoms enacted by voters,” she said.

Keep reading

Portugal Bans Burqa: Is It Really About Women’s Rights?

Portugal has just approved a nationwide ban on full face coverings in public, adding another country to the long list of European nations abolishing burqas and niqabs. Does this protect rights, or restrict them? Is it even about rights at all?

Portugal’s Vote: What Passed

The country’s parliament approved a bill banning face coverings worn for religious or gender-related reasons in most public spaces. The measure targets burqas and niqabs with fines of €200-€4,000 and penalises anyone forcing somebody else to veil with up to three years in prison. Introduced by Chega and backed by centre-right parties, the left-wing parties oppose the bill calling it discriminatory and unnecessary in a country where very few women wear full-face coverings. 

What started 15 years ago in France as a way to tackle specific concerns about identification, social cohesion and security continues to spread further and wider than ever. It currently looks like a victory for those seeking improved cultural integration, but is there a bigger picture to consider?

The List Gets Longer

Here’s a recap of other European countries imposing similar bans in recent years: 

  • France was the first in Europe to enact a nationwide ban on full-face coverings, with the law passed in 2010 and effective from 2011 – it was later upheld by the European Court of Human Rights in 2014 
  • Belgium brought in a national ban in July 2011, with violators facing fines 
  • Bulgaria’s national ban was adopted in 2016 
  • Germany introduced partial bans focused on public servants and official duties in 2017 
  • Austria’s Anti-Face-Veiling Act came into force in October 2017 
  • Denmark passed a national ban in May 2018, effective from August that year 
  • Norway introduced a sectoral ban in schools and universities in 2018 
  • Netherlands brought in a partial national ban in public buildings and transport in August 2019 
  • Switzerland’s nationwide ban was approved by referendum in March 2021, with federal law taking effect in January 2025 

Other countries like Italy, Spain and Luxembourg have local or limited measures rather than blanket national bans. 

What They Say the Ban Does

Supporters of Portugal’s new legislation argue that the measure aims to strengthen public safety, facilitate identification, and promote women’s rights and social integration. Chega’s leadership framed the proposal as a means of protecting women from coercion, maintaining that a woman forced to wear a burqa loses autonomy and becomes objectified. According to the party’s leader, immigrants and others arriving in Portugal must adhere to their social norms, including the expectation that faces be visible in public. Members from supporting parties such as the Social Democrats, Liberal Initiative, and CDS-PP cited concerns about identification, public order, and the belief that no tradition or imposition should erase an individual’s presence in society. 

Penalties for breaking this law will result in fines of up to €4,000 in Portugal – the highest in all European countries. Fines are around €150 in France and Austria, and up to 1,000 CHF in Switzerland. 

Is It Really About Security or Women’s Rights?

Supporters brand these bans as pro-women, claiming they protect girls from coercion and affirm equality in public life. Others argue that if the goal were women’s freedom, the policy would centre around choice and support rather than fines and police checks. In practice – especially in Portugal – the ban polices what a tiny minority of women wear, while doing little for victims of abuse or forced marriage who need legal aid, shelters, and community support – not fines for what they wear. 

There’s another angle to consider here too. Keeping in mind that these rules extend beyond just religious clothing, removing face coverings makes everyone machine-readable. As cities roll out CCTV with facial recognition, is the goal to keep everyone trackable? A continent-wide expectation of uncovered faces makes it easier to identify and profile hundreds of millions of people – even though the rule initially looks like it tackles widespread cultural and security concerns.  

Consider protest anonymity, football ultras, or simply masking for privacy in tomorrow’s camera-tracked world. Broad bans today may satisfy voters by targeting religious coverings, but could be diverting attention from the real end-goal. Will it essentially become illegal to hide your face from recognition software in future? 

Keep reading

Ohio Lawmakers Advance Bill To Scale Back Voter-Approved Marijuana Law And Impose Hemp Regulations

Ohio House lawmakers on Tuesday approved an amended Senate-passed bill that would make significant changes to the state’s voter-approved marijuana legalization law while incorporating a series of regulations for hemp that are meant to align the two sectors of the cannabis industry.

Members of the House Judiciary Committee agreed to changes to the measure from Sen. Stephen Huffman (R) before advancing it to other panels and an expected floor vote on Wednesday. But while certain controversial provisions of the bill as passed by the Senate were scaled back, it would still make major changes to the marijuana law voters approved in 2023.

The measure will now go to the Rules Committee before being re-referred to the Finance Committee, after which point it’s expected to receive floor action.

“We’ve had years of testimony. We’ve heard from marijuana advocates, hemp advocates, public health advocates and everyone in between,” Rep. Brian Stewart (R) said. “We are generally going to take the feedback from the hemp industry, which said, ‘Treat us like marijuana,” he said. “They will have the same potency limitations, the same advertising restrictions, the same restrictions on quantities, serving size and how they operate.”

Rep. Jamie Callender (R), who has led the charge on marijuana policy in the House, said ahead of the vote that the revised bill would be “very thoughtful and targeted.” But at the hearing, he added that the legislation is “not perfect” or what he would have drafted.

“It’s a bill that can get passed that will help us implement some of the elements of Issue 2 that have been held up and give clarity to the rulemakers on some of the points that are outstanding,” he said, referring to the voter-approved legalization measure. “It also clarifies and cements a few of the gains that were gained over the years: Sharing, home grow, no new prosecutions [and] the taxes going to the local governments.”

Keep reading

Graham Linehan Cleared After Heathrow Arrest as CPS Drops Case After Free Speech Controversy

Graham Linehan, the Irish writer best known for Father Ted and The IT Crowd, says police have now confirmed he will face no further action following his controversial arrest at Heathrow Airport last month.

The 57-year-old comedy creator had been arrested by armed officers after landing in London from Arizona, accused of using social media to incite violence, a claim now dropped by the Crown Prosecution Service.

Linehan’s arrest became a flashpoint in a growing concern over the decline of free speech in modern Britain.

What might have been a brief police encounter instead exposed a deeper problem: the creeping normality of criminal investigations into words rather than actions.

The image of an airport surrounded by armed officers confronting a comedy writer for tweets struck many as absurd, even dystopian.

In a post on X, Linehan announced that “the police have informed my lawyers that I face no further action in respect of the arrest at Heathrow in September,” adding that “after a successful hearing to get my bail conditions lifted (one which the police officer in charge of the case didn’t even bother to attend) the Crown Prosecution Service has dropped the case.”

Keep reading

The Hidden Risks of the Digital Euro

The European Central Bank has presented the digital euro as a symbol of financial autonomy and modernization. But, much like the Chinese model that seems to inspire ECB President Christine Lagarde, what is at stake is not just technology: it is the risk of turning a payment instrument into a mechanism of control over every citizen’s transactions. Across the Atlantic, the United States took the opposite path: it legalized stablecoins and banned a centralized digital dollar, strengthening freedom and competition instead of state control.

On September 26, the European Central Bank announced what had long been anticipated: it will conduct new experiments on what can be achieved with the digital euro.

This project, presented as an achievement of financial autonomy, has now been accelerated after the United States Congress approved the so-called GENIUS (“Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins”) Act, which authorizes stablecoins currencies pegged to stable assets, usually the dollar. At the same time, Congress also approved a prohibition on the Federal Reserve from creating an official digital dollar, ensuring that innovation remains decentralized and outside the direct control of the State.

In Brussels, the reaction was the opposite. The fear that these dollar-linked digital currencies could trigger a “digital dollarization” of the European economy served as justification to accelerate the digital euro. But instead of strengthening the diversity of existing solutions, the European Union is moving forward with a project directly controlled by the ECB. The narrative is one of “financial sovereignty,” but in practice it risks increasing citizens’ dependence on central power and undermines competition in the financial sector, especially when the Chinese model appears to serve as reference.

The ECB insists that the digital euro will be just another payment option, coexisting with cash. But President Lagarde has repeatedly praised the Chinese model, which looks very much like a declaration of intent. Even if it begins with promises of voluntarism, the reality is that models of this kind rarely remain optional for long. China’s case is illustrative: the digital yuan was presented as a complement to physical cash and a voluntary choice, but it quickly became a mass-use instrument, encouraged by the State and integrated into nearly all daily transactions.

In 2023, in cities such as Shanghai and Shenzhen, public salaries and subsidies were being paid through the digital yuan. After the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics, its use expanded to such an extent that it became virtually impossible to avoid. In just five years, the digital yuan became unavoidable in many Chinese cities, with public wages, subsidies, and taxes processed exclusively this way.

By recording in real time all transactions through the People’s Bank of China, the government monitors in detail who buys, what, where, and when. This level of surveillance opens the door to direct conditioning of citizens’ behavior. Features such as “programmable money,” with an expiration date that forces people to spend within a certain timeframe instead of saving, have already been tested.

Added to this is the risk of social exclusion: those who do not join the system or lack access to the necessary digital tools are, in practice, shut out from a growing part of the economy. State incentives make adhesion inevitable if public salaries, subsidies, and even transport are processed via digital money; the space for private alternatives shrinks progressively.

In such a model, financial freedom ceases to exist: every payment ultimately depends on state approval.

Although official EU platforms highlight numerous advantages of the digital euro, such as lower cost payments, privacy protected by European law, and structures to prevent cyberattacks. One unavoidable question remains: Why is this system necessary at all? At present, the private sector offers multiple secure and reliable digital payment options.

Since the market already provides safe and efficient alternatives, the only possible incentive to develop this system lies in control through the centralization of power, at the expense of privacy while weakening the private banking system. In essence, the digital euro is not a technological advance, but a serious step backward in terms of freedom and privacy.

Keep reading

Florida Attorney Sues Roku Over Failure to Implement Age Verification, Privacy Concerns

Florida’s attorney general has filed a lawsuit against Roku, drawing attention to the growing privacy risks tied to smart devices that quietly track user behavior.

The case, brought by Attorney General James Uthmeier under the Florida Digital Bill of Rights, accuses the streaming company of collecting and selling the personal data of children without consent while refusing to take reasonable steps to determine which users are minors.

We obtained a copy of the lawsuit for you here.

The lawsuit portrays Roku as a company that profits from extensive data collection inside homes, including data from children. According to the complaint, Roku “collected, sold and enabled reidentification of sensitive personal data, including viewing habits, voice recordings and other information from children, without authorization or meaningful notice to Florida families.”

It continues, “Roku knows that some of its users are children but has consciously decided not to implement industry-standard user profiles to identify which of its users are children.”

Another passage states, “Roku buries its head in the sand so that it can continue processing and selling children’s valuable personal and sensitive data.”

The growing push for digital ID–based age verification is being framed as a way to protect children online, but privacy advocates warn it would do the opposite.

Keep reading