#civilliberties — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #civilliberties, aggregated by home.social.
-
America After 9/11: 25 Years of Fear, War, Surveillance and Permanent Emergency
-
America After 9/11: 25 Years of Fear, War, Surveillance and Permanent Emergency
-
America After 9/11: 25 Years of Fear, War, Surveillance and Permanent Emergency
-
America After 9/11: 25 Years of Fear, War, Surveillance and Permanent Emergency
-
Twenty-Five Years of “Temporary”: How the Patriot Act Became Permanent
By Cliff Potts, CSO, and Editor-in-Chief of WPS News
Baybay City, Leyte, Philippines — September 11, 2026
Twenty-five years ago today, the United States experienced the deadliest foreign attack on its soil in modern history. The September 11, 2001 attacks killed nearly 3,000 people and shocked the nation into a state of collective fear and urgency. In Washington, that fear translated into speed. Within weeks, Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act, a sweeping expansion of federal surveillance and law-enforcement authority described at the time as temporary, emergency legislation.
A quarter-century later, most of those powers remain in force.
This article examines where the Patriot Act came from, how it moved so quickly, and how every administration since 2001—across both parties—has contributed to its endurance.
A Law That Predated the Crisis
Despite its association with September 11, the Patriot Act was not created from scratch after the attacks. Its core provisions had been debated in Washington for at least five to ten years prior.
Throughout the 1990s, federal agencies repeatedly sought expanded authority to conduct wiretaps across multiple devices, share intelligence between law enforcement and intelligence agencies, monitor financial transactions more closely, and standardize identity and address records for people living outside traditional housing structures. These proposals regularly stalled in Congress due to civil-liberty concerns and the absence of political urgency.
September 11 provided that urgency. Proposals that had previously failed were rapidly consolidated into a single bill, introduced on October 23, 2001, and passed three days later. Many lawmakers later acknowledged that they had not read the full text before voting.
The Bush Administration: Emergency Powers Become Law
Under President George W. Bush, the Patriot Act was framed as a wartime necessity. The administration argued that extraordinary threats required extraordinary tools and assured the public that the measures were temporary.
The law expanded federal authority to conduct surveillance under Section 215, allowed delayed-notification searches, broadened access to business and banking records, and lowered barriers between intelligence and law enforcement databases. Sunset clauses were included, reinforcing the claim that these powers would expire once the emergency passed.
For many Americans, the impact was indirect but real. Financial institutions tightened compliance rules. Address databases were standardized. People living in mobile-home parks, rural communities, and other nontraditional housing arrangements saw their records altered without notice. Missed bank statements, disrupted accounts, and bureaucratic errors became common side effects of a system designed to prioritize traceability over continuity.
No comprehensive mechanism was created to address or remedy these disruptions.
The Obama Administration: Normalization and Limited Reform
When Barack Obama took office in 2009, the surveillance framework was already embedded in federal practice. Rather than dismantle it, his administration treated it as a baseline reality.
Key Patriot Act provisions were reauthorized, and surveillance programs were defended in court as lawful and necessary. The Justice Department argued that the authorities had become integral to national security operations.
Meaningful change came only after the 2013 disclosures by Edward Snowden. In response, Congress passed the USA Freedom Act in 2015, which ended some forms of bulk data collection and added modest transparency requirements. Certain data storage responsibilities were shifted from the government to private companies.
These changes narrowed the scope of specific programs but left the broader surveillance architecture intact. Emergency authority had become routine governance.
The First Trump Administration: Rhetoric Without Rollback
Donald Trump entered office in 2017 denouncing the “deep state” while inheriting its tools. During his first term, surveillance authorities were renewed with minimal reform. Foreign intelligence programs that incidentally collected Americans’ data continued to expand.
Public criticism of intelligence agencies increased, but structural oversight did not. The result was continuity rather than change. The surveillance state remained intact, accompanied by louder political rhetoric.
The Biden Administration: Quiet Continuity
From 2021 to 2024, the Biden administration maintained existing authorities with little public debate. Surveillance programs were renewed, and civil-liberties language returned to official statements, but no major structural reforms were pursued.
By this point, the Patriot Act and its successor authorities were no longer discussed as emergency measures. They were treated as permanent components of federal infrastructure.
Trump’s Return and the Risk of Repurposing
With Donald Trump’s return to the presidency in 2025, the long-term implications of the Patriot Act have become clearer. The law was written with the assumption that institutional norms and good-faith restraint would guide its use.
Those assumptions are increasingly fragile. Authorities created for counterterrorism can be repurposed for immigration enforcement, protest monitoring, political surveillance, or media pressure. The risk lies not in new powers, but in the continued availability of old ones.
The Permanence of “Temporary”
From the outset, Americans were told the Patriot Act was temporary. That it would expire once the emergency ended. Instead, sunset clauses were repeatedly extended, reauthorizations became routine, and each administration passed expanded authority to the next.
Twenty-five years later, the emergency persists not because the original threat remains unchanged, but because emergency power is easier to retain than to relinquish.
A Quarter-Century Reckoning
September 11, 2026 marks twenty-five years since the attacks that reshaped the United States. It also marks twenty-five years of a legal framework that quietly altered daily life, often without notice, consent, or effective recourse.
The Patriot Act did not endure by accident. It survived because fear moved faster than democratic deliberation—and because no administration, Republican or Democratic, chose to fully unwind what crisis had built.
The question now is no longer how it began, but whether Americans are willing to confront the reality that “temporary” has lasted a generation.
For more social commentary, please see Occupy 2.5 at https://Occupy25.com
This essay will be archived as part of the ongoing WPS News Monthly Brief Series available through Amazon.
References
American Civil Liberties Union. (2021). Surveillance under the USA PATRIOT Act.
https://www.aclu.org/issues/national-security/privacy-and-surveillance/surveillance-under-patriot-actGreenwald, G. (2014). No place to hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. surveillance state. Metropolitan Books.
USA FREEDOM Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114–23, 129 Stat. 268.
USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107–56, 115 Stat. 272.
#911Anniversary #CivilLiberties #ConstitutionalRights #Democracy #emergencyPowers #opinion #PatriotAct #Politics #security #Surveillance #USNationalSecurity -
"The Home Office and police were criticised in the aftermath of the weekend for failing to take a hard line on the #FarRight. #Environment campaigners and #CiviLliberties groups have complained that there appears to be a “two-tier” approach, with peaceful climate protesters prosecuted more aggressively than far-right agitators."
-
this.weekinsecurity:
"
Vigilantism comes for Flock
"
"More Americans than ever are destroying Flock license plate cameras amid rising backlash against the company. Is the tide turning on intrusive U.S. mass surveillance, and where does the privacy fight go next?"https://this.weekinsecurity.com/vigilantism-comes-for-flock/
4.9.2026
#BigBrother #CivilLiberties #Flock #Freiheitsrechte #Kennzeichenscanner #LicensePlateCamera #LicensePlateTracking #Massenüberwachung #MassSurveillance #Privacy #Surveillance #Überwachung
-
Texas: Faith, Freedom, and Mind Your Damn Business
By Cliff Potts, CSO
Editor-in-Chief, WPS NewsBaybay City, Leyte, Philippines — September 4, 2026, 9:15 p.m. PHT
Texas talks about faith constantly and practices freedom inconsistently. Religion is waved like a banner while personal liberty is quietly narrowed, regulated, or punished when it doesn’t line up with political fashion. This contradiction has become so normal that many Texans barely notice it anymore.
Faith is not the problem. Power is.
Faith Is Personal, Not Administrative
Texas is home to churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, meeting houses, and people who believe quietly or not at all. That pluralism is not a flaw. It is a fact. Faith has always been part of Texas life, but it has never belonged to the state.
When government begins enforcing one version of belief, it stops protecting faith and starts weaponizing it. That does not strengthen religion. It cheapens it. Faith that requires government backing is not faith—it is insecurity dressed up as authority.
People believe deeply without being coerced. The state does not need to supervise that.
Freedom Means Leaving People Alone
Texas politicians love to invoke freedom while inserting themselves into private decisions about bodies, families, education, and belief. That is not freedom. It is control wrapped in familiar language.
True freedom is not loud. It is boring. It is the quiet confidence that your neighbor’s life choices are none of your business unless they cause real harm. A free society tolerates disagreement without demanding conformity.
If a belief system is strong, it does not need the force of law to survive.
Religion in Schools Without Indoctrination
Teaching about religion is not the same thing as preaching it. Students benefit from understanding the beliefs that shape history, culture, and global affairs. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shinto, Indigenous traditions, and secular ethics all belong in a serious education.
Teaching one belief as truth while excluding others is not education. It is indoctrination. Texas should be confident enough to teach broadly without fear.
Knowledge does not weaken faith. It strengthens discernment.
The Myth of Moral Decline
Texas politics often leans on claims of moral collapse to justify intrusion into private life. These claims rarely hold up under scrutiny. Crime trends, family structures, and social behavior are influenced far more by economics, education, and stability than by religious enforcement.
Blaming social problems on belief differences avoids addressing harder causes like poverty, healthcare access, housing, and education. Moral panic is easier than policy work.
A serious state solves problems instead of sermonizing about them.
Faith Communities Do Real Work
Faith-based organizations are often the first to respond when communities struggle. They feed people, shelter families, provide counseling, and show up quietly without demanding credit. That work matters. It deserves respect and support.
What it does not require is political dominance. Faith communities are strongest when they act voluntarily, not when they are fused to state power.
Service speaks louder than slogans.
Freedom of Conscience Cuts Both Ways
Freedom of religion includes the freedom not to believe. It includes the freedom to change beliefs. It includes the freedom to practice quietly without public approval. Protecting conscience means accepting outcomes you may personally dislike.
That is the price of liberty. It is also its strength.
Texas cannot claim to honor freedom while punishing people for living differently.
When Government Picks Winners
History offers no shortage of warnings about governments that decide which beliefs are acceptable. Even when intentions begin as sincere, outcomes tend toward exclusion, resentment, and abuse. Texas is not immune to that pattern.
Keeping church and state separate does not weaken either. It protects both from corruption.
Personal Faith, Public Restraint
Leaders are allowed their faith. They are allowed to be guided by conscience. What they are not allowed to do is impose that conscience as law when it infringes on the rights of others.
Restraint is not betrayal. It is maturity.
What a Confident Texas Would Do
A confident Texas would protect freedom of worship for everyone and freedom from coercion for everyone else. It would teach religion academically, not devotionally. It would trust families and individuals to handle belief without supervision.
Most of all, it would stop confusing moral authority with legal power.
Why This Matters Going Forward
Faith will continue to shape Texas culture. That is not in question. The question is whether it will be used to inspire service and compassion—or to justify intrusion and control.
Freedom survives only when people mind their own damn business.
Texas is strong enough to do that.
This essay will be archived as part of the ongoing WPS News Monthly Brief Series available through Amazon.
References (APA)
#churchAndState #CivilLiberties #educationPolicy #personalFreedom #religiousFreedom #TexasPolitics #TexasReligion #WPSNews
Pew Research Center. (2025). Religious diversity and belief in the United States.
First Amendment Center. (2025). Religion, government, and constitutional boundaries.
National Council of State Legislatures. (2025). Religious freedom and public policy analysis.
Gallup. (2025). Public attitudes toward religion and government.
American Academy of Religion. (2025). Teaching religion in public education. -
Flock’s license-plate network was used by Wisconsin police to track a man’s trips to Michigan and justify a car search. 🚨
As some cities drop Flock, others are replacing it with Axon ALPR systems that can blend into existing street infrastructure. 📷#TechNews #Flock #Axon #ALPR #Surveillance #Privacy #DigitalRights #CivilLiberties #Security #Technology #PoliceTech #DataPrivacy #SmartCities
-
#CivilLiberties groups Monday asked #SCOTUS to hear their challenge of a #Texas #law requiring that all #PublicSchools’ classrooms display the #TenCommandments, potentially setting up a landmark clash over the #SeparationOfChurchAndState.
-
Québec’s Bill 9 doesn’t just ban symbols — it bans obligations
#Quebec #Canada #Bill9 #Bill21 #ReligiousFreedom #Law #HumanRights #Islam #CharterRights #Secularism #Faith #SupremeCourt #Politics #QuebecPolitics #CivilLiberties #FreedomOfReligion #Politics
https://the-14.com/quebecs-bill-9-doesnt-just-ban-symbols-it-bans-obligations/ -
Revealed: Trump’s War on ICE Protesters Is Collapsing in Court
https://www.rawamerica.com/p/revealed-trumps-war-on-ice-protesters
• The billionaires own the government
• Trump’s sons are quietly building a defense tech empire funded by your tax dollars
• True history of the Capitol attack
#TrumpAdministration #America #Truth #UnitedWeStand #OneNation #UnderGod #AmericanJustice #CivilLiberties #SocialTruth #ICECourt #FederalAgents #FederalCourt #Government #Billionaires #TrumpsWar #CapitalRiots #CyberPolice #AIPoliceForce
-
Trump Is Manufacturing an Election Crisis to Justify Military and ICE Power
Trump is manufacturing claims of foreign interference and noncitizen voting to discredit future election losses and prepare Americans for authoritarian federal action.
#AmericanDemocracy #authoritarianism #CivilLiberties #defendDemocracy #democraticResistance #domesticMilitaryForce #DonaldTrump #electionDenial #ElectionInterference #electionSecurity #federalAgents #ICE #ICERaids #immigrantRights #MAGA #militaryDeployment #noncitizenVoting #PoliticalRepression #PoliticsDoneRight #ProgressivePolitics #SAVEAct #SAVEAmericaAct #StephenMiller #TrumpAuthoritarianism #TrumpSpeech #VoterSuppression #votingRights https://wp.me/p1OjMZ-p6y -
Hollow Mockery: Douglass, Jefferson, and 250 Years of a Promise Unkept
Mike Cone
“Your 4th of July is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license . . . your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery.”
— Frederick Douglass (1852)These words still resonate today.
In the wake of our celebration of the 250th birthday of our independence, let us not forget the ugly truths in the birth and history of this nation. To wash over these truths, as our current administration is wont to do, is tantamount to erasing that part of our past which we should strive to learn from, and to better ourselves as a people, to truly become that nation where the words penned by Thomas Jefferson are not just hollow mockery, but true:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These are the unalienable rights bestowed upon us. These rights are not to be infringed upon for any reason, whether it be race, color, ethnicity, religious beliefs or social status. For this to be true, we as a people need to understand and accept that indeed “ALL” men are created equal. In this regard, we have failed as a nation time and time again. There are numerous examples of our nation suppressing the civil liberties of the many throughout our history: chattel slavery, the Tulsa Race Massacre, forced dispossession of ancestral Native American lands, Selma, Alabama, Jim Crow laws, the Alien and Sedition Acts, Japanese internment, Kent State, the Patriot Act, just to name a few. Hell, even Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War.
My point in all this is we need to do better. It is morally important that we learn from our past and not ignore or erase it just because at times it can be ugly and messy. We need to continue to move forward, toward morality and virtue, because virtue will always prevail.
Our current president is unwilling in this regard.
President Trump is the converse of morality and virtue and continually seems to move us backward with his version of revisionist history, distorting, altering and even falsifying historical evidence to fit his agenda. He is forever suppressing or attempting to suppress the civil liberties of those who oppose him. He has actively supported and empowered local governments to ban and remove books from public institutions. He has removed or altered exhibits, plaques and monuments from our National Parks, exhibits he terms “inappropriately disparaging to Americans past or living.” These exhibits include the nation’s first executive mansion, which detailed the nine people enslaved by George Washington; the Bunker Hill Monument, to eliminate language he deemed contrary to founding principles; and locations highlighting Japanese American internment and Native American conflicts. He has sent federal troops into our cities in direct defiance of the Posse Comitatus Act. He has allowed his defense secretary, who some call a Christian White Nationalist, to deny high-ranking promotions to senior Army and Navy officers, the majority being women and minorities, and to intervene in a Navy one-star admiral promotion list, removing nine highly vetted officers. The final list of 22 nominees contained zero women and only two non-white officers. Finally, his immigration policies appear to be an obvious attempt to rid the country of Black and Brown people. This is just a small sample of Trump’s penchant for authoritarianism and what this author feels is a deep hatred and disdain for anyone other than his own race. Donald Trump is the ideological antithesis to the phrase “all men are created equal.”
With that said, I was having a conversation with my good friend Nick Allison, an Army combat veteran and fellow Chaos Section contributor, the other day and mentioned my feelings of anger and visceral disgust for our current administration, so much so that I could not find a reason to celebrate our 250 years of independence, particularly as a veteran. I’ll end with Nick’s response:
“You know what? I think we can always find a reason to celebrate, regardless of the current occupant in the Oval Office, because there are always things and ideas and people worth celebrating. This is still a great country with great people and a wonderfully unique experiment in constitutional representative freedom. It gets messy and sometimes runs off the rails, but that’s kind of the whole point of the experiment: we’re a nation of people governing ourselves, which means it’s on us to correct course when things go sideways. Most of human history has been kings, monarchs and strongmen who never had to answer to anybody. Making it 250 years as a self-correcting experiment, messy and beautiful and stupid and wonderful all at once, is reason enough to celebrate. Don’t let one egotistical, narcissistic old man who will be out of office in a couple years, dead within ten, take that away from you.”
Mike Cone is a Marine Corps infantry veteran who served as a mortarman and forward observer in Weapons Company, 2nd Battalion, 8th Marines. “Hollow Mockery” is his first piece for The Chaos Section. He lives on Long Island with his wife Cynthia.
#250thAnniversary #AmericanHistory #authoritarianism #civilLiberties #FourthOfJuly #FrederickDouglass #IndependenceDay #JapaneseInternment #NativeAmericanHistory #PosseComitatusAct #racialEquality #revisionistHistory #trump #Veterans -
The Language of Enemies
President Donald Trump has once again reached for one of the oldest political tools in history: the creation of an internal enemy. In a recent Truth Social post, he declared, “The Communists are finally making their move… I’ve been waiting and preparing for this for a long time… The game is on. Enjoy watching.” The statement followed Democratic primary victories by candidates associated with the democratic socialist wing of the Democratic Party. While it does not announce a specific government action, it should give Americans pause. The words themselves matter.
The United States has a long history of anti-communist politics. During the Cold War, concerns about espionage by the Soviet Union were real. But there is a significant difference between opposing a foreign adversary and using the label “communist” as a catch-all description for domestic political opponents.
History teaches that when governments begin describing fellow citizens as existential enemies rather than political rivals, civil liberties often become casualties.
That does not mean arrests are imminent. It does not mean martial law is around the corner. It does mean Americans should pay attention whenever a president suggests he has been “preparing” for a confrontation with a vaguely defined group of people inside the country. Without clear definitions, almost anyone can be placed into that category.
Who, exactly, is a communist?
Is it a registered member of a revolutionary Marxist party?
Someone who favors universal health care?
A labor organizer?
A college professor?
A Democratic Socialist?
A journalist critical of the administration?
The danger lies in the ambiguity. Labels become flexible enough to fit whatever target is politically convenient.
The United States has experienced this before. During the era commonly known as the Red Scare, accusations alone destroyed careers, reputations, and lives. Loyalty tests replaced evidence. Suspicion replaced due process. The nation eventually looked back on that period as one of fear rather than strength.
That history is worth remembering.
Presidents possess extraordinary influence over public opinion. Their words shape not only political debate but also the priorities of federal agencies, law enforcement, and supporters. Even when no immediate policy follows, repeated rhetoric can normalize the idea that political disagreement is not simply disagreement but evidence of disloyalty.
Democracy depends upon the opposite principle.
It assumes citizens will disagree—sometimes passionately—about taxes, foreign policy, immigration, labor rights, social welfare, and the role of government. Those disagreements are resolved through elections, courts, legislation, and public debate, not by portraying one side as an enemy to be defeated by extraordinary means.
There is another concern as well.
Throughout history, leaders facing political challenges have often found it useful to redefine elections as battles for national survival. Once politics becomes an existential struggle between patriots and enemies, compromise becomes betrayal and constitutional restraints begin to look like obstacles rather than safeguards.
That is not unique to one ideology or one nation. It has happened under governments of many different political stripes.
Americans should therefore resist the temptation to dismiss language like this as merely another social media post. Words are often the first step in preparing the public for future actions, even if those actions never materialize. Responsible citizens should neither panic nor ignore them.
The proper response is vigilance.
Ask questions.
Demand definitions.
Insist that accusations be supported by evidence rather than slogans.
And remember that the Constitution protects Americans because of their rights—not because of their politics.
Whether one supports Donald Trump, opposes him, or falls somewhere in between, the principle remains the same. A free republic is strongest when political opponents remain opponents—not enemies.
#CivilLiberties #Democracy #donaldTrump #McCarthyism #politicalRhetoric #TruthSocial #WPSNews -
Drawing the Line: Why the Palestine Action Case Matters for the Future of British Dissent & Direct Action!
Yesterday’s Court of Appeal ruling in R (Ammori) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [^1] isn’t just another dry legal headline. It marks a seismic shift in how the UK draws the line between passionate political protest and state-defined terrorism.
By reversing a February High Court decision [^2] that had quashed the government’s ban on the protest group Palestine Action, the Court of Appeal has sanctioned something unprecedented: using the state’s heavy-duty counter-terrorism apparatus to outlaw a domestic, corporate-targeted direct-action group. [^3]
For the first time, a group that does not target humans with physical violence has been officially proscribed—meaning it is now a criminal offense simply to belong to it, wear its emblems, or voice support for it. [^4] As the legal battle heads to the UK Supreme Court (#UKSC), the core of the argument isn’t just about one group; it’s about whether the British state is fundamentally rewriting the rules of democratic dissent.
1. The Legal Tug-of-War: How We Got Here
To understand why this is a massive deal, we have to look at how the Court of Appeal dismantled the High Court’s original, rights-protective ruling. The legal battle hinges on two main arguments.
The Policy Flip-Flop
When the High Court originally threw out the ban, it pointed out that the Home Secretary had violated her own explicit guidelines. [^5] Those guidelines state that the government shouldn’t just ban a group because they technically can under the broad wording of the Terrorism Act 2000. [^6] Instead, proscription is supposed to be a tool of last resort when ordinary policing fails. The High Court warned that using the automatic criminalization that comes with a ban as a shortcut to make policing easier was a dangerous, circular use of power.
The Court of Appeal completely rejected this. Lady Chief Justice Sue Carr ruled that the Home Secretary is entirely entitled to look at the big picture. If a ban gives the police “additional operational levers” to shut down a disruptive group, that is a perfectly legitimate reason to use it. [^7]
The Deference Trap
The High Court had carefully weighed the group’s rights to free speech (Article 10) and free assembly (Article 11) against the disruption they caused. [^8] But the Court of Appeal decided the lower court didn’t give the government enough credit. The appellate bench emphasized that because Palestine Action used a “covert structure of secret cells” to evade local police, the judges should defer to the executive’s judgment on national security. [^9]
The Government’s Stance (Court of Appeal)The Activists’ Stance (High Court & UKSC Appeal)Broad Definitions:
Property damage designed to influence policy fits the legal definition of terrorism.Dangerous Precedent:
Equating property damage with mass-casualty violence is an extreme overreach.Operational Need:
Decentralized cells make ordinary policing ineffective; a total ban is required.Proportionate Policing:
Hundreds of activists have already been successfully prosecuted under normal criminal law.Executive Deference:
Courts must defer to the Home Secretary on matters of national security.Judicial Check:
The judiciary must protect human rights (Articles 10 & 11) from executive overreach.2. The Activists’ Case for the Supreme Court
As the defense team prepares to take this case to the highest court in the land, their arguments are designed to highlight what they view as a dangerous constitutional overreach.
Argument I: The Ghost of the Suffragettes
Under section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000, “terrorism” includes causing “serious damage to property” to advance a political or ideological cause. [^10] Activists argue that this creates a dangerous definition trap.
By this metric, historical vanguard movements like the Suffragettes—who intentionally smashed windows and targeted property to force political change—would be legally classified as terrorists today. [^11] The defense will argue that upgrading symbolic, corporate-targeted property destruction to “terrorism” erases a vital historical distinction between property damage and actual, physical violence against human beings.
Argument II: The Blanket Hammer vs. The Chilling Effect
The immediate fallout of the ban has been swift. Police have already made thousands of arrests, often targeting people simply holding placards that say “I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action.” [^12] Under the law, expressing support for a banned group carries a penalty of up to 14 years in prison. [^13]
The problem with a total ban is that it is a blunt, indiscriminate weapon. Previous Supreme Court rulings, like DPP v Ziegler, [^14] established that the state must look at the specific, individualized proportionality of an arrest. A total ban bypasses that nuance entirely, creating a massive “chilling effect” where everyday citizens become terrified to voice anti-war or pro-Palestinian views for fear of being swept up in a counter-terrorism dragnet. [^15]
3. The Unresolved Blindspots: Where the Supreme Court Battle Will Be Won
If the activists’ legal team wants to win at the Supreme Court, they have to fix a few strategic blindspots that the Court of Appeal exploited.
Deconstruct the “Secret Cell” Narrative:
The Court of Appeal was clearly spooked by the group’s decentralized, horizontal structure. The defense must show that operating in decentralized groups is standard practice for modern social movements (like Extinction Rebellion or Just Stop Oil) to prevent heavy-handed, preemptive policing—not a sign of a clandestine terrorist syndicate. They must hammer home the fact that the state can and has successfully prosecuted these activists using ordinary criminal law. [^16]Leverage International Law:
The Court of Appeal largely ignored warnings from the UN Special Rapporteur on Counter-Terrorism about the dangerous trend of Western states weaponizing national security laws against political dissenters. [^17] The Supreme Court must be reminded of European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence, which consistently rules that while states can punish property damage under domestic criminal law, upgrading non-violent protest to “terrorism” violates the democratic minimums of a free society. [^18]Target the Original Intent:
Relying only on a human rights argument gives the Supreme Court an easy out to defer to the government on national security. Instead, the legal team needs to challenge the interpretation of the law itself. They must argue that when Parliament passed the Terrorism Act 2000, its intent for the phrase “serious damage to property” was aimed at high-consequence attacks on critical infrastructure (like blowing up the National Grid), not protestors throwing red paint on a corporate weapons facility.If the Supreme Court doesn’t step in to narrow this definition, the line between aggressive political protest and terrorism will be permanently blurred. And that should concern anyone who believes in the right to stand up and disrupt the status quo.
Footnotes
[^1]: Ammori v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWCA Civ (15 June 2026); see Judiciary of England and Wales Official Judgment.
[^2]: R (Ammori) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWHC 292 (Admin); see analysis on Public Law for Everyone.
[^3]: See Haroon Siddique, ‘Ban on Palestine Action was lawful, court of appeal rules’, The Guardian (15 June 2026) The Guardian.
[^4]: Terrorism Act 2000, s 11, s 12. Available at legislation.gov.uk.
[^5]: Home Office, Proscription Policy Paper (27 February 2025).
[^6]: Ammori [2026] EWHC 292 (Admin) at [91]-[95]; see also Doughty Street Chambers Case Commentary.
[^7]: Ammori [2026] EWCA Civ, per Carr LCJ at [8].
[^8]: Human Rights Act 1998, Sch 1, Part I, Art 10, Art 11. See legislation.gov.uk.
[^9]: Ammori [2026] EWCA Civ at [12].
[^10]: Terrorism Act 2000, s 1(1)(b).
[^11]: Appellants’ skeleton argument summary; see historical parallels discussed in The Guardian (n 3).
[^12]: Metropolitan Police Service enforcement data cited in The Guardian (n 3).
[^13]: Terrorism Act 2000, s 11.
[^14]: DPP v Ziegler [2021] UKSC 23, [2022] AC 408.
[^15]: Liberty Policy Analysis, ‘Breaking down the Court of Appeal judgment on Palestine Action’s proscription’ (15 June 2026) Liberty.
[^16]: Ammori [2026] EWHC 292 (Admin) at [140].
[^17]: Written submissions of the UN Special Rapporteur on Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights, intervening; noted in Doughty Street Chambers summary (n 6).
[^18]: See e.g., Kudrevičius v Lithuania (2016) 62 EHRR 34.
https://twitter.com/The_Aftershock_/status/2066430617131377055
#accountabiliy #armsManufacturers #chillingEffects #CivilLiberties #genocide #History #impunity #InternationalLaw #justice #Law #news #Palestine #politics #RuleOfLaw #warCrimes #warProfiteers -
Battle of The Beanfield
There are certain moments in modern British history that seem to sit just beyond the edge of official memory. Events that everybody vaguely remembers, yet somehow never quite make it into the comfortable national story we tell ourselves.
The Battle of Orgreave is one. The miners’ strike is another. The poll tax riots. Hillsborough. Brixton. They linger in photographs, old television footage and the memories of those who were there, carrying the uncomfortable reminder that Britain is not always as civilised, measured and orderly as it likes to imagine itself to be.
The Battle of the Beanfield belongs firmly in that category.
Forty years on, it remains one of the most controversial policing operations in modern British history. More than 1,300 police officers confronted a convoy of around 600 New Age Travellers attempting to reach Stonehenge on 1 June 1985. By the end of the day, dozens of people had been injured, hundreds had been arrested and an entire way of life had effectively been marked for destruction.
What happened in that Hampshire beanfield has never been the subject of a full public inquiry. Yet for many people who witnessed the decline of Britain’s traditional industries during the Thatcher years, the images remain painfully familiar.
I grew up in Yorkshire through the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. I watched pit villages hollow out. I watched steelworks close. I watched communities that had existed for generations suddenly find themselves described as obstacles to progress. There was a language that emerged during those years. Certain groups became “the problem”. Miners. Trade unionists. Travellers. Alternative communities. Anyone who stood outside the increasingly rigid idea of what Britain was supposed to become.
That is one reason the Battle of the Beanfield still matters.
To understand the confrontation itself, we first need to understand the strange, colourful and often misunderstood world that produced it.
The Stonehenge Free Festival began in 1974. It emerged from the wider countercultural movements of the late 1960s and early 1970s, combining music, environmentalism, spiritual exploration, political activism and communal living. Over the following decade it grew steadily, becoming one of the largest free gatherings in Britain. By the early 1980s thousands of people travelled to Stonehenge each summer to celebrate the solstice. The festival attracted an eclectic mix of punks, bikers, druids, musicians, environmental campaigners, anarchists, hippies and families living on the road.
The people who became known as the Peace Convoy were not a single organisation. They were a loose collection of travellers, festival-goers and alternative communities who spent much of the year moving between free festivals, protest camps and temporary settlements. Some were escaping unemployment. Some rejected consumer culture. Others simply wanted a different way of living. Many travelled in converted buses, coaches, ambulances and vans that doubled as homes.
To their supporters they represented freedom, creativity and resistance to conformity.
To their critics they represented disorder.
By 1984 tensions were reaching breaking point. The Stonehenge festival had become enormous. Estimates suggested attendance reached around 100,000 people. Concerns were raised about damage to the archaeological landscape, litter, unauthorised trading and open drug use. English Heritage, which had recently taken over management of the site, came under increasing pressure to act. Local authorities and police forces were equally determined that the gathering should not continue in its existing form. A High Court injunction was obtained to prevent the 1985 festival from taking place. The state had drawn a line.
On the morning of 1 June 1985, the Peace Convoy left Savernake Forest and began moving towards Stonehenge. Around 140 vehicles carried approximately 600 people. Many were families. Children were travelling alongside adults who had spent years living on the road. They knew there would be police opposition. Few appear to have anticipated what was waiting for them.
Police had prepared extensively.
The miners’ strike had ended only months earlier. During that bitter industrial conflict police forces had developed new methods of coordination, rapid deployment and large-scale public order operations. Senior officers later openly acknowledged that lessons learned during the strike had informed preparations for dealing with the travellers.
A four-mile exclusion zone had been established around Stonehenge. Roadblocks were prepared. Officers from multiple forces were assembled. Some estimates place police numbers at around 1,300. Others suggest even higher figures by the end of the operation.
The convoy encountered its first major roadblock near Shipton Bellinger, several miles from Stonehenge. According to police accounts, some traveller vehicles attempted to push through the blockade and rammed police vehicles. Travellers and independent witnesses tell a very different story. They describe a convoy seeking negotiation before finding itself trapped and surrounded.
Whatever happened during those first moments, the situation rapidly escalated.As vehicles attempted to leave the road and move into adjacent fields, police began smashing windows and making arrests. The convoy became scattered across farmland. Families were separated. Children became lost in the confusion. What followed would become one of the most infamous confrontations in modern British policing.
Television footage remains difficult to watch even now.
Officers in riot gear strike vehicle windows with truncheons. People are dragged from buses and vans. Terrified children can be seen inside shattered vehicles. Journalists and witnesses described police hitting men and women indiscriminately. Several accounts alleged pregnant women and individuals carrying babies were assaulted during the operation. Numerous vehicles that functioned as homes were systematically damaged.
The Earl of Cardigan, whose family owned Savernake Forest and who had followed the convoy on a motorcycle, later provided testimony that proved deeply damaging to official police narratives. He described officers rushing vehicles with drawn truncheons, shouting at occupants and creating scenes of intimidation and violence that contradicted many early police claims.
Journalists present that day reported similar concerns.
ITN footage captured scenes that shocked many viewers. Photographer Alan Lodge later described the event as an ambush rather than a battle. Others argued the very name “Battle of the Beanfield” created a misleading impression of two evenly matched sides. One side possessed riot shields, command structures, communications systems and overwhelming numerical superiority. The other consisted largely of civilians living in vehicles.
By the end of the operation, 537 people had been arrested. It remains one of the largest mass arrests of civilians in modern British history. Most of the charges eventually collapsed or were dismissed.
That fact alone raises uncomfortable questions.
If hundreds of supposedly dangerous lawbreakers had been lawfully apprehended while carrying out serious criminal acts, one might expect hundreds of successful prosecutions to follow. Instead, much of the legal case simply evaporated.
Years later, travellers successfully pursued civil actions against Wiltshire Police. Damages were awarded for wrongful arrest, false imprisonment and property damage. One police sergeant was convicted of actual bodily harm arising from the events of that day.
Yet despite these outcomes, there has never been a full public inquiry.
Perhaps that is because the Battle of the Beanfield was about more than Stonehenge.
Looking back now, it feels impossible to separate it from the wider atmosphere of Britain in the mid-1980s. This was a country being transformed at extraordinary speed. Traditional industries were disappearing. Unemployment was soaring in many regions. Entire communities were fighting for survival. Alternative lifestyles increasingly found themselves portrayed as threats to public order rather than expressions of individual freedom.
For many people in mining and industrial areas, there is a recognisable pattern.
First comes the language.
A group is described as troublesome, outdated or undesirable.
Then comes the media narrative.
Then comes the justification.
Then comes the force.
That does not mean every traveller was a saint, any more than every miner was. Human beings are messy. Large gatherings bring problems. Some attendees at the Stonehenge festivals undoubtedly caused damage. Some individuals within the traveller movement undoubtedly committed crimes. A serious historical assessment has to acknowledge that reality. The archaeological concerns surrounding Stonehenge were genuine. Local residents had legitimate complaints. Authorities were entitled to seek solutions.
But none of that explains the scale of what happened on 1 June 1985.
The images of smashed homes, frightened children and riot police advancing across fields continue to disturb because they seem wildly disproportionate. They suggest a state determined not merely to enforce an injunction but to send a message.
And the message was received.
The traveller movement never fully recovered.
Legislation introduced during the following years increasingly restricted nomadic lifestyles and unauthorised gatherings. The Public Order Act 1986 and later the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 created new powers that made life significantly harder for travellers, free festivals and eventually the emerging rave culture.
In many ways the Beanfield became a blueprint. The same language used against travellers would later be applied to ravers, squatters, protesters and environmental activists. Alternative communities were increasingly framed not as citizens exercising freedoms but as public order problems requiring management.
Yet the legacy of the Beanfield refuses to disappear.
Songs were written about it. The Levellers turned it into a folk-punk anthem that introduced a new generation to the story. Hawkwind referenced it. Writers, filmmakers and activists kept returning to it. Every summer solstice the memory resurfaces among those who remember what happened.
Perhaps that is because the Battle of the Beanfield sits at the crossroads of so many larger questions.
Who gets to occupy public space?
Who decides what constitutes a legitimate way of living?
How much power should the state possess when dealing with communities that reject mainstream norms?
And perhaps most importantly of all, what happens when governments begin to see certain groups not as citizens but as enemies?
Forty years later those questions feel remarkably current.
The travellers who set out for Stonehenge in 1985 were not trying to overthrow the government. They were trying to reach a festival. They were trying to celebrate a solstice. They were trying, in their own eccentric and imperfect way, to live differently.
Many paid a heavy price for that.
For those of us who grew up watching pits close, furnaces go cold and communities written off as inconvenient relics of the past, the Beanfield feels like part of the same story. Different people. Different landscape. Different politics perhaps. But the same underlying lesson.
When power decides a group no longer belongs, it rarely begins with dialogue.
It begins with exclusion.
Then comes the roadblock.
Further Reading
Andy Worthington, The Battle of the Beanfield
Christopher Chippindale, Stoned Henge: Events and Issues at the Summer Solstice, 1985
Emma Hallett, BBC News, Summer Solstice: How the Stonehenge Battles Faded
Tony Thompson, The Observer, Twenty Years After, Mystery Still Clouds Battle of the Beanfield
English Heritage, Stonehenge 1977–85: A Dig in Time and a Confrontation
Copyright © Mysterious Times 2026. All rights reserved. This article may not be reproduced, distributed or transmitted in any form without prior written permission from Mysterious Times, except in the case of brief quotations used for review, criticism or scholarly reference.
#1980sBritain #1985Events #AlternativeBritain #AlternativeCommunities #AlternativeLifestyles #BattleOfTheBeanfield #BritishCounterculture #BritishFolklore #BritishHistory #BritishProtestCulture #BritishSociety #BritishSubcultures #CivilLiberties #CivilRights #ContemporaryHistory #CounterculturalHistory #Counterculture #CountercultureHistory #culturalHeritage #CulturalResistance #Druidry #EnglishCountryside #EnglishHeritage #FestivalCulture #ForgottenHistory #FreeFestivals #FreeSpiritBritain #FreedomOfMovement #Hampshire #HiddenHistory #HistoricalAnalysis #HistoricalConflict #HistoricalControversies #HistoricalMysteries #HistoryFeatures #LongReadHistory #LostBritain #MargaretThatcher #MiningCommunities #ModernBritishMythology #ModernFolklore #ModernLegends #MysteriousTimes #NewAgeMovement #NewAgeTravellers #Paganism #PeaceConvoy #PeopleSHistory #PoliceHistory #PoliticalHistory #ProtestHistory #ProtestMovements #PublicOrder #RoadProtestHistory #RuralEngland #SocialChange #SocialCommentary #socialHistory #SocialJustice #SolsticeCelebrations #SolsticeTraditions #StatePower #Stonehenge #StonehengeFreeFestival #StonehengeHistory #SummerSolstice #ThatcherEra #Thatcherism #TravellerMovement #TravellerRights #TravellingCommunities #UKHistory #UndergroundBritain #UnofficialBritain #Wiltshire #WorkingClassHistory #YorkshireHistory -
Why #GiorgiaMeloni's '#AntiProtest' law has divided #Italy
Italy’s new security law, pushed through by PM Giorgia Meloni’s #RightWing government, is stoking nationwide outrage. From harsher protest penalties and a ban on cannabis light to legal cover for police, critics warn it criminalises dissent and threatens #CivilLiberties. Protests, international concerns and Senate drama have all followed
FP Explainers
June 5, 2025"A new security decree introduced by Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s right-wing coalition government has divided Italy.
"Approved by the Senate with 109 votes in favour, 69 against, and one abstention, the legislation has sparked a backlash from opposition lawmakers, human rights bodies and legal groups, who argue that it undermines fundamental freedoms and disproportionately punishes marginalised communities.
"The decree expands legal authority for law enforcement, imposes stricter penalties on demonstrators, and introduces a variety of criminal provisions touching on #protests, public order, #cannabis regulation, and social #housing.
"While the government insists the law is a necessary measure to safeguard security, critics see it as a repressive attempt to #CriminaliseDissent and curb civil liberties in one of Europe’s major democracies."
Archived version:
https://archive.ph/n6clN#WorldPol #ItalyPol #CriminalizingProtest #SilencingDissent #Authoritarianism #Fascism #HistoryRepeats? #AntiProtestLaws
-
UK High Court Finds Ban on Palestine Action Unlawful
https://newsletter.tf/uk-court-palestine-action-ban-unlawful-2026/
UK High Court rules that banning Palestine Action was unlawful, saying the government's action was too strong.
#PalestineAction, #UKLaw, #ProtestRights, #CivilLiberties, #CourtRuling
-
On November 14, two #Montreal #police officers assaulted Dimitri Lascaris when he attempted to enter the Fairmont Queen Elizabeth Hotel, where #Canadian #PrimeMinister #MarkCarney was giving a speech.
This is by no means that first time that he's been assaulted by the #cops in Montreal. These experiences have become a regular occurrence whenever he tries to attend speeches by Ministers in the #CanadianGovernment.
This time, however, he managed to capture the assault on video.
As he explains in his report from outside the hotel, it is now obvious that Lascaris has been placed on a government #blacklist. Although he's a #lawyer in good standing and a card-carrying member of the press - facts about which Canada's government is undoubtedly aware - it’s clear that the Liberal government has instructed Montreal police and the #RCMP to prevent Lascaris from entering any building where a Minister of the Canadian government is speaking - and to use force, if necessary, to exclude him.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fgIP-GjsEt0
#CDNpoli #Quebec #QCpoli #MontrealPD #PoliceViolence #CopCrimes #RemoveQualifiedImmunity #ACAB #DefundPolice #CivilLiberties #AntiFascist #Censorship #PressFreedom #Journalists #CanadianMedia #journalism #Media #Neoliberalism
-
⚠️ FBI agents visited anti-ICE protester Miles Serafini in Arizona, asking about his involvement and knowledge of protests, raising concerns over government surveillance and intimidation. Read more: https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/video-fbi-agents-visit-anti-ice-protester #CivilLiberties #FBI #ProtestRights 🚓🗣️
#newz -
1/2 US Protest Law Tracker - Updates to #Federal #Protest Laws introduced in 2025.
Latest updates: Jun. 10, 2025 (US Federal)
Providing for deportation of non-citizens who commit protest-related offenses
Would cancel the visa of any individual convicted of protest-related crimes and provide for the individual’s deportation within 60 days. Under the bill, individuals convicted of any “crime (i) related to [their] conduct at and during the course of a protest; (ii) involving the defacement, vandalism, or destruction of Federal property; or (iii) involving the intentional obstruction of any highway, road, bridge, or tunnel” would be deportable. The bill requires that such individuals’ visas be “immediately” cancelled and the individuals removed from the US within 60 days. If enacted, a non-citizen convicted of even a nonviolent misdemeanor “related to” a protest, such as trespass or disorderly conduct, could face deportation. The bill’s sponsor cited protests around immigration raids in #LosAngeles as the impetus for his bill.
(Full text of Bill: https://www.cotton.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/61025novisasforviolentcriminalsactreintro.pdf)
Status: pending
Introduced 10 Jun 2025.
Issue(s): Traffic InterferenceHeightened penalties for "#riot" offenses
Would amend the federal #AntiRioting law to raise the maximum penalty to ten years in prison, instead of five, for participating in or inciting a “riot,” or aiding or abetting someone to do so. The federal definition of “riot” is broad, requiring only a “public disturbance” where one individual in a group commits violence. Under the bill, someone who committed or abetted an “act of violence” during the commission of a “riot” offense would face a minimum one-year sentence, while an individual who assaulted a law enforcement officer would face a sentence of at least one year and up to life in prison. Federal law defines “act of violence” broadly to include using force against #property—or just attempting or threatening to use such force. As such, if enacted, the bill could result in steep criminal penalties for protesters who do not actually engage in violence or destructive conduct. The bill’s sponsor cited protests around immigration raids in Los Angeles as the impetus for his bill.
Status: pending
Introduced 10 Jun 2025.
Issue(s): RiotHR 2272: Blocking #FinancialAid to students who commit a "riot"-related offense
Would bar federal financial assistance and loan forgiveness for any student convicted of a crime in connection with a “riot.” The bar would apply to students convicted of “rioting” or “a) inciting a riot; b) organizing, promoting, encouraging, participating in, or carrying on a riot; c) committing any act of violence in furtherance of a riot; or d) aiding or abetting any person in inciting or participating in or carrying on a riot or committing any act of violence in furtherance of a riot.” Many states define “riot” broadly enough to cover peaceful protest activity; many also have broad laws criminalizing “incitement to riot” that cover protected expression. The bill would bar financial aid and #LoanForgiveness for students convicted under such provisions. As written, the bill would also bar financial aid and loan forgiveness to students convicted of any offense related to “#organizing, #promoting, encouraging” a riot, or “aiding and abetting” incitement or participation in a riot, which could cover an even wider range of expressive conduct, from sharing a social media post to cheering on demonstrators in a protest that was deemed a “riot.”
(Full text of bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/2272)
Status: pending
Introduced 21 Mar 2025.
Issue(s): #CampusProtests, Riot, Limit on #PublicBenefits#HR2273: Providing for visa revocation and deportation of #noncitizens who commit a "riot"-related offense
Would require the Secretary of State to revoke the visa of and make deportable a noncitizen #student, #scholar, #teacher, or #specialist convicted of a crime in connection with a “riot.” Under the bill, individuals in the US on an F-1, J-1, or M-1 visa would have their visas revoked and would be deportable if they were convicted of “rioting” or “a) inciting a riot; b) organizing, promoting, encouraging, participating in, or carrying on a riot; c) committing any act of violence in furtherance of a riot; or d) aiding or abetting any person in inciting or participating in or carrying on a riot or committing any act of violence in furtherance of a riot.” Many states define “riot” broadly enough to cover peaceful protest activity; many also have broad laws criminalizing “incitement to riot” that cover protected expression. The bill would provide for the deportation of foreign students, scholars, and others convicted under such provisions. As written, the bill would also provide for their deportation if convicted of any offense related to “organizing, promoting, encouraging” a riot, or “aiding and abetting” incitement or participation in a riot, which could cover an even wider range of expressive conduct, from sharing a #SocialMediaPost to cheering on #demonstrators in a protest that was deemed a “riot.”
(Full text of bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/2273)
Status: pending
Introduced 21 Mar 2025.
Issue(s): Campus Protests, Riot#S1017: New federal criminal penalties for protests near #pipelines
Would create a new federal #felony offense that could apply to protests of planned or operational pipelines. The bill would broadly criminalize under federal law “knowingly and willfully” “#vandalizing, tampering with, disrupting the operation or construction of, or preventing the operation or construction of” a gas pipeline. A range of peaceful activities could be deemed “disrupting… the construction of” a pipeline, from a rally that obstructs a road used by construction equipment, to a #lawsuit challenging a pipeline’s #permit or# zoning approval. The bill does not define “disrupt,” such that even a brief delay would seemingly be covered. Further, the underlying law provides that any "attempt" or "conspiracy" to commit the offense would be punished the same as actual commission. As such, individuals as well as organizations that engage in the planning or facilitation of a protest that is deemed to “disrupt” pipeline construction could be covered. The offense would be punishable by up to 20 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000 for an individual, or $500,000 for an organization.
(Full text of bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/1017)
Status: pending
Introduced 13 Mar 2025.
Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, #Infrastructure
#ProtestLaws #protestors #protestors_in_prison #CivilLiberties #Fascism #USA #USPol #NoKings #Project2025 #TrumpIsAFascist -
No-Bid #ICE Contract Went to Former ICE Agents Being Sued for Fabricating Criminal Evidence on the Job
The $73 million deal for assisting with deportations went to a company whose executives are accused of retaliating against a fellow ICE worker.
Sam Biddle, April 17 2025
"U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement just signed a contract worth $73 million with a firm whose executives are accused of taking part in a scheme to manufacture evidence against a co-worker during their time working at the Department of Homeland Security.
"According to a contract document reviewed by The Intercept, federal contractor #UniversalStrategicAdvisors will provide services pertaining to #ICE’s 'non-detained docket,' a master list of millions of #noncitizens believed to be removable from the United States but not yet in the agency’s custody.
"The contract cites President Donald #Trump’s declaration of a #NationalEmergency on the #USMexicoBorder, an overwhelming glut of potential #deportees, and a shortage of officers to process them all as justification for hiring a private vendor to assist with the collection of biometric data, coordinating removals, and monitoring #immigrant populations.
"The document says that with a fleet of new outsourced employees, ICE can reassign hundreds of officers to tasks that better align with Trump’s recent executive orders aimed at maximizing the agency’s detention and deportation operations. With the contractors onboard, the document says at least 675 ICE officers 'will be able to take all appropriate actions to comply with the EO’s by prioritizing conducting at-large arrests, removals, and detention related activities.'
"A former ICE official, who spoke to The Intercept on the condition of anonymity, said they were concerned by this plan to further privatize the agency’s operations at the same time as the Trump administration has dramatically slashed its workforce and gutted important oversight bodies like the Office for #CivilRights and #CivilLiberties, as well as the Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman. 'I certainly take issue with them firing career feds and demolishing whole offices, just to hire contractors to do the same work, many of them who are former ICE employees now retired,' the official said."
Read more:
https://theintercept.com/2025/04/17/ice-deportation-contracts-us-advisors/Archived version:
https://archive.ph/DjRAG#WorkerRetaliation #ICEDetention #Deportations #HumanRightsAbuses #USPol #WorldPol #Corporatocracy #CorporateFascism #Fascism #Authoritarianism #Cronyism
-
Imagine a chain of rights where one small push can topple fundamental freedoms. United we stand, divided we fall. This powerful cartoon serves as a poignant reminder that protecting one right means protecting them all. Let’s stand together for justice and equality for everyone!
#TransRights #LGBTQ #WomensRights #FreeSpeech #CivilLiberties #SocialJustice #FreedomForAll #HumanRights #LGBTQ+ #Democracy #ArtsForChange #UnityInDiversity #CivilRights #FreeLove #FreedomOfExpression #Advocacy
-
Just made my monthly phone call to shout at #SaanichPolice to remind them I will NEVER FORGET how their #policeUnion boss led team on night my Dad died & refused to put a mask on & refused to leave our home despite first arrival cops & paramedics determining it was a full medical cardiac emergency requiring ZERO COPS. I WILL NEVER STOP REMINDING #SAANICH PD HOW THEY COMPLETELY FUCKED UP & TRAUMATIZED US MORE ON NIGHT MY DAD DIED!!!
#VancouverIsland #YYJpoli #FuckThePolice #AbolishPoliceUnions #DemandTransparency #CivilLiberties #Saanich
-
Britain leads the world in cracking down on climate activism, study finds
Research shows UK police arrest environmental and climate protesters at three times the average global rate
Damien Gayle
Wed 11 Dec 2024 01.00 EST"British police arrest environmental protesters at nearly three times the global average rate, research has found, revealing the country as a world leader in the legal crackdown on climate activism.
"Only Australia arrested climate and environmental protesters at a higher rate than UK police. One in five Australian eco-protests led to arrests, compared with about 17% in the UK. The global average rate is 6.7%."
Original article:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/dec/11/britain-leads-the-world-in-cracking-down-on-climate-activism-study-findsArchived version:
https://archive.ph/ukkvZ#CriminalizingDissent
#ACAB #Autocracy #Corporatocracy
#Fascism #CriminalizingDissentIsAutocracy
#ClimateCrisis #GlobalBurning
#CorporateFascism #HumanRights #CivilLiberties #ClimateActivists
#Blackwater #NoDAPL #StandWithStandingRock
#ClimateAction #PipelineProtests #WaterProtectors #BigOilAndGas #AntiProtestLaws #SLAPPs #ErikPrinceColonialism #Article20 #2023PublicOrderAct
#Project2025 #HR9495 #GlobalWitness #AntiTerrorLaws -
Pioneering research reveals growing dangers and repression of climate activism globally
Press release issued: 11 December 2024
"A new report has uncovered the many risks of participating in climate and environmental protests across the world – and how more countries are criminalising and repressing this activity in a bid to keep it in check.
"The report, led by the University of Bristol, is the first to examine global statistics on this form of protest and identify alarming trends. It reveals that more than 2,000 climate and environmental protesters have been killed over the past 12 years and that a raft of new anti-protest legislation has been enacted.
"It calls for governments, police forces and the legal system to help protect people’s right to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression."
"Lead author Dr Oscar Berglund, Senior Lecturer in International Public and Social Policy at the University’s School for Policy Studies, said: “This research sheds important light on how the growing pursuit of climate and environmental protest is being handled globally. Our evidence clearly shows a global crackdown in liberal democracies as well as autocracies.
"'This is worrying because it focuses state policy on punishing dissent against inaction on climate and environmental change instead of taking adequate action on these issues. It also represents authoritarian moves that are inconsistent with the ideals of vibrant civil societies in liberal democracies.'
"The findings showed murders and disappearances of climate and environmental activists are common in many countries, with international non-governmental organisation (NGO) Global Witness reporting at least 2,106 killings between 2012 and 2023. Brazil had the highest number with 401 fatalities, followed by 298 in the Philippines, 86 in India, and 58 in Peru.
"A significant proportion of climate and environmental protests involved arrests, according to the research. The highest proportion, one in five, was found in Australia, followed by 17% in the UK – much higher than the international average of 6.3%.
"Non-violent protesters were also found to be given lengthy prison sentences to act as a deterrent. For example, this year in the UK many climate activists have been sent to prison, with the longest sentence being five years.
"The report defines environmental protests as being aimed at stopping specific environmentally destructive projects, such as fossil fuel exploration and #extraction, #deforestation, dam building or #mining. #ClimateProtests are described as more urban-based events, which tend to have broader policy demands, such as ending oil exploration, or more overarching political demands, for instance enacting a #GreenNewDeal.
"The researchers analysed data from the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data (ACLED) and Global Witness to gather global data and explore trends as well as new anti-protest legislation introduced in countries in different parts of the world.
"Four main ways were identified to criminalise and repress climate and environmental protests. Anti-protest laws are being introduced, criminalising groups, introducing new crimes, making punishment more severe for existing crimes, increasing police powers, and giving officers impunity when harming activists. Protest is also being criminalised through prosecution and courts.
"Dr Berglund explained: 'This involves using existing legislation, including anti-terror or anti-organised crime laws, to curb protest. Climate protest is being de-politicised in the courts, prohibiting mentions of climate change or environmental damage in proceedings, or otherwise changing court processes in order to increase the likelihood of activists being found guilty.'
"The third category is through policing, which is carried out not only by state actors like police or military, but also private security and military or organised crime groups. This sees a range of attempts to prevent protests through using stop and search, arrests, physical violence, and threats and intimidation of protesters.
"Dr Berglund said: “Perhaps most shockingly, we found killings and disappearances to be common in some countries. In many ways, these are an extension of policing as they are either carried out or permitted by the same authorities, often following death threats and other forms of intimidation.”
"The report makes numerous recommendations, including for public authorities to conduct regular evaluations and publish data demonstrating how their actions help safeguard the right to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression. It also calls for anti-terror and anti-organised crime legislation against climate and environmental activists to stop.
"Dr Berglund said: 'Human rights frameworks should be at the forefront of policing considerations and operations to ensure that the public can exercise their right to protest without impediment or fear.'
"'Climate and environmental protests are increasingly prevalent, for good reason as the climate crisis worsens, and responses to this activity are evolving at pace. Further research is needed to better understand the situation so suitable measures can be identified and implemented to protect human rights and keep protesters safe.'"
https://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2024/december/climate-activism.html
#CriminalizingDissent #ACAB #Autocracy #Corporatocracy #Fascism #CriminalizingDissentIsAutocracy #ClimateCrisis #GlobalBurning #CorporateFascism #HumanRights #CivilLiberties #ClimateActivists #Blackwater #NoDAPL #StandWithStandingRock #ClimateAction #PipelineProtests #WaterProtectors #BigOilAndGas #AntiProtestLaws #SLAPPs #ErikPrinceColonialism #Article20 #2023PublicOrderAct
#Project2025 #HR9495 #GlobalWitness #AntiTerrorLaws -
Today #FDA approved #Opill #norgestrel tablet for #nonprescription use to #prevent #pregnancy— the first #daily #OralContraceptive approved for use in the U.S. without a prescription. Approval of this progestin-only oral contraceptive pill provides an option for consumers to purchase oral contraceptive medicine without a prescription at #drugstores, #conveniencestores and #grocerystores, as well as #online. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-first-nonprescription-daily-oral-contraceptive #WomensHealth #Healthcare #privacy #contraception #CivilLiberties
-
Financial surveillance, privacy and CBDCs: Why are governments going cashless? - Attorney Marta Belcher joins The Agenda podcast to unpack financi... - https://cointelegraph.com/news/financial-surveillance-privacy-and-cbdcs-why-are-governments-going-cashless #centralbankdigitalcurrency #financialsurveillance #corporatesurveillance #cryptocurrency #civilliberties #cointelegraph #privacycoins #blockchain #bitcoin #privacy #crypto #web3 #cbdc
-
CW: NSW politics: Coalition summary
NSW state election is this Saturday. The current (outgoing?) Coalition government has:
- approved many new/expanded #CoalMines with catastrophic #ClimateImpacts. Their record on biodiversity is even worse: record land clearing, #koalakiller, brumbies, mass fish kills. Not to mention #WaterMismanagement (& #corruption).
- undermined #CivilLiberties to an alarming extent. Compare anti-protest laws and #NSWpolice powers now vs a decade ago.
- corruption scandals aplenty, going right to the top: all four premiers subject to credible accusations of serious misconduct. Two premiers & a deputy premier have resigned as the direct result of #ICAC investigations. Some of them have openly defended #pork-barrelling, which ICAC labels corrupt behaviour.
- privatised the electricity grid & large chunks of public transport. Overseen the creeping #privatisation of health + education, putting crucial infrastructure + services in the hands of #plutocracy, subject to the pernicious effects of the profit motive. All these areas have seen significant erosion of public well-being + satisfaction, with widespread industrial action one symptom of many.
- close ties—philosophically, personally + practically—to the federal #Coalition who finally got the boot last year.
