Decade after decade, a new wave of moral panic sweeps the nation, often accompanied by so-called “solutions” that blatantly erode our civil liberties. The roots of today’s surveillance state can be traced back to the fear that gripped the country on September 11, 2001, when the government seized on that fear to push through unconstitutional measures like The PATRIOT Act, real-time crime centres, and the TSA. By doing so, the government successfully imposed security measures that would have otherwise been met with fierce resistance. As the public grew increasingly comfortable with surveillance, it became remarkably easy to expand these measures from airports to city streets, fuelled by sensationalized stories of gang violence and other societal issues. Moreover, the divisive rhetoric surrounding illegal immigration has further accelerated the growth of surveillance, normalizing egregious privacy violations and touting technologies as solutions for non-violent offenses like littering and traffic infractions. Government programs are also utilizing surveillance to micromanage travellers’ behaviour under the guise of protecting the environment from climate change. The average citizen is being gradually conditioned to view the surveillance state as a necessary evil, with some even embracing it as a means to feel safer. However, this acceptance comes at a steep cost to our civil liberties, making it imperative to recognize the dangers associated with this expanding surveillance apparatus. Authorities are deliberately manipulating fear and misinformation to justify the growth of surveillance, and it is essential for citizens to stay informed about these tactics and demand greater transparency and accountability from their governments. The future of our civil liberties hangs in the balance, and addressing these issues is crucial before it’s too late.

The rapid expansion of the surveillance state is a complex issue, driven by a multitude of factors. One primary motivator is the age-old tactic of exploiting fear to consolidate power, a strategy that governments and institutions have long employed. By magnifying narratives surrounding crime, terrorism, and other threats, authorities can rationalize the enforcement of security measures that would typically face intense public backlash. Technologies like surveillance-enabled streetlights and Automatic License Plate Reader cameras are being promoted as solutions, but they pose serious risks to our civil liberties. As the surveillance state continues to grow, it is vital to expose the ways in which authorities are manipulating fear and misinformation to justify this growth. By doing so, we can demand greater transparency and accountability from our governments and work towards a future where our civil liberties are protected. The time to act is now, before the surveillance state becomes an irreversible reality. Citizens must take an active role in staying informed and pushing back against the erosion of their rights, or risk losing them forever. The government must be held accountable for its actions, and the true cost of the surveillance state must be laid bare. Only then can we hope to reclaim our civil liberties and build a future where freedom and security coexist.

The normalization of privacy violations

The surveillance state is actively eroding civil liberties, and its growth is being fueled by the normalization of privacy violations, which is a key factor in this alarming trend. As the government and other institutions increasingly use surveillance to control citizens’ behavior, they are severely impacting individual freedom and autonomy. By enforcing laws and regulations through surveillance, authorities are generating significant revenue, which is then being reinvested into further enhancing surveillance capabilities, creating a self-perpetuating cycle where the growth of surveillance leads to increased revenue, and subsequently fuels additional surveillance initiatives. The implications of the surveillance state on civil liberties are profound, and as citizens become more accustomed to being monitored, they are becoming less inclined to assert their rights and freedoms. Furthermore, the use of surveillance to generate revenue is raising additional concerns, as it creates a troubling incentive for governments to continue expanding surveillance measures.

Advanced technologies are being actively used by governments to jeopardize the privacy and safety of citizens, and this is a threat that requires immediate attention. The media is frequently overlooking this unprecedented risk, which echoes historical patterns seen around the world, and ignoring this issue could lead to severe repercussions for society. The technologies currently being used in our communities are mirroring those that oppress citizens in countries like China, where systems like social credit and ethnic cleansing are prevalent. Journalists and political dissidents who expose government corruption are suffering harsh penalties, including being denied basic resources, suitable housing, and the freedom to travel. Governments are using facial recognition technology to hunt down and execute political opponents, and entrusting such significant power to even small governments can be dangerous.

Advanced Technologies can Seriously Jeopardize the Privacy and Safety of its Citizens

Historical abuses, such as civil asset forfeiture, are revealing how easily a surveillance state can be misused, often under the guise of judicial protection. Artificial intelligence is identifying real crimes, but the evidence it provides is often unreliable, and another major threat is arising from the widespread collection of data without proper consent or oversight. The everyday activities of average Americans are being closely monitored and analyzed with minimal regulation, creating vulnerabilities not just from state agents but also from corporations that handle this data. Individuals are risking having their personal information exposed due to security breaches, often without ever having shared that information willingly. If someone becomes a target, state actors are compiling extensive details about their life while pursuing a crime to charge them with. It’s crucial to have an open conversation about surveillance, and focusing too much on certain fears has eroded personal freedoms, while other valid concerns—especially those related to government intrusion into citizens’ private lives—have largely gone unaddressed. The government must be actively held accountable for its actions, and citizens must be actively protected from the dangers of the surveillance state.

Authorities are actively building an all-encompassing digital surveillance system, with Digital Identity and Central Bank Digital Currencies serving as the core components that trap individuals in this framework. This system is being designed to replace traditional government-issued IDs with Digital IDs deeply rooted in unchangeable biometric data, including fingerprints, facial structures, and iris patterns, effectively creating an unbreakable link between individuals’ physical bodies and their digital identity credentials. By utilizing this biometric data, governments and financial institutions are rendering individuals’ bodies as passwords, establishing a total linkage between physical characteristics and digital identity. The United Nations and the Bank for International Settlements are openly acknowledging the integration of Digital IDs and Central Bank Digital Currencies to form the backbone of a new financial system, which requires the identification and verification of every participant through Know Your Customer protocols. Digital wallets are being tied to Digital IDs, which are mapped to individuals’ biometrics, creating a direct connection between financial transactions and biological data. Initiatives like Sam Altman’s WorldCoin are already rolling out prototypes of this system, encouraging people to scan their irises to obtain a unique identifier and a digital wallet.

Similarly, the UN’s Building Blocks program is forcing refugees to scan their irises to receive food rations, with the value being deducted from a wallet linked to their biometric ID. Under the guise of addressing the identity gap, authorities claim that digital IDs are necessary for the world’s poor to access essential services like banking and healthcare. However, the reality is that this system is being designed to exert total control over individuals, with their access to society and their own money being permissioned and revocable based on their compliance. This digital surveillance system is not about convenience; it’s about control, with the new global financial system being built on the foundation of total surveillance, where individuals’ every move is monitored and regulated. The implementation of Digital IDs and Central Bank Digital Currencies is a deliberate attempt to create a framework of control, where authorities can dictate who can participate in the financial system and who cannot, effectively rendering individuals’ autonomy and freedom obsolete.

Citizens are witnessing a dramatic expansion of the surveillance state, driven by the ruthless exploitation of fear, the gradual normalization of egregious privacy invasions, and the lucrative monetization of surveillance. This alarming trend poses a significant threat to civil liberties, with far-reaching consequences that imperil the very foundations of democracy. Governments must be held accountable for their actions, and citizens are demanding greater transparency and robust safeguards to protect their rights and freedoms. As the surveillance state continues to grow in power and scope, it is crucial that citizens remain vigilant and proactive, confronting these challenges head-on to prevent the erosion of their liberties. The clock is ticking, and the future of civil liberties hangs in the balance, making it imperative for citizens to take a stand against this insidious threat before it’s too late.

Written By Tatenda Belle Panashe

Security forces fired tear gas and dispersed crowds in the capital, Yaoundé, as demonstrators took to the streets to reject the results announced by the country’s Constitutional Council. Witnesses reported that police targeted protesters wearing masks or attempting to conceal their faces, while normally busy streets were left deserted.

According to official results, Biya won 53.66% of the vote, defeating his former ally Issa Tchiroma Bakary, who received 35.19%. The outcome extends Biya’s rule for another seven years, potentially keeping him in power until he is nearly 100 years old.

Opposition supporters have alleged widespread irregularities and intimidation during the vote, claims the government has dismissed as unfounded. The election, marred by violence in parts of the country’s anglophone regions, has drawn concern from international observers who called for restraint and dialogue.

Biya, who first took office in 1982, has maintained tight control over the Central African nation for more than four decades. His continued leadership has long sparked debate over governance, succession, and democratic freedoms in Cameroon.

Mara, who served as prime minister from 2014 to 2015, was found guilty of “undermining state security” after publishing a post that accused Mali’s junta of curbing political rights and silencing dissent. His defense team argued that the post represented legitimate political expression and announced plans to appeal the verdict.

“This decision is politically motivated and represents a dangerous precedent for free speech in Mali,” said Mara’s lawyer, Boubacar Kone, following the sentencing.

The ruling comes amid growing concerns over shrinking civic space and crackdowns on opposition voices under Mali’s military government, which seized power in a 2021 coup.

International human rights organizations have repeatedly urged the transitional authorities to restore democratic governance and guarantee freedom of expression ahead of long-delayed elections.

The declaration grants security forces expanded powers to restore order and temporarily suspends certain civil liberties, including the right to assembly. The move comes amid growing public frustration over economic hardship, corruption, and ongoing political turmoil.

Peru has experienced extreme political instability in recent years, cycling through seven presidents since 2018. The latest unrest unfolds just six months ahead of the country’s presidential and congressional elections, scheduled for April 12.

Government officials said the state of emergency is also intended to combat organized crime and gang related violence that has sharply increased in recent months. Critics, however, warn that deploying the military for internal security risks further inflaming tensions between the government and demonstrators.

Analysts say the declaration underscores deepening social unrest in Peru as citizens demand stability, accountability, and economic reforms from a government struggling to maintain public confidence.

The election is being positioned by government officials as a key step toward broader democratic reforms, with the new parliament expected to play a foundational role in rebuilding state institutions and drafting a revised national framework.

However, critics and human rights observers warn that the current political landscape remains deeply flawed, citing a lack of representation for ethnic and religious minority groups, limited freedom of the press, and restrictions on opposition parties.

Background: Assad’s Fall and the Rise of a New Political Order

Assad’s ousting in late 2024 followed years of sustained military losses, international isolation, and mounting domestic unrest. His regime, in power since 2000, had faced widespread condemnation for human rights abuses, including the use of chemical weapons, indiscriminate bombings, and the suppression of dissent.

The Islamist-led coalition that assumed power in early 2025 emerged from a fractured opposition that previously struggled to unify during the civil war. Its leadership has promised to pursue “inclusive governance” and post-war reconstruction, but skeptics argue that the absence of secular and minority voices in transitional bodies suggests otherwise.

Concerns Over Minority Rights and Political Inclusion

Syria is a religiously and ethnically diverse country, home to Sunni Arabs, Alawites, Christians, Kurds, Druze, and others. Under Assad, minorities particularly the Alawite community held significant power. The current administration, dominated by Islamist factions, has yet to present a clear roadmap for ensuring minority protections and equal political participation.

“Free elections must involve more than casting a ballot,” said one regional analyst. “It means allowing all groups to organize, campaign, and vote without fear or intimidation. That’s not the Syria we see today.”

Human rights groups have reported continued suppression of dissent, especially among Kurdish political activists and women’s rights organizations, raising doubts about the fairness of the upcoming vote.

International Reactions: Cautious Optimism or Strategic Silence?

Global reactions to Syria’s political transition have been mixed. While some countries have welcomed the prospect of elections as a step toward stability, others remain skeptical.

The United Nations has not officially endorsed the upcoming vote and has reiterated calls for a genuinely inclusive political process, in line with UN Security Council Resolution 2254, which calls for democratic elections under UN supervision.

What to Watch:

• Whether independent observers will be allowed to monitor the election.

• How minority groups, including Kurds and Christians, are represented on candidate lists.

• The level of voter turnout amid lingering security and economic challenges.

• Potential international recognition (or rejection) of the new government’s legitimacy.

A Step Forward or a Change in Name Only?

While the October 5 elections are being promoted as a turning point in Syria’s post-war era, many remain unconvinced that true democracy is on the horizon. Without broad representation, legal reforms, and freedom of political expression, critics say Syria risks replacing one authoritarian regime with another this time under different branding.

Her “crime”? Telling the world what was really happening in Wuhan at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and later, continuing to report on human rights abuses by the Chinese state.

Rather than being celebrated as a whistleblower or journalist, Zhang has been criminalized for doing what journalists everywhere are supposed to do: hold power to account.

Speaking Truth to Power and Paying the Price

In early 2020, while the Chinese government was tightly controlling the narrative around the COVID-19 outbreak, Zhang Zhan traveled to Wuhan and used her smartphone to show the world the real conditions on the ground.

She posted videos of overcrowded hospitals, food shortages, and frightened citizens evidence that contradicted Beijing’s claims of calm and control.

For this, she was arrested, tried, and sentenced to four years in prison under the vague and politically motivated charge of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble.”

Now, just months after finishing that sentence, she has been sentenced again for the same “offense” this time, for continuing to expose human rights violations and question official narratives. Her reporting posed no harm to society only to the fragile egos of those in power.

China’s War on Free Speech

The charge used against Zhang is often described by rights groups as a tool for silencing dissent. It does not refer to a specific criminal act but is regularly deployed to punish activists, journalists, lawyers, and citizens who speak out.

In Zhang’s case, there was no incitement to violence, no threats to national security, no disinformation. Her videos were straightforward, factual, and often quiet a stark contrast to the loud propaganda of the state.

This sentencing is part of a broader pattern of repression where independent voices are crushed, and government critics disappear into prison cells. It sends a chilling message to anyone in China who dares to tell the truth.

Freedom of Speech is Not a Crime

Across the world, freedom of speech and a free press are cornerstones of open, democratic societies. Zhang Zhan’s case is a test of the international community’s willingness to defend those principles.

She has not harmed her country she has only asked it to do better, to be transparent, to respect its own people. For that, she has been punished twice.

Zhang’s courage stands in stark contrast to the cowardice of the authorities who fear even the slightest criticism. By silencing her, China only amplifies her voice on the global stage.

The World Must Speak Up

Human rights organizations, democratic governments, and ordinary citizens must condemn this injustice loudly and without hesitation.

Remaining silent allows authoritarian governments to believe they can imprison journalists and activists without consequences. Zhang Zhan is not alone but without international pressure, she may well suffer alone, again, behind bars.

So, when you observe discussions on limitations of free speech, you would have noted that what is often contentious is the allowance of speech that is deemed to be mis or dis information or even hateful. And so, those in support of placing limitations on free speech, often argue that the danger from these categories of speech (being misinformation, disinformation, and hate speech) is so great that it becomes justifiable to place limitations on or even completely censor persons that curate such speech – be it by word or writing.

Let’s start with mis and disinformation. In socio-political discourse, the word “misinformation” is a dangerous word because it cannot be objectively defined; meaning that it means different things to different people. For instance, governments often label speech as mis or disinformation when that particular speech communicates a message that is contrary to official messaging. But, the government is not immune to error: governments or official organisations get things wrong or lack knowledge to communicate accurate facts quite often – an example being the WHO’s directives during COVID, which were parroted by some governments and the mainstream media.

Secondly, in addition to mis and disinformation lacking an objective definition, this vague quality of these words thus allows governments to assume the role of being the arbiter of truth; which – as empirical evidence from the last 4 and half years would show – tends to embolden governments to assume a monopoly on truth, and punish those who become dissenters. And they actually capitalise on the vagueness of the definition of mis and disinformation to accomplish this. For instance, Dr Mike Ryan, who is the Executive Director of the WHO’s Health Emergencies Programme, said something quite striking a few years back. He stated that misinformation is when grossly incorrect information gets out while being promoted as correct, or purposely designed to be incorrect… and also used as a weapon to manipulate how people make conclusions. And he said this in trying to clarify that the WHO is fighting misinformation and not overall dialogue and the asking of questions.

First, this is a lie. When governments and organisations like the WHO (and even the WEF) assume a monopoly on truth, they expect (in fact DEMAND) compliance, and therefore punish those who dissent. This is literally why the censorship industrial complex exists, and why laws like the EU’s Digital Services Act exist. Secondly, because of the (often) legislated demand for compliance, people have a hard time having genuine discourse or asking pertinent questions, when they know that could land them in trouble – and so, the compliance laws systematically nudge society towards self censorship. Therefore, this all details the fundamental flaw in the rationale behind limiting free speech that is considered mis or disinformation: and the fundamental flaw lies with the fact that there is no objective definition of these terms, and where they are defined, they are often heavily politicised to mean what a respective government or organisation demands, and also these politicised definitions enable the curation of censorship-promoting compliance laws.

WHAT (ACTUALLY) IS HATE SPEECH?

Which then brings us to hate speech, and why the rationale behind limiting speech that is deemed hateful is also flawed. And the first consideration is that (as alluded to earlier) the definition for what is deemed hate speech is not as clear as people assume it is. For instance, let’s consider these three definitions from a relatively quick search. The first is from the Oxford dictionary, and it states that hate speech is (quote): “abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice on the basis of ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or similar grounds.”

Then the second definition is from the UN. It states that hate speech is from (quote): “hate speech is “discriminatory” (in parenthesis) (biased, bigoted or intolerant) or “pejorative” (in parenthesis) (prejudiced, contemptuous or demeaning) of an individual or group. Then finally, we have the definition from the South African Human Rights Commission, and it states that (quote): “Hate speech may be defined as expression which goes beyond mere insults or offensive language, and which may infringe the dignity of certain persons or groups”. Now these all sound like fairly reasonable definitions, with discernable common denominators – being: discrimination, contempt or an infringement of dignity, and perhaps abuse – or simply, offence.

But, I do not think that all these different organisations considered that the application of these definitions is relative to each unique context where allegations of hate speech might arise.

For instance, the word “kaffir” (which is an Arabic word) is said to originate from the Quran and refers to a “disbeliever” or someone who rejects faith in Islam and its core tenets. In the colonial context, this word was used by the Boer in South Africa as a derogatory way to refer to black South Africans during apartheid. Today, this word is sometimes casually used by black South Africans in references that are informed by the apartheid and colonial context, but that aren’t deemed hateful. For instance, instead of referring to one’s hair as an afro or natural hair, one would say “my kaffir haar” – and no one will bat an eyelid.

Similarly, the “b” word that means a female dog is deemed derogatory and vulgar when used by men in reference to women, but it frequents informal and amicable conversations among both men and women, rap music and other forms of popular culture. The same can be said about the word Nigger in the American or African context. Now, I mention this to demonstrate that offence (which is what hate speech is hinged on) is very subjective; in fact, even how words receive compounded meanings beyond what they originally mean is often a product of the subjective intentions of one group, seeing that (for example) the original meaning of the word Nigger had nothing to do with the discriminatory connotations that were later added to it. And so, what is deemed to be hate speech will often differ not just for each group in society but for each individual within a certain group! And all of this is because offense is a highly subjective metric, which then makes it very problematic to use it to inform the law – because it would mean that the government is creating a law that is intended for general application, on the basis of the offence of a select few individuals or possibly even one person. Well, this came up at the hearing, including from Representative Mark Harris.

THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT THE BODY TO DEFINE WHAT IS HATE SPEECH

The second argument I’d like to put forward is that – in addition to the lack of objective definition of hate speech – the government should also not be the body to define hate speech. And the reason fundamentally lies with two considerations: first, because slavery, the holocaust and apartheid were all legal systems, it means the state should never be used as a metric for ethics. In other words, history testifies to the fact that the government does not have an unequivocal grasp on good morality, because governments are made up of people who are not immune to error and who can be influenced towards evil deeds.

The second consideration is the fact that government definitions are (again) heavily politicised. And so, if we allow a government to define free speech and enforce that definition, it will likely amount to a means of restricting speech that the government in question does not like or agree with. But, that speech in-of-in itself may not actually amount to hate, in a manner that would be objective enough to warrant general application. And this actually presents considerable problems for the state because implementing subjective definitions of hate speech is hard work!

For example, in 2021, a former police officer in the UK won a court of appeal challenge over police guidance on hate incidents after claiming it unlawfully interferes with the right to freedom of expression. Ex-officer Harry Miller, who describes himself as “gender critical”, was visited at work by an officer from Humberside police in January 2019 after a single member of the public complained about his allegedly transphobic tweets. The force recorded the complaint as a non-crime hate incident (which we’ll discuss shortly), and this non-crime hate incident is defined by the College of Policing’s guidance as “any non-crime incident which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice”.

Well, ex-officer Harry Miller, from Lincolnshire, challenged both Humberside police’s actions and the College of Policing’s guidance at the high court and, in February 2020, a judge ruled the force’s actions were a “disproportionate interference” with his right to freedom of expression. But his challenge to the College of Police’s guidance was dismissed, with the judge finding that it “serves legitimate purposes and is not disproportionate”. However, in a ruling in 2020, the court of appeal then found that the College of Policing’s guidance also breached his freedom of expression rights.

So, this proves that a law that tried to allow the state to enforce one person’s subjective feeling of offence as a law of general application did not stand successfully against the inalienable freedom to speak freely. And so, even from a state perspective, this is a ridiculous approach to try to enforce.

HATE SPEECH IS (AND SHOULD TREATED AS) PROTECTED SPEECH

Then, finally, even if it was easy and non-subjective to define hate speech, hate speech should not only be regarded as protected speech, but the protection of hate speech is a part of the litmus test for whether a society truly values free speech. And the litmus test is: do you support the protection of fundamental freedoms for everyone, including for people you disagree with? If you do NOT, you are NOT someone who should be trusted with legislating on matters pertaining to free speech, because you have a segregationist mindset that sees society and politics as zero-sum.

But, secondly, it means you fail to grasp the inalienable nature of the freedom of speech. But, the truth is that inalienable rights have a high regard in society and jurisprudence because these are  God-given rights and freedoms, and thus not subject to statutory limitations or conditional application by governments, which is to say that even governments are bound by those rights. Therefore, because free speech is an inalienable right, even speech that is deemed subjectively hateful should be regarded as protected speech. As such, is there arises a personal injury or defamation issue, let it be addressed as such, where people make their case in court, as opposed to the government opting to censor people in defence of the claimed offence of another.

And finally, can we consider for a moment that the world is filled with people who have a reason to be offensive to others. Therefore, if you allow people to have power over how you see yourself, or even over your emotions, by allowing them the ability to offend you, then you might be part of the problem (seeing that offence is – afterall – subjective); and this is because you essentially delegated the power to offend you to those people. Whose speech you found offensive. They are responsible for what they say, and you are responsible for how you respond. I mean the Lord Jesus was told he performed miracles through the enablement of the devil, accused of blaspheming God, and more – and yet, He did not take offence from the persecution he suffered, and still died for all (including those who killed Him) to receive salvation.  Therefore, offense is a problem that primarily originates and lies with the person who is offended.

WHY DOES THE UK HAVE A FREE SPEECH PROBLEM?

So, now that we’ve undressed the flaw behind the rationale behind restrictions on free speech, let’s deal with the question behind Nigel Farage’s hearing in the US, which is: Why does the UK have a free speech problem. If we are being fundamentalist in our approach, I would argue that the origins of this problem can be articulated in considering the fact that the US has something the UK doesn’t have, namely a First Amendment. Of course, we know that there are those who wish the US didn’t have it either, including the likes of Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, because they see the First Amendment (and in particular, its extensive protections of free speech) as obstructive to his plans. BUT, not only does the UK not have a First Amendment, it doesn’t have a constitution either, and that makes for a significant concern, especially at a time when free speech has little currency with Gen Z and even less with the new UK Labour government – so much so that many are saying the UK has become a police state.

Furthermore, in the United Kingdom censorship has been applied to various forms of expression such as the media, cinema, entertainment venues, literature, theatre and criticism of the monarchy. And while there is no general right to free speech in the UK, British citizens have a negative right to freedom of expression under the common law, and since 1998, freedom of expression is guaranteed according to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as applied in British law through the Human Rights Act.

Then, current law also allows for restrictions on threatening or abusive words or behaviour intending or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace, sending another any article which is indecent or grossly offensive with an intent to cause distress or anxiety, incitement, incitement to racial hatred, incitement to religious hatred, incitement to terrorism including encouragement of terrorism and dissemination of terrorist publications; and more. And so, there is a more clearly defined and long list of speech that is probematised in the UK, than there is comprehensive law that protects the freedom to speak freely.

This is a problem for two reasons: first, free speech is an inalienable right, which not only means that it is absolute and not in the purview of any government to limit or take away, but also means that it should be well protected in legislation. Secondly, this attitude of focusing more on speech that the government problematises ignores crucial historical context, which is that atrocities were often committed by governments who undermined or took away essential freedoms like the freedom to speak freely, and not people who had too much freedom. Therefore, the jurisprudence of any nation with an accurate understanding of history should highlight free speech as a protectionist right, that serves to prevent against government abuses of power and citizens. But, here’s more on the UK not having a written constitution, and not having explicit legal protections for free speech.

What Austen Morgan is essentially advocating for is that the UK considers becoming a constitutional republic; and for clarity, a nation is considered a constitutional republic if: (1) It has a constitution that limits the government’s power; and (2) the citizens choose their own heads of state and other governmental officials. If you’ve followed one of our programmes here on LN24 International, called ‘Starting Point’, you’d recall a discussion we had on Constitutional Republicanism, even going on to distinguish it from democracy. And the essence is that constitutional republicanism, establishes a law of the land in the constitution that is meant to establish the rights of citizens and the powers of the government, in a manner aimed at preventing against abuses of power from government branches, and also preventing against the tyranny of the majority – which is what democracy tends to produce.

And Austen Morgan is certainly right – what an explicitly written constitution would accomplish is giving Britons constitutionally enshrined rights (which would encourage more protections of those rights, when people know their scope), while also providing a means of curbing the wrong interpretations of activist judges, whose own interpretations of the law become part of the problem. But, here is more on the difference between a democracy and a constitutional republic, in the context of the US, which is where this discussion has been prevalent.

NON-CRIME HATE INCIDENTS AND THE CASE OF ALISON PEARSON

Let’s proceed to discuss non crime hate incidents (as flag earlier), along with the case of Alison Pearson, who had the police knocking on her door this Remembrance Sunday. They had come to warn her they were investigating a tweet she had posted a whole year ago which someone had complained about. They were investigating whether it constituted a Non-Crime Hate Incident or NCHI. And yes, police are sanctioned to respond to a ‘non-crime’ hate incident, which is nothing short of intimidation and coercion towards silence; because if it is decidedly not a crime, despite potentially being hateful, then why are POLICE addressing it?

Secondly, even the definition of hateful speech is incredibly subjective and highly influenced by context. For instance, the “N” word is generally regarded as a hateful and derogatory term, however, some African Americans claim to have appropriated it and use it among themselves in a lighter meaning that is meant to invoke some comradery. However, there are also those who would argue that appropriation of a derogatory word does not erase its original meaning, and that, therefore, its use by those it was meant to oppress only serves as a continuation of its racist or colonial intention, except that those it was meant to oppress choose to think it does not carry the derogatory meaning. And I tend to agree with this latter view, because words carry definite meaning; and just because you appropriate the word to mean something else, does not change its intended meaning. I make the same argument about words like “man” or “woman”, with respect to the trans agenda.

But, I say all of this to say that despite my perceptions of the use of the “N” word, some people do not deem it hateful, and others do. Similarly, years ago, it was not potentially hateful to call a biological man a man, but today it’s a non-crime hate offence in the UK and other countries. And this is where it becomes obvious that the UK has become a police state: the government allows itself to define what is hateful, and further allows itself to allocate offence to certain speech – enough to then unleash police on citizens who say what the government does not want them to say – this is nothing short of autocracy!

ALISON PEARSON’S CASE AND THE PROBLEMS WITH ‘NON-CRIME HATE INCIDENTS’

What is worse is that this means that, in the UK, you can get a police record for something you posted on X that someone else didn’t like – when you haven’t even committed a crime! NCHIs are essentially a way they have of getting around the law in the same way John Kerry would like to get around the First Amendment, except it’s already being done in the UK!

But, Alison Pearson’s case further exposes the Problems with the Non-Crime Hate Incidents, and we ought to look at her case further. For some context, Alison Pearson is a reporter for the Daily Telegraph, but that certainly does not mean she can write what she likes – especially as a reporter, who should have journalistic integrity and credibility – and so she tried to ascertain what the problem tweet was. But, when she asked the police what the tweet that led to them investigating her was, she was told they couldn’t tell her that. When she asked who the complainant was, they said they couldn’t tell her that either. They added that she shouldn’t call them a complainant, they were officially the victim (which is just wild: it is the equivalent of saying an accused is guilty before a trial). BUT.. that’s what due process is like when you don’t have a First Amendment or a constitution! Victims of NCHI in the UK are decided without a trial or a defence.

Now, of course, there has been a public ruckus over this particular case, but the police are unapologetic and have doubled down. Stung into action by unwanted publicity, they are now saying they have raised the matter from an NCHI to an actual crime investigation. Which means they think she can be arrested and put in prison for expressing her opinion on X. And of course they are right. In the UK that’s where we are right now. Pearson tried to point out the irony of two police officers turning up on her door to complain about her free speech on Remembrance Day of all days, when we recall the thousands who died to keep this a free country, but irony is lost on those who have no memory of what totalitarianism means.

EVEN MORE CONCERNING is that these police are sanctioned or enabled by a government that should be protecting its people! However, instead, in a woke culture with explicitly (and sometimes perpetually) defined victims, governments will tip toe around people committing crimes, in the name of not offending the political minority – especially considering that a lot of these developments in the UK are tied to the Southport case, which involves an immigrant teenager accused of killing three girls and attempting to murder 10 others in a knife attack at a dance class.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

Speaking to reporters, Leavitt referred to Maduro as a “dictator” and confirmed that the Venezuelan leader has been indicted a reference to U.S. federal charges filed in 2020 that accused him of drug trafficking and narco-terrorism. “President Trump is prepared to use every element of national power to stop Maduro and support the Venezuelan people,” Leavitt stated.

Her comments follow Venezuela’s UN ambassador publicly rejecting the drug trafficking allegations, calling them “baseless” and “politically motivated.” The diplomatic clash comes amid growing international pressure on Caracas over human rights abuses, suppression of political dissent, and economic collapse.

Background:

Nicolás Maduro has ruled Venezuela since 2013 following the death of Hugo Chávez. His presidency has been marked by widespread accusations of electoral fraud, economic mismanagement, and the violent repression of opposition figures. In 2018, Maduro claimed victory in an election widely condemned by international observers as neither free nor fair.

In response, over 50 countries including the United States and several EU nations recognized opposition leader Juan Guaidó as interim president in 2019. However, Guaidó’s political momentum has since stalled, and Maduro has maintained control of the military and state institutions.

In 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice indicted Maduro and several members of his inner circle on charges of narco terrorism and conspiracy to smuggle cocaine into the United States. While enforcement of these indictments has been largely symbolic, they have strained diplomatic relations further.

Current Developments:

Leavitt’s remarks suggest a sharp escalation in tone and policy, potentially opening the door for expanded sanctions, regional coordination, or covert support to opposition groups.

The comments come at a sensitive time, as Venezuela prepares for parliamentary elections in December, which international observers warn could be manipulated to further entrench Maduro’s power.

The Venezuelan government, in response to Leavitt’s remarks, issued a statement through its UN envoy rejecting U.S. interference and accusing Washington of attempting to destabilize the country under the guise of democracy.

What’s Next:

Analysts believe the Trump administration may soon propose new sanctions or coordinate with Latin American allies to diplomatically isolate Maduro. U.S. intelligence agencies are also reportedly monitoring military and political developments within Venezuela closely.

With tensions rising and the humanitarian crisis worsening, Venezuela remains a geopolitical flashpoint in the Western Hemisphere.

Well, this redefinition of irreversible coma by the Harvard Committee as a new standard for the determination of death represented a major paradigm shift since, according to medical dictionaries and encyclopedias prior to the Harvard Committee report in 1968: the medical definitions of death revolved around one central theme: and this was the cessation of ALL vital functions of the human body. In formulating the criteria for determining death, these traditional medical definitions did not isolate the function of any one organ; rather, they emphasise the total stoppage of all vital bodily functions, as evidenced by the absence of heartbeat and respiration, beyond the possibility of resuscitation. These classical medical definitions of death thus gave no special significance to the vital function of the brain; RATHER, they placed the definition of death on an integrated basis, stressing the idea of total stoppage of bodily functions.

In other words, that the traditional medical definition of death was not centered on any organ (or organ system) necessarily indicates that it was drawn from a holistic vision of human beings in which no organ, however “noble” an organ it might be, holds supreme control over other organs or organ systems. Therefore, in proposing a primary focus on the brain when in determining death, this approach introduced a paradigm shift where the Harvard report then set forth a new 5-fold diagnostic criteria of brain death, which was articulated as: (1) first “unreceptivity and unresponsivity, that is, complete unresponsiveness even to the most painful stimuli”; (2) second is “no spontaneous breathing as documented by the apnea test”; (3) third is “no spontaneous muscular movements”; (4) fourth is “no reflex, meaning that not only are brainstem reflexes absent, but also “as a rule the stretch tendon reflexes cannot be elicited”; and finally (5) is a flat ence-phalogram (or EEG).

Then, following the Harvard Committee’ report, their criteria of brain death were endorsed by the President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research in 1981. The Commission advanced a philosophical justification for brain death by adopting Bernat’s thesis of the brain as the supreme master and central integrator of the body and promulgated the Uniform Determination of Death Act which states that (quote): “An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, is dead.” Here’s more regarding the historical context behind the concept of brain death.

Now, here’s an interesting piece of historical context: this report by the Harvard Ad Hoc committee obviously had a big impact in the introduction of brain death. BUT… there was a reason this Harvard Committee embarked on this project of redefining death from the heart and lung-centric view; and it all began with a highly illegal heart transplant that took place in Brooklyn, New York – which was the second ever to take place after the first by Dr Christiaan Barnard in South Africa, in 1967. So, with the illegal second transplant in New York, it was between 2 infants, which resulted in both of them dying. That action was highly illegal, and so to make it legal, the Harvard ad hoc committee was then set up to formulate a legal basis for moving the focus away from the heart to the brain. And these findings from the Harvard Committee that we have just discussed, were not even based on scientific studies.

THE BRAIN DEATH DEFINITION EVOLVED, BUT IT STILL OVERLOOK IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS

Following the promulgation of the Uniform Determination of Death Act, there followed an evolution of the criteria of brain death, and this took place parallel to the rise in critiques offered to the definition. For instance, subsequent to the 1981 publication of the President’s Commission report, it came to light that many patients, who met all the clinical test criteria of brain death, still demonstrated persistent brain functions or even spontaneous movements and elicitable reflexes.

As mentioned earlier, given that brain death was said to define death, there should be complete unresponsivity, that is, complete silence of the whole central nervous system, such that there should be no reflex of any sort and no spontaneous movements. However, there have been reports of reflex-reactions in brain-dead organ donors who, in response to surgical incision and sternotomy at the time of surgery for organ removal, manifested “dramatic increases in blood pressure and heart rate”, “sweating and lacrimation” as well as contraction of abdominal muscles upon incision of the parietal peritoneum, such that neuromuscular blocking agents or anesthesia had to be administered.

In addition, there have been many reports of a wide range of stretch tendon reflexes and spontaneous movements including twitching of facial muscles, periodic leg movements similar to those occurring during sleep, respiratory-like movements, plantar withdrawal reflex, triple flexion reflex (in which tactile or noxious plantar stimuli trigger the flexion of the thigh, leg, and foot), among others. Most dramatic is what is called the classic Lazarus sign, which is “a complex sequence of movements characterized by bilateral arm flexion, shoulder adduction, and hand raising to the chest or neck”, which can be spontaneous or triggered by noxious stimuli such as the removal of the ventilator during apnea testing. According to the published literature, reflexes and spontaneous movements “are present in approximately 80% of patients up to 200 hours from brain death diagnosis”.

In light of this, brain death proponents have repeatedly asserted that the myriad of reflexes (both autonomic and motor) and spontaneous movements in said-to-be brain-dead patients are of spinal cord origin. As such, they are deemed insignificant; and can be accepted without invalidating the brain death diagnosis and, therefore, justifying organ procurement for transplantation. Hand-in-hand with this assertion is the claim that the integrative functions of the spinal cord are not critical! Such arguments raise difficulty, however, especially since the patho-physiological basis to account for movements in brain death has remained speculative, and there has been “no definitive empirical evidence to prove that the spinal cord is the sole source of sensori-motor reflexes and complex movements in ‘brain death’. Moreover, not a few of these alleged spinal reflex movements “are very similar to some stereotyped movements mediated by the brain stem,” which implies that some areas of the brain stem may actually still be viable and functioning.

BUT, even if reflexes and spontaneous movements in brain death were to be entirely from the spinal cord, the question still remains: on which basis can it be claimed that the integrative function of the spinal cord is noncritical? And this is considering that anatomically, the spinal cord is an integral part of the central nervous system, in full continuity with the brain as there are neural tracts running in both directions. Therefore, if no dividing line exists (whether macro or microscopically) then why do the reflexes above the foramen magnum (or brainstem reflexes) qualify as critical and clinical functions, while those below it (being the spinal reflexes) are dismissed as irrelevant? And, evidently, it is rather difficult to assert that “brain stem reflexes are more integrative of bodily functions,” when several of the spinal reflexes involve movements that are more complex than those of brainstem reflexes.

Nevertheless, the definition of brain death evolved since the mid-20th century, and this was driven by two things. First was technological advances in critical care and second was also the need for organ transplantation, thus moving from a cardiopulmonary-centric view of death (which is one that focuses on the heart and lungs) to one based on the irreversible cessation of the entire brain’s function, as first formally proposed in the 1968 Harvard criteria and later codified in the US Uniform Determination of Death Act in 1981. This evolving standard was premised on the idea that the brain, not just the heart and lungs, was vital for life and that its total and irreversible loss constituted death, allowing for a legal basis to declare death even when artificial support systems maintained cardiopulmonary function.

But, here’s more from Dr Paul Byrne concerning the manipulation of the understanding of body flexes, consciousness and pain in the brain death definition. In particular, he makes a very interesting point on how consciousness is subjectively understood in the world of medicine and so just because a person lacks observable consciousness does not mean that they are dead. And regarding pain, he adds that lacking the ability to experience pain is also not indicative of death, especially since those whom organs are harvested from are also given paralysing agents.

UNPACKING DR PAUL BYRNE’S REMARKS ON CONSCIOUSNESS AND PAIN 

Here’s why I think Dr Paul Byrne’s notes on consciousness and pain are crucial, and even complement certain things we’ve observed and learned in the status quo. First, I think there is credence to the fact that consciousness is not something that can be objectively observed with physical instruments or senses; and I say this because scientists and medical practitioners generally struggle with separating the brain from the mind in discussions on consciousness. For example, the American Heritage Stedman’s Medical dictionary gives a definition of the brain that includes the statement that (quote) “the brain is also the seat of consciousness, thought, memory, and emotion.”

However, if you read the book ‘The Power of Your Mind’ by Rev Dr Chris Oyakhilome DSc. DSc. DD., in the second chapter, titled, “Understanding the Human Mind”, he gives a crucial explanation. He states that the seat of consciousness, thought, and emotion cannot reside in the brain. In addition, even memory cannot be said to reside in the brain because true memory goes beyond recording information  to processing it; and such processing of information – usually for interpretation, meaning, language, and expression – is not in the power of the brain but the power of the mind. Not only this, but Rev Dr Chris Oyakhilome DSc. DSc. DD. emphasises that the brain is neither the mind nor the soul; and is rather a physical organ of the body, while the soul and mind are intangible. THEREFORE, this means that doctors cannot use the physical brain or physical instruments that measure the brain’s activity to measure an intangible mind and the intangible functions of the mind. Hence, I agree that doctors (at best) have been measuring consciousness subjectively, or at worst INCORRECTLY, especially if their measurements are based on brain activity.

Which then brings us to the second point raised by Dr Paul Byrne concerning pain. Once again, regarding this, he states that lacking the ability to experience pain is also not indicative of death, especially since those whom organs are harvested from are also given paralysing agents. Well, here’s what we’ve learned about paralysing agents. These agents are used in euthanasia and death row cases, and have actually been found to amount to a practice of prolonged torture!

This is to say that most people actually have no idea how agonising these lethal injection or drug-induced deaths are because (once again) the victim is paralysed. And yet research has proven, however, that DESPITE BEING PARALYSED, the person who has been given the lethal injection or drug concoction suffers great pain, all while being aware of everything that’s happening – so much so that death by lethal injection is deemed highly tortuous and violating of the most basic human rights of an individual.

THE UNDERLYING REASON BEHIND THE USE OF A PARALYTIC IN ORGAN HARVESTING

So, I think that what we’ve come to learn about euthanasia and the death penalty and the drugs administered especially as a paralytic is that people are experiencing pain, they are just paralysed and cannot show it. Therefore, just because we cannot see the pain does not mean it is not being experienced by a person who is categorically and biologically alive – all it proves is that the paralytic substance is effective. And we’ve come to learn this in painful cases, such as a death row case in Arkansas, which was also influenced by a death row case in Oklahoma. In essence, in the state of Arkansas in the US, the lethal injection comprises three chemicals: midazolam, to sedate; vecuro-nium bromide, to paralyse the muscles; and potassium chloride, to stop the heart.

Each of these is delivered at a dose that could theoretically kill the inmate; however, each drug has drawbacks. A cocktail of all three is apparently used to mitigate the other drugs’ disadvantages. At the time of execution, the inmate is strapped to a gurney, and IV tubes are inserted into both arms. Notable is that the Arkansas procedure uses two IV sites. This is allegedly partly to protect against ‘vein failure’. Vein failure was cited as the reason behind the ‘botched’ execution of Clayton Lockett in Oklahoma in 2014, which reportedly took 43 minutes as Lockett ‘thrashed on the gurney, writhing and groaning in pain’. And so, that case enabled the world to see the physical manifestation of pain that otherwise would have not been visible if the paralytic substance had worked. And so, once again, this gives credence to what Dr Paul Byrne said – which is that just because we do not see pain does not mean it is not being experienced – especially where a paralytic has been administered to a patient.

But, even the administering of a paralytic comes with a concerning concession. In essence, the need for a paralytic is because the person keeps moving, meaning that their spinal reflexes are functioning (which should show life since the spine is connected to the brain and central nervous system)! And so, administering a paralytic is how hospitals bypass having to deal with the reality that the person they are about to cut into is actually alive. In fact, one of the most notable cases concerning this pertained to nurses having reported organ donors squirming or grimacing when the first incision was made. In addition, the US Department of Health and Human Services reported that hospitals have been allowed to begin the organ procurement process while the so-called organ donors were still showing signs of life! And so, that is why they need to administer a paralytic – it is because the person they are trying to take organs from is alive.

THE HHS EXPOSES CONCERNS IN AMERICA’S ORGAN PROCUREMENT SYSTEM

Here are the additional details on what was uncovered by the US Department of HHS. So, the Department’s investigation has exposed systemic, life-threatening failures in America’s organ procurement system in general (beyond hospitals themselves), and this includes cases where patients were NOT even dead when doctors began harvesting their organs, like we;ve just heard.

Well, in addition, the Department of HHS’s independent review found 29% of 351 cases had “concerning features,” including 73 patients with neurological activity and at least 28 who may have still been alive when organ procurement began. And the cause of all of this is shoddy death certifications, pressure to secure organs, and misclassification of overdose cases as “brain death.”

Meanwhile, all of this had been covered up for a long time because the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, which is the self-regulating body overseeing transplants, ignored red flags and dismissed concerns as “misinformation.” And when the Department of HHS ordered an investigation, an industry trade group (being the Association of Organ Procurement Organisations) publicly attacked the probe as a “conspiracy campaign” – which tells you where their priorities lie, considering the findings of the investigation.

Now, we alluded to the fact that the definition of brain death evolved in the mid-20th century due to technological advances in critical care and the need for organ transplantation – and we actually ought to look further into this intersection between brain death and organ donation and transplantation. So, organ donation and transplantation is a weirdly propagandised phenomenon. How it is spoken about in mainstream platforms is often with respect to its alleged inherent plausibility. You often hear or read the same old report that seeks to emphasise how the selfless deed of one person saved many more others – it is a very consequentialist “one life for many argument”, which is meant to emphasise some sort of utilitarian appreciation for organ donation.

But, beneath the propaganda lies a very dark fact, which is that organ donation or procurement relies on the donor’s organs being viable, which means they must still be oxygenated and functioning at the time of removal. Therefore, this requires the donor to be biologically alive—despite being labeled “brain dead.” And so, organ donation seems less like a self-less consequentialist deed, but a trojan horse that introduces an incentive to kill people who are otherwise alive. As a result, the term “brain death” is highly controversial, as it literally allows organ removal from patients whose hearts are still beating. In effect, the act of organ removal becomes the cause of true biological death, because the person would otherwise be alive if their organs were left intact. And so, in light of this controversy, many are calling organ harvesting a ritual: a ceremonial determination of death preceding a sacrificial extraction, all under the guise of medical necessity.

HOW BRIAN DEATH INFLUENCED THE COMMODIFICATION OF ORGANS

So, let’s also follow the money. In essence, given how limited viable donor organs are, transplants rapidly became an incredibly valuable commodity (e.g., the cost of a transplant ranges from over $400,000 to just under $2 million, depending on the organ—and with the heart being the most expensive). As such, given how desperate many are for the organs, and how much money is at stake, it seems reasonable to deduce that some degree of illegal organ harvesting would occur given that people are routinely killed in other contexts for profit (for example, in overseas wars, or with a pharmaceutical company pushing a lucrative drug they know can kill). And unfortunately, this is the case – which is to say that the brain death phenomenon, coupled with a need for viable organs, has fueled a commodification of organs that has in turn created human rights abuses – and all for money.

For instance, individuals being tricked into selling a kidney. For example, in 2011, a viral story discussed a Chinese teenager who did so for an iPhone 4 – which is approximately 0.0125% of the black market rate for a kidney, after which he became septic and his other kidney failed leaving him permanently bedridden

Similarly, a 2009 and 2024 Newsweek investigation and a 2025 paper highlighted the extensive illegal organ trade, estimating that 5% of global organ transplants involve black market purchases (totaling $600 million to $1.7 billion annually), with kidneys comprising 75% of these due to high demand for kidney failure treatments. As such, approximately 10-20% of kidney transplants from living donors are illegal, with British buyers paying $50,000–$60,000, while desperate impoverished donors (e.g., from refugee camps or countries like Pakistan, India, China and Africa), receive minimal payment and are abandoned when medical complications arise, despite promises of care.

So, these are clearly all concerning cases that show the propensity for abuse that is built on the foundation of the brain death definition. But, here is what I think this subject also exposes, and what I hope many to be increasingly curious about. The subject of brain death is demonstrating that humans are first and foremost spiritual beings, and that the spiritual transcends the physical – because now, when having discussions about consciousness and life vs death, many are realising that the brain is neither the mind nor the soul; and is rather a physical organ while the mind and soul are intangible, thus bringing them closer to the revelation that life is (in fact spiritual) and that man is ultimately created in God’s image and likeness, God who is Himself Spirit. And the following excerpt, I believe, exemplifies this progression in discourse around the world.

Written by Lindokuhle Mabaso

The televised statement, released late Monday, comes amid heightened regional tensions and growing unrest inside Iran. Netanyahu expressed solidarity with ordinary Iranians, drawing a sharp distinction between Iran’s authoritarian rulers and its citizens.

“Your struggle is not with the people of Israel. Your fight is with a regime that denies you freedom and prosperity,” Netanyahu said.

He praised the courage of Iranians who continue to speak out despite harsh crackdowns, encouraging them to “take risks for freedom” and reaffirming that Israel seeks peace not with oppressive governments, but with people who long for change.

Netanyahu also addressed Iran’s water crisis, saying Israel would be ready to provide assistance once there is a regime change.

“When Iran is free, we will help you solve your water crisis. We will stand with you,” he promised.

While such direct outreach to Iranians from an Israeli leader is rare, it reflects growing pressure on both governments amid ongoing covert conflicts, cyber skirmishes, and international debates over Iran’s nuclear program and human rights record.

Conclusion:

Netanyahu’s message appears aimed not just at Iranian citizens but at the international community, reinforcing Israel’s stance that its quarrel is with Iran’s regime, not its people and that a different future is possible for the region if that regime falls.