COMMENTARY: By Caitlin Johnstone

The Trump administration has announced a renewed crusade against “far-left terrorism,” which sounds okay if you don’t know that the word “terrorism” only ever means “behavior which goes against the agendas of the Western empire.”

The United States has for example placed sanctions on UN special rapporteur Francesca Albanese for calling attention to Israeli atrocities in Gaza, justifying the move by claiming the human rights expert has “expressed support for terrorism”.

In the UK, police have been arresting people on terrorism charges just for holding signs which say “I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action”.

• LISTEN: A reading by Tim Foley
• READ MORE: US wants to globalise fight against far-left terrorism
• US urges global crackdown on ‘far-left terrorism’ – NZ says focus on behaviour rather than labels

The designation has nothing to do with actual acts of terrorism as the average Westerner conceives of that notion. In 2024, the US government removed its $10 million bounty on former Al Qaeda leader Ahmed al-Sharaa (AKA Abu Mohammad al-Jolani) because he facilitated Washington’s regime change agendas in Syria, where he is now the sitting president.

You can literally be a leader in the most notorious terrorist network on earth and still see that designation disappear into thin air as soon as you start assisting the geostrategic ambitions of the empire.

The US has signalled that it will refocus its so-called counterterrorism efforts on repressing leftwing groups.

In a speech to officials from more than 60 countries on Thursday, secretary of state Marco Rubio said “far-left terror” had been overlooked for too long.

It comes as… pic.twitter.com/hXQ5PZRfX7

— Novara Media (@novaramedia) July 17, 2026

The White House announced on Thursday that it has launched “an unprecedented global offensive against the transnational threat of Radical Left terrorism,” under which “far-left extremism will be treated with the same seriousness and ferocity the world has long reserved for jihadist terrorism.”

Journalist Ken Klippenstein reports that according to leaked documents from Marco Rubio’s State Department, groups to be targeted under the new marching orders will include “violent far-left and anarchist networks and other violent extremist actors,” as well as “violent pro-Iranian and antisemitic networks” and “militant anti-tech and eco-terrorist movements.”

Authoritarian implications
The move is premised on a White House memo known as NSPM-7, a directive that critics have been warning about for months due to its dangerously authoritarian implications and lack of congressional approval. In the words of Trump advisor Stephen Miller, NSPM-7 “directs, for the first time in American history, all of our law enforcement and intelligence agencies to work together to disrupt, identify, defund, debank, arrest, and prosecute these political terrorists that are operating in our country.”

This line strongly echoes the language of a 1967 FBI memo describing the goals of the J Edgar Hoover program COINTELPRO to “expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralise the activities of black nationalist hate-type organizations and groupings.”

Secretary Rubio hosted the Ministerial on the Resurgence of Political Terrorism – under President Trump’s leadership this @FBI has been proud to support this important work through National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM) 7, focusing federal law enforcement to investigate… pic.twitter.com/AIn0aX29Hl

— FBI Director Kash Patel (@FBIDirectorKash) July 16, 2026

Between 1956 and 1971, the FBI conducted covert operations under COINTELPRO to infiltrate and subvert Black civil rights groups, the Communist Party USA, Vietnam War protester organizations, and feminist groups with the goal of stomping out all meaningful leftward political movement in the United States.

The feds never fully stopped running such programmes of course – groups like Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter were known to have been targeted by police surveillance and infiltration. But it’s clear the rightists in the White House are aiming for something far more aggressive, and FBI Director Kash Patel sounds super stoked about the chance to become a 21st century J Edgar Hoover.

“Secretary Rubio hosted the Ministerial on the Resurgence of Political Terrorism – under President Trump’s leadership this FBI has been proud to support this important work through National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM) 7, focusing federal law enforcement to investigate and disrupt organizations engaging in political violence and terrorism,” Patel said on Twitter regarding the latest escalation.

So it seems the United States is looking at a reinvigorated COINTELPRO for the 2020s, this time with police drones and AI-assisted mass surveillance. As Americans become more and more hostile toward US warmongering, more and more fed up with the state of Israel, more and more convinced that their government doesn’t care about them, and more and more discontented with what unbridled capitalism is doing to their bank accounts, their society, and their world, their rulers are responding with the iron fist of tyranny.

Measures will remain
And what makes all this especially threatening is that you know whatever measures they roll out while the Republicans are running things will remain in place when the Democrats are in power, because as we have discussed here many times before, it is the Democratic Party’s job to prevent leftward movement in the United States.

This will be one of those many, many times the Republicans did something evil and the Democrats just quietly kept it running in the background to protect the interests of the capitalist empire. Because that is their job.

But the fact that this is happening in the first place should inspire hope, not despair. The empire managers aren’t ramping up authoritarianism because it’s easy and fun; they’re doing it because they need to.

They know they’re losing their grip, and they know that they are vastly outnumbered by the ordinary human beings who just want a better world for their children.

They are afraid. And they are afraid because they are losing.

Caitlin Johnstone is an Australian independent journalist and poet. Her articles include The UN Torture Report On Assange Is An Indictment Of Our Entire Society. She publishes a website and Caitlin’s Newsletter. This article is republished with permission.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/07/18/caitlin-johnstone-theyre-launching-a-new-cointelpro-for-the-21st-century/

For the second time in a year, there have been public protests in Ukraine in response to a decision by the country’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky.

In July 2025, protests erupted when Zelensky tried to curb the powers of two independent corruption agencies, forcing him to backtrack. The trigger for the latest protests was the dismissal of Ukraine’s popular defence minister, Mykhailo Fedorov.

This is not the first time Zelensky has reshuffled his defence team. Oleksii Reznikov, who had been defence minister since 2021, was dismissed in 2023 following a string of high-profile corruption scandals.

He was replaced by Rustem Umerov who, after two years in office, was moved to the role of secretary of Ukraine’s National Security and Defence Council, as part of a full-scale cabinet reshuffle.

Umerov’s replacement, former prime minister Denys Shmyhal, lasted almost exactly six months before another reshuffle linked to the long fallout from the corruption scandals of summer 2025. Shmyhal was moved to the energy ministry and replaced by Fedorov.

What distinguishes Fedorov’s ousting is that this is the first time a reshuffle has been carried out for reasons of internal disagreement within Zelensky’s core team.

In a press conference on July 16, Fedorov accused the commander-in-chief of Ukraine’s armed forces, Oleksandr Syrskyi, of blocking his reform initiatives and dividing the country. Their rift had become increasingly public. Fedorov and Syrskyi had apparently each demanded that the other be dismissed, rather than finding the compromise Zelensky wanted.

That the president sided with the commander-in-chief rather than his defence minister seemingly defies all logic. Fedorov had been an advocate of drone warfare during his earlier tenure as Ukraine’s minister for digital transformation, a role he assumed at the beginning of Zelensky’s tenure as president in 2019.

Since Fedorov was appointed minister of defence in January, Ukraine has made significant progress in stalling Russia’s momentum in the war. Key to this has been an intensified campaign of strikes against Russian oil infrastructure – one of the backbones of the country’s war economy.

Fedorov also moved to reform procurement policies in the defence ministry. In June, he stated that his team’s efforts to enforce competitive tendering for defence contracts had saved more than US$100 million (£74 million) by cutting the costs of 155mm artillery shells.

This is one probable source of Fedorov’s conflict with Syrskyi, who decides which weapons systems and military equipment should be procured. More than an issue of corruption, the rift is about control – and a clash of cultures between the moderniser, Fedorov, and the more traditional military leadership around Syrskyi.

After his dismissal, Fedorov apparently refused to continue in an advisory role for Zelensky. Two key advisors in the defence ministry, Serhii “Flash” Beskrestnov and Serhii Sternenko, as well as the deputy commander of the air force, Pavlo Yelizarov, have all now resigned.

These developments further underline the internal strategic disagreements over the direction of Ukraine’s war effort.

Fedorov’s replacement

Zelensky’s initial choice for his next defence minister was Ihor Klymenko, who apparently declined the role and is set to take up the post of secretary of Ukraine’s National Security and Defence Council instead.

As a former national police chief who had been Ukraine’s interior minister since 2023, Klymenko was seen as someone who could resolve Ukraine’s continued recruitment crisis. This is arguably the area in which Fedorov failed to make sufficient progress.

In light of sustained rumours about a new mobilisation of Russian troops for the war in the autumn, it is clear that Ukraine’s manpower problem is becoming more acute and needs an urgent resolution.

According to Fedorov’s diagnosis of the scale of the problem, 2 million Ukrainians are currently wanted for draft evasion, and 200,000 soldiers are absent without official leave.

Less clear, however, is why Klymenko was touted for the role. As interior minister, he was at least part of the problem caused by so-called “busification” – the forcible seizure of military-age Ukrainian men by recruitment officials. Klymenko has consistently maintained that these officials have acted within the boundaries of martial law.

Klymenko’s refusal to accept the position may also have been an implicit acknowledgement of how difficult a job any reform of recruitment would be. This is particularly the case given Zelensky’s highly public commitment to eradicating busification, during his press conference with the outgoing British prime minister, Keir Starmer, in Kyiv on July 16.

Yevhenii Khmara, a major general and acting head of the Ukrainian intelligence service SBU, has now been appointed as acting defence minister. Given Kharma’s previous role in supporting Ukraine’s intensifying air campaign against Russia, his appointment placates critics of the Fedorov dismissal. These include members of Zelensky’s own party, who saw Klymenko as insufficiently aligned with Fedorov’s strategy in the war.

But a realignment with Fedorov’s vision of how to win the war will do little to address either the recruitment issue or the underlying conflict with Syrskyi. That this will likely fester could be particularly destabilising, because the timeline towards Kharma’s parliamentary confirmation is unclear.

Under Ukrainian law, Kharma first has to resign from active military service before he can take on the civilian role of defence minister. He then has to be formally nominated by the president, after which the Ukrainian parliament must approve his appointment.

Like the summer 2025 corruption crisis, Zelensky will probably weather this storm. But the price he is likely to pay is a further erosion of his authority – and a shrinking of his inner circle of trusted advisors.

This is an unnecessary and unwelcome distraction from a defence effort that had finally seemed to put Ukraine on the front foot, for the first time since the end of 2022.

Stefan Wolff is a past recipient of grant funding from the Natural Environment Research Council of the UK, the United States Institute of Peace, the Economic and Social Research Council of the UK, the British Academy, the Nato Science for Peace Programme, the EU Framework Programmes 6 and 7 and Horizon 2020, as well as the EU’s Jean Monnet Programme. He is a Trustee and Honorary Treasurer of the Political Studies Association of the UK and a Senior Research Fellow at the Foreign Policy Centre in London.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/07/17/ukraines-defence-shake-up-exposes-rift-in-zelenskys-inner-circle/

A new law created in the wake of the Hillsborough disaster, which aims to prevent state cover-ups, has finally passed through the UK’s House of Commons.

The Hillsborough Law has been championed by the campaign for truth and justice which emerged from the tragedy that unfolded on April 15 1989, during an FA cup semi-final between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest at Hillsborough stadium in Sheffield. A crowd crush resulted in the deaths of 95 people. Another person died in March 1993 as a result of injuries sustained that day, with a similar final death in July 2021.

A subsequent public inquiry and an inquest found that in the aftermath of the disaster, South Yorkshire Police deliberately engaged in a strategy of denial and obfuscation – blaming fans for the tragedy.

South Yorkshire Police released statements suggesting intoxicated, ticketless Liverpool fans had caused the crush. The force also altered witness statements to remove negative comments about police conduct during the investigation. These baseless accusations were promoted in parts of the British media as fact.

As a result of campaigning by families of Hillsborough victims, a number of state-mandated investigations were held into the disaster. Initial inquests and a public inquiry did little to reveal the truth.

But in 2009, the Bishop of Liverpool James Jones was appointed to chair the Hillsborough Independent Panel (HIP), which finally put survivors and families first and ensured the questions they wanted to have answered fundamentally drove the panel’s work.

The HIP was made possible only as a result of tireless campaigning in the face of years of denial and disappointment. It definitively dispelled the myth of fan culpability, revealing the true causes of the Hillsborough disaster to be a combination of longstanding safety issues and unprecedented police mismanagement of the crowd as well as the subsequent establishment cover-up.

A positive legacy

Campaigners’ struggles raised questions about how those in positions of power were able to shift blame in the wake of disasters. These questions only became more salient in the aftermath of the panel’s report. Campaigners were also vindicated in 2016, when new inquests finally ruled that the fans who died as Hillsborough had been unlawfully killed. Yet this too raised profound questions about how this truth could have been surpressed for so long.

Further scandals, including the Post Office Horizon IT scandal and the Grenfell Tower fire, each pointed to the need for greater accountability and candour from people in positions of power. In seeking to build a positive legacy out of trauma, the Hillsborough community has led the fight for this through what has been dubbed the “Hillsborough Law”, which passed unanimously through the House of Commons on July 14.

The original Hillsborough Law (the Public Office Accountability Bill), was introduced before Parliament in 2017 by Andy Burnham. He had developed a close link with the Hillsborough campaign for justice, having raised their cause in Parliament in 2009 after he was heckled at a 2009 anniversary event held at Anfield whilst serving as culture secretary.

It had been drafted by lawyers who had worked with Hillsborough victims’ families, and it made two key demands. First, that those in public life must tell the truth during police investigations (an “active duty of candour”) into disasters like Hillsborough. Second, that communities directly affected by disasters have access to funds to cover their legal representation, addressing their financial imbalance.

However, the 2017 general election interrupted the bill’s passage through parliament. Burnham subsequently left Westminster to become the mayor of Greater Manchester, and the legislation was not reintroduced.

In the wake of further cover-ups including Grenfell and Post Office Horizon, in 2022 the Hillsborough Law Now campaign launched. It involved a number of community campaigns such as Grenfell United and allies including Burnham and Liverpool MP Ian Byrne.

During his speech to the Labour party conference in 2024, Prime Minister Keir Starmer confirmed that Labour would pass the Hillsborough Law.

However, Labour missed its self-imposed deadline for introducing the bill before the 36th anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster, citing the need for more time “to draft the best version” of the bill.

Campaigners were concerned that Labour might be watering down the Hillsborough Law, amid pressure to exempt security services from the duty of candour on the basis that requiring them to do so could compromise national security, and rumours that Labour was considering ditching the proposal for funding of legal representation to avoid footing hefty legal costs.

In the face of this, the Hillsborough Law Now campaign quickly mobilised, lobbying the prime minister directly and campaigning publicly for the law to be enacted in full.

Following negotiations between the prime minister and families of the victims of the Manchester Arena bombing who argued that their fight for truth and justice was harder because of failures in security service candour, this will now happen – with no exceptions.

The political legacy of the Hillsborough Law

For Starmer, ensuring the Hillsborough Law passed through the Commons was one of his last acts as prime minister. Having personally promised some of the relatives that he would ensure the law was enacted, he now seeks to frame it as a key part of his own legacy.

Starmer’s successor, Burnham, was a key early proponent of the Hillsborough Law. Burnham has linked the bill to broader questions. Burnham asked: – “What kind of country we want to be? One where power is concentrated in distant institutions, or one where it is shared more fairly with the people and places those institutions are meant to serve.”

The Hillsborough Law will not be a magic bullet for ensuring truth and accountability in the wake of major disasters. But it might be a step towards shifting the balance between powerful figures and the communities affected by disaster and cover-ups.

Nathan Critch does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/07/17/why-the-hillsborough-law-has-finally-been-passed-37-years-on/

Three weeks after Venezuela was struck by twin earthquakes on June 24, the scale of the devastation is still growing. The death toll is approaching 5,000 people, with 18,000 homeless and 21,000 more in shelters.

The worst-hit state is La Guaira on the Caribbean coast – an area that had already been the site of one of Venezuela’s worst natural disasters. In December 1999, the state, then called Vargas, saw several days of torrential rain which flushed mud and rock down the slopes of the Ávila mountains.

Hillside houses were swept away, entire neighbourhoods were buried under landslides, and buildings collapsed near the shore. Tens of thousands of people were thought to have perished, though the precise number is still unknown.

As I recounted in my 2003 book, Venezuela: The Crossroads of Hugo Chávez, the armed forces were central to that disaster response. As part of Plan Bolívar 2000, a programme that deployed around 70,000 troops across Venezuela for civic tasks such as infrastructure and road building, the military was sent to Vargas in large numbers. Soldiers pulled many survivors from the mud and rubble in the first days.

But as the relief effort dragged on, it soured into a dispute over who was in charge. In one incident, the then-governor of Vargas, Alfredo Laya, ordered a unit of paratroopers to deliver food and water to stranded families. The officers replied that they had no such orders and, following an argument, Laya was arrested.

In other incidents, military and civilian leaders disagreed over where to evacuate affected families and whether to house them in military or civilian facilities. Pablo Medina, an ally of Venezuela’s president at the time, Hugo Chávez, accused the army of acting “as if an atomic bomb had been dropped”, instead of responding to a natural disaster.

That episode was an early indication of how embedded in Venezuelan public life the military would become in the following years.

First under Chávez and later his successor Nicolás Maduro, who was removed from power by a January 2026 US military operation, the Venezuelan armed forces expanded well beyond the barracks. Military figures took senior posts across government ministries and state companies, gaining a direct stake in the running of the country.

Twenty-seven years on, after the same coast was struck by earthquakes, the military’s role in the disaster response has again been surrounded by controversy.

As in 1999, the armed forces are deeply involved in the operation. Visiting La Guaira in late June 2026, human rights NGO Provea reported that the government appeared to be prioritising military and police control of the territory over basic relief.

Provea criticised the “excessive military presence” near camps for affected people, and flagged the presence of intelligence and counter-espionage bodies with no legal role in disaster management. It warned that saturating the zone with armed agents was slowing aid delivery and could constitute a mechanism of social control.

The Venezuelan government has told a different story. It claims the militarisation of the disaster zone is necessary to allow relief to move in and reach the affected families.

Venezuela’s interim president, Delcy Rodríguez – who spent much of the first two weeks after the earthquakes battling criticism that the state’s response had been too slow – said her government wanted to stop what she called media “labs” from spinning negative narratives.

As the relief effort turned into reconstruction, Rodríguez launched a rebuilding plan called Venezuela Renace (Venezuela Reborn). The government says that, under this plan, nearly 5,000 buildings across La Guaira and the capital, Caracas, have been inspected. The plan has also provided economic support to help the worst-affected families.

The rebuilding is being run through a mix of civilian and military bodies. On the coast, however, the works are coordinated by a single military figure, Major General Juan Ernesto Sulbarán Quintero, with army engineers taking on the rebuilding in several La Guaira neighbourhoods. More than 30,000 security personnel are still deployed in the worst-affected states.

The next phase

The military’s prominence in the recovery effort raises questions about what comes next. It also offers a glimpse into the future of civil-military relations in post-Maduro Venezuela.

Before the earthquakes, there were signs that Rodríguez was keen to reduce the visibility of the Venezuelan armed forces in politics, while bringing them more tightly under her control.

She replaced the long-serving defence minister, General Padrino López, with a more discreet and loyal insider called Gustavo González López.

Rodríguez also appointed a new general staff, regional commanders and heads for each of the five individual branches of the armed forces – the army, navy, air force, national guard and Bolivarian Militia.

At the same time, she has returned several government ministries from military to civilian hands, while relaunching welfare programmes aimed at troops. These changes suggested a move towards a less overt political role for the Venezuelan armed forces.

But despite this rebalancing, the military remains influential in Venezuela. The Rodríguez government still leans heavily on it for political support, as well as to contain the opposition and help secure oil and mining areas for private investors – a strategic US interest in Venezuela.

In some contexts, humanitarian response and civic action can provide a legitimate internal mission for a professional military – provided it is bound by clear prerogatives away from governance.

Given the military’s history in Venezuela, however, the recent disaster is more likely to reinforce its broad role in decision-making and influence over how the country is run.

Pablo Uchoa does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/07/17/venezuela-earthquakes-create-opening-for-militarys-return-to-public-life/

By Russell Palmer of RNZ

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/07/17/ministry-defends-200000-funding-for-documentary-about-fijian-politician/

Neil the Seal became a social media sensation almost overnight.

Neil is a five-year-old male southern elephant seal who weighs roughly one tonne. He was born on the Tasman Peninsula in October 2020, and has made an annual trip to Tasmania each year since. This is because many seal species regularly return to the place they were born, as well as the sites where they breed and rest.

Over the past few years, Neil has been seen lounging on streets and climbing onto cars at southern Tasmania’s Seven Mile Beach. But beyond his hilarious antics, Neil offers a unique opportunity to understand the behaviour of the world’s largest seal species.

From him, we can also learn how to better coexist with marine wildlife, as we encounter them more often.

In need of rest

Imagine you’ve had an exhausting day of travel, work or running between meetings. The last thing you’d want when lying down to rest is to be swamped by hundreds of people wanting to take a picture of you.

For southern elephant seals, this isn’t far from reality.

Rest is essential for these marine mammals. Satellite-tracking studies show southern elephant seals spend months foraging at sea, often travelling thousands of kilometres across the Southern Ocean. So when they do come ashore – typically twice a year – they need time to recover.

After going through a catastrophic moult – the process by which seals shed their fur and top layer of skin once a year – these animals must also replenish their energy by resting.

“Haul-out periods” is the term scientists use to describe these times of rest. Disturbing seals during these critical periods – say by trying to touch, move or get too close to an animal – can stress them. It can also endanger the safety of both the seal and any people nearby.

Behind the antics

Viral videos show Neil appearing to push traffic cones, haul himself over parked cars and even chase people.

So what’s driving this behaviour?

The answer is surprisingly simple. Like any young male elephant seal, Neil was trying to attract the attention of other seals. But instead, he directed this behaviour towards people.

Young male seals spend years developing their size, strength and behaviour to compete with other males. Once they’re older, male seals will contend for the best breeding spots and for females with whom they want to mate. Asserting dominance, testing their strength and exploring unfamiliar objects are all part of their development.

In the absence of other elephant seals, Neil often directed these natural behaviours towards whatever was in his path – be it a traffic cone, bollard or parked car.

By understanding Neil’s actions, we realise that what might seem amusing or scary from a human perspective is often just normal animal behaviour.

Read more:
Neil the seal is more than a viral animal. He’s become a global folk hero

What Neil really teaches us

Neil’s story is a striking example of what can happen when scientists, wildlife managers, local councils, police and the public work together.

As his popularity grew, authorities developed management plans to protect both Neil and the eager onlookers hoping to catch a glimpse of him. This included setting up temporary barriers to protect Neil from crowds. Public education campaigns helped ensure people behaved safely and responsibly around Neil – for example by staying at least 20 metres away from him.

This collaborative approach is increasingly important, as human-wildlife encounters become more common. We don’t fully understand why this is happening. One reason could be that some populations – such as South American fur seals in Patagonia – are increasing in numbers after previously being hunted. Environmental changes may also be pushing animals further south as climate change alters their habitat.

The public plays a vital role in protecting marine animals. In many cases, citizen scientists are the first to report unusual wildlife sightings. They provide valuable insight into where animals are resting, and how they are coping in changing environments. Without these observations, we wouldn’t know about many wildlife encounters. We also wouldn’t be able to understand how different populations and species are faring.

When humans go too far

Many other charismatic marine mammals have attracted global attention – sometimes with tragic consequences.

One well-known example is Freya the walrus who, by lounging on boats and floating docks, drew fans across Norway. Despite repeated warnings, people failed to keep their distance and kept approaching Freya to take photographs. Eventually, Norwegian authorities made the difficult decision to euthanise Freya, citing ongoing public safety concerns.

Thankfully, such tragedies can be avoided. Neil’s story shows that through good communication and public education, we can keep both wildlife and humans safe.

Will Neil be back?

It’s impossible to know if Neil will return to Tasmania, as he’s done each year since 2020. It’s likely he’s now back in the Southern Ocean, foraging for food. But many Australians are already hoping to see him again.

Either way, Neil’s legacy won’t just be about the viral videos or social media fame. It will also be the lesson he’s taught us, that sharing Australia’s coastline with wildlife comes with responsibility.

Saia Nahir Bartes does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/07/17/neil-the-seal-can-teach-us-plenty-about-seal-behaviour-a-marine-biologist-explains/

In Australia, every newborn baby is offered a screening test for 34 serious but treatable conditions (or groups of conditions), such as cystic fibrosis and spinal muscular atrophy. The test uses a small blood sample taken from the baby’s heel. Finding these conditions early can save lives and prevent disability.

In the future, sequencing the DNA of newborns as part of a genomic newborn screening program could allow the detection of many more conditions, potentially improving the health of more children. Over time, genetic data may also help scientists better understand diseases and develop new treatments.

However, these benefits will only happen if genomic screening tests are used in ways that are ethical, safe and equitable.

But Indigenous people around the world (including in Australia) have experienced exclusion, unfair treatment and misuse of biological samples and data in genetic research.

So as Australia considers adding genomics to newborn screening it is crucial to include the views of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

We do not want these past mistakes to impact the opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to benefit from this type of screening.

Where are we now?

Research into genomic newborn screening is happening in Australia and around the world. One province in Italy has already started using it to diagnose disease. The United Kingdom plans to implement universal newborn genomic screening by the end of 2035.

But there are still questions to answer before it can be introduced in Australia, including:

• should we only include conditions that affect very young children?
• should we only include conditions where there is a treatment that works?
• how else might genomic data be used?
• how can families make informed choices about whether to take part?
• can the health system provide follow-up care for all babies, including those in remote areas?

For Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, there are important additional and cultural considerations we must address.

What are the major concerns?

In a study published earlier this year, we asked 30 Australian adults (including two who identified as Aboriginal) what they thought about genomic newborn screening.

Most people supported it, but only if strict rules were in place, covering:

• consent (how families agree to the test)
• which results are shared
• how genetic data is stored and protected
• government oversight.

People had different opinions about how much genetic data should be collected and whether it could be used for other purposes, such as for research, choosing health care when the baby is older, or by the police.

For Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who took part in our research and more generally, these concerns run deeper. Many of these concerns are due to the ongoing impact of colonisation, unethical use of biological samples (including using samples without proper consent), and research that did not respect cultural values or did not lead to benefits for communities.

There are also gaps in the current newborn screening program for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families.

For instance, we know very little about how families experience screening, or what outcomes they have. So it is hard to know if the current program benefits everyone equally.

None of the existing information sheets about newborn screening have been designed for Aboriginal and Torres Strait peoples. So we do not know if every family receives the information they need before they agree to newborn screening.

The low numbers of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health professionals also increases the barrier for culturally safe communication about newborn screening.

Using genomics will amplify these issues.

What needs to happen next?

Strong rules and systems (governance) about a future genomic newborn screening program must be in place from the start. These should be based on key principles such as:

• respect for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ rights in how genomic screening is designed and rolled out
• equity (fair access to, and outcomes from, screening)
• control over how Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ data is used (data sovereignty)
• providing culturally safe health services.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples should be resourced to lead this process. Governments, researchers and health services need to support, not direct, it.

Investment is needed to help make the screening program more respectful, community-focused and responsive to people’s needs. This includes creating information materials designed with and for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families.

We also need more Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander midwives and genetic counsellors.

Midwives play an important role in explaining newborn screening to families before they take a blood sample. If we include genomics in newborn screening, midwives will need to be supported to provide additional information that covers Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ concerns.

Genetic counsellors explain newborn screening results to families when there is a high chance their baby has a condition. Genetic counsellors also need to be supported to have conversations that are respectful and sensitive to the needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families and communities.

Finally, we need better data to be collected about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ participation and outcomes. Without this, we cannot measure whether genomic newborn screening is fair and effective.

What if we don’t get this right?

Genomic newborn screening has great potential. But success should not only be measured by how widely the technology is used. If it is introduced without addressing these concerns, it could increase health inequalities instead of reducing them.

For example, if the program is not culturally safe:

• fewer families may participate, meaning fewer Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children may benefit from early diagnosis and treatment
• families may not be able to make fully informed decisions
• trust in the health system may be weakened, which could have broader negative impacts.

We would like to acknowledge our colleagues Joanne Scarfe, Louise Lyons, Idin Panahi, Kate Armstrong, Karen Beetson, Michelle Dickson, Thomas Harrington and Azure Hermes.

Gail Garvey receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council.

Sarah Norris receives funding from the Medical Research Future Fund. She is a member of the Medical Services Advisory Committee.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/07/17/how-to-ensure-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-peoples-benefit-from-newborn-dna-screening/

Christopher Nolan’s highly anticipated adaptation of The Odyssey officially opened in theatres this week. It retells Homer’s ancient epic of Odysseus’ journey home from the Trojan war.

The Trojan war of Homer’s epics is heavily mythologised. But it is set in a world of seafaring and sea passages that the ancient Greeks knew intimately well.

Interestingly, Nolan’s film has reframed the Trojan war as a trade war over a shipping route. This economic motive is absent from Homer’s original.

But it would have been a highly relevant theme for the Athenians listening to the Homeric epics hundreds of years later, when actual wars hinged on control of a vital shipping route to the Black Sea, passing right by where Odysseus began his mythological journey home: the Dardanelles.

Controlling this waterway – including tolling the ships that traversed it – was crucial to the rise of the Athenian Empire. That has parallels with – and lessons for – today, when placing tolls on crucial shipping routes is again being debated.

A gateway to the Black Sea

The Dardanelles (which the ancient Greeks called Hellespont) is a narrow natural strait situated in modern-day Turkey.

Along with the Sea of Marmara and another strait to the north-east called the Bosphorus, it connects the Aegean Sea (and therefore the Mediterranean Sea) to the Black Sea.

From about 500 BCE, the Greek city-states, but especially democratic Athens, began to realise that control of this waterway was crucial to their survival and success.

A couple of decades later, the Persian wars had only reinforced this realisation because Xerxes, the great king of the Persian Empire, had built a pontoon bridge across the Dardanelles to get his invading army into Greece.

After the Greeks defeated Xerxes in the Balkans in 480 and 479 BCE, one of the first things they did was to secure the Dardanelles and capture other cities to its north in what is now Turkey, especially Byzantium (Istanbul today) and Chalcedon (now Kadıköy).

At the same time, the Athenians, who were now leading the Greek coalition against Persia, also captured three big islands on the approach to the strait: Imbros, Lemnos and Skyros.

This made it safer for their warships and grain ships to traverse the shipping route from Athens to the Dardanelles.

Feeding an empire

Securing this shipping route was soon about more than just warfare. It also allowed the Athenians fully to exploit the trade coming from the Bosporan kingdom, which covered roughly modern-day Crimea and parts of southern Ukraine.

Greece’s climate and terrain were well suited to some crops, and Athens was completely self-sufficient in olive oil. But very dry Attica especially was poorly suited to others – notably grain – so trade with the north was vital to fuelling its rise.

Controlling the Dardanelles and hence the shipping line to the Black Sea allowed the Athenians to secure enormous amounts of cheap food, leading to a huge population boom.

By 431 BCE, the Peloponnesian War broke out between Athens and Sparta.

At this point, we know Athens was importing two thirds of its food from overseas, and the bulk of it through the Dardanelles.

Sparta and its allies invaded the territory of Athens repeatedly during the first ten years of this storied 30-year war. In response, the Athenians simply withdrew their population behind their fortifications and relied on the grain coming through the Dardanelles to keep them alive.

Tolls on shipping

In the last ten years of the Peloponnesian War, when Athens started to run out of money, it actually became more heavy-handed in its control of this vital narrow waterway.

Athenian democracy had long had garrisons on either side of the Bosphorus to police what the other Greek city-states were importing through this shipping route.

But, in 413 BCE, it introduced a 10% toll on the value of all cargo passing through this strait. The enormous amount of money this toll raised helped Athens hold out against Sparta for another seven years.

How losing control crushed Athens

However, the Spartans ultimately won the Peloponnesian War. In its final decade, they struck a deal with the Persian Empire to build a fleet to challenge Athens at sea.

In 405 BCE, very close to modern-day Gallipoli, the Spartan fleet captured almost the entire last fleet of Athens without a battle – close to 200 ships – and executed the captured Athenian sailors.

Without any fleet, Athens lost control of the shipping line and the Spartans stopped the grain ships sailing to Athens from the north.

Athens was quickly starved into submission through a land and sea blockade, and ultimately lost the Peloponnesian War. Losing control of that vital narrow waterway near ancient Troy had thus resulted in the fall of the Athenian Empire.

The pattern repeats

Christopher Nolan’s film is poignant and timeless lesson about the human costs of war and how waging it should be an absolute last resort.

But the ancient history of the narrow waterway on which Troy was situated also holds lessons for understanding the current war between the United States and Iran.

The history of the Dardanelles warns us that states and empires can rise and fall over who controls such a waterway. Prudent states – such as democratic Athens – secure such straits over generations, using all the tools in their diplomatic and military tool kits to do so. To imperil free trade through such waterways or to act recklessly in relation to them can come at a terrible cost.

David M. Pritchard receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/07/16/how-controlling-and-tolling-a-narrow-waterway-near-ancient-troy-changed-history/

Nigeria is grappling with banditry, kidnapping and insurgency amid renewed debates over community policing and the creation of state police. A Nollywood classic released more than 25 years ago remains strikingly relevant today.

Released in 1999, Issakaba was inspired by the real-life Bakassi Boys vigilante movement. It became one of Nollywood’s defining films, attracting audiences in Nigeria and across West Africa. The story centres on a community overwhelmed by violent crime and let down by an ineffective police force. When a vigilante group steps in to restore order, its success comes at the cost of operating outside the law. The film anticipated many of today’s debates about security, state authority and citizenship.

I research Nigerian theatre, film and popular culture, with a focus on how media and performance shape ideas about politics, governance and citizenship.

In my recent research on Issakaba, I analysed the film as a cultural text to examine how it represents justice, state authority and vigilantism. Rather than simply depicting crime and insecurity, the film explores the relationship between security, citizenship and the state. My analysis shows that it does more than dramatise crime fighting: it reveals how citizens negotiate legitimacy, justice and political authority when the state struggles to provide security.

My research drew on historian and political theorist Achille Mbembe’s work on power, violence and governance in postcolonial Africa. His work suggests that political authority is often fragmented and exercised through multiple centres of power rather than solely through formal state institutions. This helps explain why Issakaba portrays vigilante groups as acquiring legitimacy when the state is unable to provide security.

The film remains relevant because many of the conditions that gave rise to the Bakassi Boys persist. Across Nigeria, persistent insecurity has fuelled the emergence of vigilante groups like Amotekun, Ebube Agu and the Civilian Joint Task Force. Communities turn to these groups when they believe state security institutions have fallen short.

In many respects, the frustrations with state security that Issakaba captured in south-eastern Nigeria are now evident across other parts of the country.

Nollywood as a storyteller of governance

Nollywood is more than one of the world’s largest film industries. It is one of Africa’s most influential cultural industries. The films it produces contribute to public conversations about politics, justice and public life.

I found that Issakaba transformed the wave of armed robbery, violent crime and public distrust of the police that gripped south-eastern Nigeria in the late 1990s into a compelling political narrative. It did not present governance as an abstract concept. Instead, the film asks a practical question: who deserves public trust when the state can no longer guarantee security?

In the film, legitimacy depends less on formal authority than on performance. The vigilante heroes are portrayed as legitimate because they succeed where official institutions fail. Rather than presenting constitutional authority as the basis of legitimacy, the film suggests that governments earn public trust by protecting lives and property. Put simply, in times of crisis, people often judge governments more by whether they can provide security than by whether they possess formal authority.

Issakaba‘s appeal reflected more than its action-packed storytelling. It emerged at a time when many Nigerians were frustrated by rising insecurity and what they perceived as the failure of state security institutions. In the film, justice is presented as immediate and community-centred. The vigilante group identifies suspected criminals, acts swiftly against them, and restores order where the police have failed. At the same time, the film invites viewers to consider the ethical tension between effective security and the rule of law.

The film therefore offers an important insight into governance. Citizens judge institutions not only by their legal authority but also by their capacity to solve everyday problems. When governments are perceived as unable to provide security, alternative actors can acquire public legitimacy. This can happen even when their methods raise profound legal and ethical concerns.

My analysis also shows that Issakaba presents citizenship as an active rather than passive relationship with the state. Faced with insecurity, communities do not simply wait for government intervention. They organise, mobilise and participate in their own protection. This reflects broader realities across Nigeria and many African societies, where citizens frequently rely on collective action when public institutions appear inadequate.

At the same time, the film exposes a fundamental dilemma. If citizens lose confidence in formal institutions, should they support alternative systems of justice? The real-life history of the Bakassi Boys illustrates the risks of doing so. Human rights organisations documented allegations of torture, unlawful detention and extrajudicial killings linked to the movement. This demonstrates how groups established to protect communities can themselves become sources of abuse when accountability is absent.

Why the film still matters today

The questions raised by Issakaba remain remarkably relevant. Nigeria continues to face insecurity in many regions. Vigilante groups have emerged in response to banditry, kidnapping and communal violence. At the same time, policymakers continue to debate reforms, including the creation of state police forces under the control of individual state governments, as a way of strengthening local security.

More than 25 years after its release, Issakaba reminds us that public confidence in government depends not only on legal authority but also on the state’s ability to provide security effectively, fairly and in accordance with the rule of law. As Nigeria continues to debate policing reforms, Issakaba offers a timely reminder that security without accountability carries its own dangers.

Mark Tekena does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/07/16/issakaba-what-a-1999-nollywood-classic-reveals-about-nigerias-security-crisis-today/

In everyday life, people often joke about “stalking” someone on social media, or describe someone’s behaviour as a bit “stalky”. But these casual uses of the word can blur the reality of stalking as a serious crime.

According to the Crime Survey for England and Wales, around 1.4 million people aged 16 and over experienced stalking in the year ending March 2025. Yet our recent research suggests young people might not recognise what stalking is, particularly when it comes from someone they know.

Stalking features in many domestic abuse cases, and it is often present in the lead up to domestic homicide. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has reported record levels of stalking offences being charged. The increase in cases is partly due to better awareness of what stalking is.

The legal landscape around stalking is at a moment of change, with new protections, a review of how police respond to cases, and a stalking action plan underway within the CPS to enhance identification of stalking cases.

Why is stalking often misunderstood?

Stalking is a complex crime. In much of the guidance, the term “stalking” is grouped together with “harassment”, which reflects the current legal framework under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

The primary difference is that stalking involves a fixation on a person, and that the fixated, obsessive behaviour causes fear or distress. But there is evidence of confusion about cases in practice.

The shift from stalking “and” harassment to stalking “or” harassment in the wording of the current College of Policing consultation represents an important evolution towards seeing this behaviour as different and specifying how it is dealt with.

Technology has also transformed what stalking can look like. A person no longer needs to follow someone home or wait outside their workplace. Social media, location sharing, messaging apps and fake online accounts can all be used to monitor someone’s movements, relationships and activities.

Research suggests these forms of cyberstalking are becoming more common, particularly among younger age groups. But young people don’t necessarily recognise them as stalking.

That uncertainty is understandable. Digital technology has blurred boundaries in ways that previous generations did not have to navigate. Constant online connection can make intrusive behaviour seem ordinary, even when it crosses into stalking.

For our research, we spoke with 84 young people aged 16 to 24 in workshops across Wales. We found that while many could identify individual stalking behaviour, their overall picture of what stalking might look like was often incomplete.

Participants did associate stalking with behaviour such as following someone, creating fake social media accounts, monitoring someone’s online activity, taking photographs without consent, repeatedly contacting someone or refusing to leave them alone.

But when they described the person they imagined as a stalker, many pictured a stranger. It was someone “creepy”, a sex offender, “paedo” or a man lurking in a dark alley. Far fewer recognised that stalking is often carried out by someone the victim already knows. Several young people told us they would be less likely to identify stalking if it came from someone they saw every day, such as a classmate.

That finding stood out to us. Popular culture has long portrayed stalkers as mysterious strangers. In reality, stalking is often committed by current or former partners, acquaintances or people already known to the victim, in addition to strangers. When young people do not recognise that, they may dismiss warning signs, delay seeking help or accept that controlling behaviour is simply part of modern relationships.

Discussions also revealed uncertainty about seeking help. Some young people were not confident that they would talk to someone about concerns, or that the help they would receive would make any difference. There was a general lack of awareness of specialist services that might help with stalking.

Better education

Perhaps the clearest message from the young people we spoke to was what they wanted to see happen next. They wanted more education about stalking, such as what it is, how to recognise it, how it differs from other harmful behaviour and where to get help. They also wanted more clarity on the terminology used to describe stalking.

They wanted education to be in multiple formats, both digital and in-person. In other words, they wanted a diverse approach, which is supported by the findings of other studies about what works.

A number of young people had either received very limited or no education on stalking, despite being in one of the age groups most at risk. Conversations about relationships and safety should include stalking alongside coercive control, consent and being active online, rather than treating it as an issue that only affects adults. Teachers, youth workers, university staff, police officers, parents and carers also need the confidence to recognise stalking and respond appropriately when young people raise concerns.

If society wants to prevent stalking, it cannot wait until young people experience it before talking about it. Recognising the early signs, understanding how stalking behaviour is evolving and listening to young people’s experiences are all essential if prevention is to keep pace with the reality they face.

Sophia Kier-Byfield currently receives research funding from Health and Care Research Wales, Safer Merthyr Tydfil and South Wales Police. She has previously received funding from the VISION Consortium/UKPRP Small Projects Fund, Calan DVS and Welsh Government.

Sarah Wallace currently receives research funding from Health and Care Research Wales, Safer Merthyr Tydfil, Cardiff Council. She has previously received research grant and commercial research/evaluation funding from the VISION Consortium/UKPRP Small Projects Fund, Calan DVS, Welsh Government, Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner North Wales, Aneurin Bevan University Health Board, the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales (HEFCW), and the All-Wales Policing Academic Collaboration.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/07/16/young-people-are-among-the-most-at-risk-of-stalking-but-many-dont-recognise-it/

The start of the new financial year on July 1 was a special date for Australian laws against money laundering and terrorist financing.

For years, anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorism financing (CTF) rules have applied to banks, casinos and gold bullion dealers. Now, for the first time, they also apply to accountants, lawyers and real estate agents.

These reforms mark a sea change in the relationship between regulated businesses and their customers.

But although such laws are now ubiquitous around the world, their effectiveness remains bitterly contested.

Keeping tabs on criminals

If you open a bank account, your bank is already obliged to know who you are and how you make money. This is referred to as customer due diligence. If your activities give rise to a suspicion you might be handling proceeds of crime, the bank must report you to the government by filing a report to the regulator, AUSTRAC.

These rules help the government enlist the human, financial and analytical resources of the private sector to detect proceeds of crime. Put less charitably, they require regulated businesses to snoop on their customers and dob them in.

This regulation might sound like a dull affair, but the stakes are very high.

Getting it right can help put major organised crime figures behind bars, as demonstrated by the Australian Federal Police’s Taskforce Avarus, which targeted professional money launderers. One criminal gang in Sydney was laundering A$1 million every hour on some days, the federal police said.

Failing to comply with the law can cost dearly. In 2018, AUSTRAC fined Commonwealth Bank $700 million for failing to monitor deposit machines that could be used to launder the proceeds of crime. That was followed by Westpac’s fine of $1.3 billion in 2020 for breaching the law, the highest civil penalty at the time.

AUSTRAC then shifted its focus to casinos: Crown had to pay $450 million in 2023.

From July, many more businesses will find themselves learning about anti-money laundering laws. In fact, we are witnessing one of the largest regulatory expansions in the country’s history: from roughly 19,000 AML/CTF-regulated businesses to almost 100,000.

So why exactly is it happening, and what good will it do?

Slow to comply

Australia used to be one of the global laggards when it came to anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing laws.

In the early 1990s, Australia joined the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), an intergovernmental organisation set up to tackle the finances of the drug trade. But when the task force recommended in 2003 that these laws be extended to accountants, lawyers and real estate agents, Australia dithered.

It took until 2021 for the Australian parliament to legislate these rules, known as “Tranche 2” of anti-money laundering regulations.

While the expanded rules are new for Australia, we have seen how they play out in comparable jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom and New Zealand.

This is where there is a paradox.

There is consensus in the expert community that anti-money laundering regulation is costly and resource-intensive. A 2023 report found the global cost faced by financial institutions to comply was US$206 billion.

There is less consensus about what this compliance achieves, or whether the regulations offer good value for money. For example, the UK has had them in place for decades, but its National Crime Agency consistently estimates “hundreds of billions” of pounds are laundered in the UK annually.

Does the system actually work?

In a recent book, Doing Business with Criminals, I trace this paradox. Why does the regulatory regime keep expanding, when so many professionals are profoundly sceptical about its efficacy and efficiency?

Part of the answer is that anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing rules have multiple objectives, and none are easily measurable.

These laws are meant to generate valuable intelligence for law enforcement agencies; but also to ensure that legitimate businesses do not facilitate criminal activity.

Those are difficult objectives to quantify, let alone express in financial terms.

But there are also genuine flaws at the heart of the regime. Governments rightly expect regulated businesses to turn away criminal customers and report suspicious activity. But they have created no incentives for them to do so in a smart way.

A risk-averse business may well refuse to service someone who, say, holds the passport of a higher-risk country, resulting in financial exclusion.

And if a business is worried about being penalised for failing to report suspicious activity, it may over-report instead – flooding law enforcement agencies with worthless information and eroding customers’ privacy.

These practices, often described as examples of “tick-the-box” compliance, foster cynicism about the laws.

Making the laws more effective

The good news is there are ways to address this misalignment between the objectives of the laws and their implementation:

• public-private partnerships, such as Australia’s Fintel Alliance, bring government agencies and regulated businesses together to jointly tackle organised crime

• more innovative forms of reporting, such as “geographic targeting orders” used in the US to identify criminal activities in specific high-risk geographic areas or business sectors

• instead of solely relying on the fear of punishment, it is time to consider rewarding businesses for genuinely high-quality contributions to the disruption of criminal schemes.

AUSTRAC is a world-leading regulator, and is well placed to succeed in this. It will, however, need to be bold and innovative for the promise of the latest reforms to be realised.

Read more:
Real estate agents face tough new rules to prevent criminals laundering money. This is what’s changing

Anton Moiseienko is a Senior Advisor to Transparency International Australia, a global anti-corruption civil society organisation, and an Associate Fellow at the Centre for Finance and Security at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), a financial crime research centre in the UK. His work is funded by the Australian Research Council.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/07/15/australia-has-brought-in-sweeping-new-laws-to-combat-money-laundering-but-will-they-work/

The death of 78-year-old Ann Widdecombe would have been surprising no matter the circumstances. The former Conservative minister and ex-Reform UK spokeswoman appeared to be in good health, giving an interview just minutes before her suspected killing.

Yet, it is the nature of her death – now being investigated by counter-terrorism police – that is particularly staggering.

Counter-terrorism police, who took over the investigation from Devon and Cornwall police, have now said that Widdicombe was killed in a “targeted attack”. But before this detail was confirmed, Reform UK leader Nigel Farage came under fire for telling reporters that he believed the attack was “premeditated murder”. He has continued to speak publicly on the case, telling TalkTV that the prime minister and Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall Police both told him it was a burglary gone wrong.

In such a high-profile case, there is a real temptation to speculate on the details or motivations of her death by those in the media, by other politicians or even on social media by the general public.

Senior policing figures have asked the public not to engage in such speculation, that it might be unhelpful for the investigation and distressing for Widdecombe’s family.
Downing Street has also warned against speculating because of the importance of protecting the “integrity” of the investigation.

Such speculation may also amount to a contempt of court. Contempt of court refers to several laws which help to maintain the authority and impartiality of the trial process. It includes laws which prohibit the taking of photographs in court or the disruption of court proceedings, and those which make it unlawful to breach orders of the court.

The type of contempt likely to be committed by speculation about Widdecombe’s death is known as “contempt by publication”. It occurs when published material creates a substantial risk that legal proceedings will be seriously impeded or prejudiced.

This type of contempt may only be committed when proceedings are “active”. For criminal cases, this is when there is an arrest without warrant; a warrant is issued for an arrest; a summons is issued; there is service of an indictment or other document specifying the charge; or an individual is orally charged with an offence.

Such proceedings remain active until there is a conviction and sentence, discontinuance, acquittal or “other verdict, finding, order or decision which puts an end to the proceedings”.

At the time of writing, a 28-year-old man has been arrested on suspicion of killing Widdecombe. This means that proceedings in the case are active, and that a publication which might prejudice or impede them may amount to a contempt.

In contempt cases, a “publication” includes the traditional print and broadcast media such as newspapers, television and radio. It also includes posts on social media. This means that anyone, not only journalists, may be found to have committed a contempt of court. The law here is “strict liability”, meaning that a person may commit a contempt even if they did not intend to prejudice or impede a trial.

Read more:
Sarah Everard: social media and the very real danger of contempt of court

There are some high-profile examples where prejudicial reporting has collapsed a trial. In 2011, a jury was discharged from considering an attempted abduction charge against murderer Levi Bellfield.

Bellfield’s defence team successfully argued that the reporting of his conviction for the murder of Milly Dowler was so prejudicial that he would not receive a fair trial. Both the Daily Mail and the Daily Mirror were later found to have committed contempt in their reporting of the case.

Right to a fair trial

The law of contempt by publication attempts to ensure that trials are conducted fairly, and only according to evidence put forward and tested in court, rather than on the basis of opinion and conjecture made outside of court.

Put simply, a trial would not be fair if a jury’s decision about a defendant’s guilt or innocence was influenced by material they saw online, but which neither the prosecution nor defence were aware of or had the opportunity to challenge.

People found to be in contempt of court may be imprisoned for up to two years, receive an unlimited fine or both.

There are three defences to contempt by publication. The first is if those responsible for a particular publication were unaware and had no reason to suspect that proceedings were active.

The second defence allows for the “fair and accurate report of legal proceedings held in public, published contemporaneously and in good faith”. This permits, for example, non-sensationalist reporting of the case in general and as events unfold, including in court – such as arguments put forward by the prosecution and defence.

The third defence allows for discussions of matters in good faith of “public affairs or other matters of general public interest” where the risk to the legal proceedings is “incidental”. In this particular case, the defence would allow, for instance, a discussion about the safety of politicians, because any risk to legal proceedings would be minimal and indirect. It would not, though, permit discussion about whether a particular person was responsible for Widdecombe’s death.

The police’s appeal for people not to publicly speculate about this case will enable them to carry out their investigation more efficiently, and will protect Widdecombe’s family and friends from idle and possibly hurtful conjecture.

It also serves another purpose. It protects those who might otherwise comment from finding themselves in contempt of court. They might think twice before making any potentially prejudicial social media post. It will also help ensure the fairness and integrity of any future possible trial.

John McGarry does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/07/15/ann-widdecombe-killing-why-police-have-told-the-public-including-nigel-farage-not-to-speculate/

A generation of kids who grew up watching “Double Dare” dreamed of picking a giant nose or riding down the sundae slide.

The children’s game show, which mixed trivia, physical challenges and an obstacle course, is credited with helping to spark Nickelodeon’s rise to become the top children’s cable network.

Many fans may not realize that the massively popular show was originally produced in Philadelphia, where it was filmed at the WHYY studios from 1986 to 1989. Nickelodeon was looking for low-cost original programming, and filming in Philadelphia was cheaper than New York or Los Angeles.

The success of “Double Dare” led to a flood of children’s TV game shows, including “Finders Keepers,” which was also filmed at WHYY. In “Finders Keepers” competitors solved puzzles and the winning team completed a scavenger hunt in a house for prizes. It was conceived by the same creator as “Double Dare” and was produced between 1987 and 1989.

As a teacher and researcher of television and popular culture, I have studied the history of children’s media in the U.S., and as a kid growing up in Philly, I too enjoyed these shows – as well as some of the other locally produced shows that came before them.

Philadelphia was the fourth-largest media market during TV’s rapid growth after World War II, and it had a robust local children’s television schedule.

Some Philly shows lasted for several decades, surviving significant shifts in the children’s television industry.

Radio programs move to TV

One of these shows was “The Horn and Hardart Children’s Hour,” a variety show developed and hosted by Philadelphia broadcast pioneer Stan Lee Broza where children performed songs and dance routines.

It premiered on radio on Philly’s WCAU 1210 AM in 1927 and was produced until 1958, premiering on television in 1948 as a simulcast of the radio program.

In the 1940s, a second version with the same name and format launched from New York and served as a model for later children’s television programs such as “Romper Room” and “Bozo the Clown,” which were franchised and produced in the same format across local markets.

This wave of 1950s shows typically maintained a variety format like their radio predecessors, but they featured a staple of children’s television: cartoons. This era also marked the start of what many consider the golden age of local children’s television, which ran through the mid-1970s.

In 1948, “Cartoon TeleTales” debuted on Philadelphia’s ABC affiliate WFIL before going national through the end of its run in 1950. The show featured an original story by Jack Luchsinger, with his brother Chuck drawing characters as Jack read.

Although reading over still pictures would be reproduced in later shows, including “Reading Rainbow,” cartoon series such as “Tom and Jerry,” “Popeye,” and the “Looney Tunes” proved more popular.

Legends of Philly children’s TV

Philadelphia was home to a historic group of memorable hosts who helped define an era of children’s entertainment in the region and beyond.

When Seneca Nation member Traynor Ora Halftown hosted the
“The Chief Halftown Show,” which debuted in 1950 on Philly’s WFIL, he wore traditional tribal attire at a time when Westerners deeply distorted the history and customs of Native Americans.

The show featured low-budget cartoons such as “Clutch Cargo,” children’s performances, interactive segments with a live studio audience and educational segments about Native American culture. It became the longest-running local children’s television show, produced for nearly half a century until Halftown retired in 1999.

Legendary Philadelphia broadcaster Wee Willie Webber’s first children’s show, “Breakfast Time,” also launched on WFIL, in 1956. The morning show was unique, as it included general news and weather for adults along with cartoons and other segments for children. It directly competed with NBC’s national “Today Show” in the Philadelphia market.

His next show, “Wee Willie Webber Colorful Cartoon Club,” aired in the 1960s and 1970s and was notable for featuring Japanese anime such as “Astro Boy” and “Speed Racer.”

Several female hosts were also integral in Philadelphia’s robust children’s television market. The two most famous were Sally Starr and Jane Norman. Starr hosted “Popeye Theater,” which ran from 1957 to 1971 on WFIL and featured shorts with the cartoon sailor along with “Three Stooges” films.

Norman’s “Pixanne” ran on Saturday mornings on WCAU Channel 3 beginning in 1960 and aired a similar collection of shorts as “Popeye Theater.” The show moved to weekday mornings in 1966 and was taken off the air in 1969 – despite being the No. 2-rated show on WCAU behind the soap opera “As the World Turns.” Norman brought the show to New York and it was syndicated until 1976.

‘Send your pictures …’

The most popular local children’s show in this era was “Captain Noah and His Magical Ark.” The program, which aired six days a week at its height in the early 1970s, gained a 57 share, meaning 57% of all the TVs on at that time in the Philadelphia market were tuned to the program.

Ordained Lutheran minister and former Philadelphia Police chaplain W. Carter Merbreier and his wife, Patricia, hosted the show, which was produced by the Philadelphia Council of Churches. It originally launched as a religious program in 1967 with music, puppets and cartoons before it toned down the religious aspects and became a more secular show in 1970.

“Captain Noah” was syndicated in 22 other markets –in Philadelphia it had higher ratings than “Sesame Street” and “Captain Kangaroo” combined at its height in the early to mid-1970s. Its guests, who were interviewed, included Elvis Presley, John Lennon, Stevie Wonder, Charles Barkley, Jim Henson and a young Jon Stewart. The Phillie Phanatic debuted on the program, with Captain Noah and Mrs. Noah serving as his godparents.

At the end of each episode, Merbreier would say to the audience, “Send your pictures to dear old Captain Noah,” motivating kids to watch to see whether their creations made the show.

End of an era

The golden age of production of local children’s television ended for several reasons. A main revenue source for these shows was in-program advertising for toys and other products. Groups such as Action for Children’s Television protested this targeting of young audiences, which ultimately led the National Association of Broadcasters to update their Television Code to ban advertising by the program hosts. They also limited advertising to 12 minutes per hour on children’s television.

At the same time, networks wanted to increase their local news programming, since stations keep all the ad revenue from local news broadcasts. They preferred syndicated sitcoms, soap operas and talk shows to attract adults as lead-ins to the news shows.

These trends, combined with the expansion of national morning news shows, pushed children’s programming on local television to the weekends by the end of the 1970s.

As children flocked to Saturday morning broadcasts, national networks relied on animated shows rather than live action hosts. Cartoons were popular, had a long shelf life and cost less to produce than live programming. The expansion of cable throughout the 1980s further deincentivized local stations from launching new children’s shows.

While it came years after the golden era had ended, “Double Dare” had a major influence not only on children’s television but future game shows that also featured athletic challenges. The show’s Philadelphia roots are an important part of the show’s legacy, and host Marc Summers still lives in Philadelphia. On Oct. 4, 2026, he and other members of the crew will host a 40th anniversary celebration in the city where it began.

Read more of our stories about Philadelphia and Pennsylvania, or sign up for our Philadelphia newsletter on Substack.

Jared Bahir Browsh does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/07/15/philadelphias-rich-history-of-childrens-television-includes-double-dare-and-a-golden-age-of-local-hosts-like-chief-halftown-and-captain-noah/

COMMENTARY: By Lim Tean

The most important response to Trump’s Hormuz announcement did not come from Beijing, Brussels or the United Nations. It came from Tehran, and it was four words long. “POTUS is absolutely right.”

That was Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, replying to the President’s declaration that the United States would henceforth be “THE GUARDIAN OF THE HORMUZ STRAIT” and would be “reimbursed” at the rate of 20 percent on all cargo transiting the waterway. Araghchi agreed that whoever secured the Strait deserved compensation — adding only that Iran had always been its “true guardian”, and that 20 percent was too much.

Iran, he said, “will be fair.”

• READ MORE: Lim Tean: The Hormuz ‘guardian’ turns pirate – 20% for tribute
• US carrying out new attacks on Iran after Trump’s threats
• Other Lim Tean articles

Understand what just happened. The two states now fighting for control of the world’s most important oil artery are no longer arguing about whether ships must pay tribute to pass. They are haggling over the rate.

For 75 years, the entire edifice of the “freedom of the seas” rested on the opposite principle. Yesterday, its chief architect demolished it in a single post.

POTUS is absolutely right. Whoever provides secure and safe passage of commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz should be compensated for this service.

Iran has always been the GUARDIAN of the Strait and will remain so FOREVER.

20% is of course too much. We will be fair

— Seyed Abbas Araghchi (@araghchi) July 13, 2026

What the law actually says
I practised shipping law for more than three decades, and I want readers to grasp how radical this announcement is in legal terms.

The regime governing straits like Hormuz is called transit passage, codified in Part III of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Its roots go back further, to the International Court of Justice’s very first case — Corfu Channel (1949) — where the court held that warships and merchant vessels alike enjoyed a right of passage through international straits that coastal states may not obstruct in peacetime.

Two pillars hold up this regime:

First, transit passage cannot be suspended. Not by the coastal state, not by anyone. Article 44 of UNCLOS is explicit.

Second — and this is the provision every reader should remember — passage cannot be taxed. Article 26 permits charges upon foreign ships only for specific services rendered to that ship, such as pilotage or towage. A general levy for the privilege of passing is flatly prohibited.

Even for coastal states.

Now consider the American position. The United States has no coastline on the Strait of Hormuz. It is not even a party to UNCLOS — for four decades Washington has insisted that transit passage binds Iran as customary international law, enforced by the US Navy on behalf of all nations.

Oman and Iran, the actual littoral states, could not lawfully charge a single dollar for mere passage. The United States has now proposed to charge 20 percent of cargo value — from 10,000 km away — as a matter of what the President calls “FAIRNESS.” (A laden VLCC carrying two million barrels of crude at today’s prices approaches US$30 million per transit).

That is not the enforcement of the international waterway doctrine. It is its replacement by tribute.

The trap Tehran sprang
Here is where Araghchi’s four words become lethal.

Customary international law — the only legal basis America has ever had in Hormuz, since it never ratified UNCLOS — is formed by two elements: the consistent practice of states, and the belief that such practice is legally required (opinio juris).

When Iran instituted its permit-and-fee regime for the Strait earlier this year, Washington’s legal position was simple: no state may condition or charge for transit passage. Iran’s regime was unlawful per se.

That position is now dead. Killed not by Iranian missiles, but by an American post. If the “guardian” of the Strait may lawfully charge 20 percent for security services, then a fortiori the coastal state — with genuine sovereignty over the waters in question — may charge for the same service.

Araghchi grasped this instantly. His reply conceded nothing and captured everything: you have adopted our legal theory; we now dispute only the price.

The United States has spent decades building the customary law of the sea through its own state practice. It is now dismantling that law by the same mechanism. Every future tribunal, every future crisis, every future power that wishes to tax a chokepoint — the Bosphorus, Malacca, Bab-el-Mandeb, the Panama approaches — will cite July 2026 as the moment the precedent was set by Washington itself.

However, President Trump has since backed away from the 20 percent charge, confirming that he was changing the “maritime security fee into historic multi-billion-dollar investment”.

He combined military strength with economic leverage, “securing major investment commitments instead of collecting fees”.

UPDATE: President Trump confirms the conversion of the proposed 20% maritime security fee into historic multi-billion-dollar investment.

President Trump combined military strength with economic leverage, securing major investment commitments instead of collecting fees.

This… pic.twitter.com/Y8LElvI6dZ

— Donald J Trump Posts TruthSocial (@TruthTrumpPost) July 15, 2026

A blockade without a war — the underwriter’s nightmare
There is a second legal absurdity buried in the announcement that only those of us from the maritime world will fully appreciate.

The President declared the reinstatement of “THE IRANIAN BLOCKADE” — stopping not only Iran’s ships but Iran’s customers. Blockade, in the law of naval warfare, is a belligerent right. It exists only in a state of armed conflict, it must be formally declared and notified, and it must be effective and impartial.

The San Remo Manual sets out these requirements precisely.

Yet Washington simultaneously insists it is not at war with Iran.

Consider the position of a shipowner, a P&I club, or a war risk underwriter today. A “blockade” that is not a blockade, imposed by a state that is not a belligerent, targeting “customers” of Iran — an undefined class that could sweep in any tanker that has ever lifted Iranian crude.

Meanwhile, Iran’s Persian Gulf Strait Authority has declared passage “currently unfeasible” and maintains that its own permit system is the sole lawful route through the Strait.

Two sovereigns. Two permitting regimes. One body of water. Every vessel in the Gulf now sails under competing assertions of authority, each of which the other deems an act of war.

War risk premiums do not price legal theory — they price uncertainty. And there has never been uncertainty like this.

The guardian and the protection racket
Readers of this page know my argument: the “rules-based international order” has not been destroyed by its challengers. It is being liquidated by its author — sold off, asset by asset, for cash.

The freedom of the seas was the crown jewel of that order. It was the one rule America enforced with genuine consistency, because it was the rule from which American power flowed. The Royal Navy built the doctrine in the 19th century; the US Navy inherited it in the 20th.

Its moral force rested on a single proposition: the guardian takes nothing for itself. The seas were policed disinterestedly, and that disinterest was the legitimacy.

“Guardian” is an old word. In the waters I have worked in for 30 years, everyone understands what it means when an armed party offers you “safety and security” in exchange for a percentage of your cargo. It is the oldest business model on the sea. We did not used to call its practitioners guardians.

The Strait of Hormuz will remain open or it will close; the ceasefire will be rebuilt or it will collapse. But the doctrine — the idea that the world’s waterways belong to the community of nations and may not be farmed for revenue — died this week.

Not because Iran closed the Strait. Because America opened a toll booth.

The rules were never the order. Power was the order. The rules were its receipts.

Lim Tean is a Singaporean lawyer, politician and commentator. He is the founder of the political party People’s Voice and a co-founder of the political alliance People’s Alliance for Reform. He also hosts Lim’s Substack.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/07/15/the-toll-keeper-of-hormuz-how-the-us-just-buried-its-own-freedom-of-seas-doctrine/

On Monday, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio wrote a blistering missive in the Wall Street Journal unveiling plans to dismantle the International Criminal Court (ICC). He claimed it threatened “US soldiers, police officers, Border Patrol agents and elected leaders” under international laws that “we neither consent to nor control”.

The State Department then unveiled the steps it would take to target the court, which include pressuring allies to resist ICC attempts to prosecute Americans, travel bans on ICC officials, and increased sanctions on the court.

The State Department called the court an “intolerable threat to US sovereignty”.

But Rubio’s claims show a wilful ignorance of international law, out of step with someone of his office.

For example, the four core international crimes under the ICC’s jurisdiction – genocide, aggression, crimes against humanity and war crimes – are considered a “peremptory norm”. This means they are universally applicable to all states, and no country can choose to violate or ignore them.

Ironically, Rubio is also seeking to override the sovereignty of all the states that have joined the ICC. As Kenneth Roth, the former head of Human Right Watch, has said, Rubio is ignoring “the sovereign right of other nations to invoke the ICC for crimes committed on their territory.”

So, what exactly can the US do to the court, and why do these threats matter?

What is the ICC?

The ICC investigates and prosecutes individuals accused of the gravest international crimes.

It was created by the Rome Statute, which was adopted in 1998, and officially became the first permanent international criminal tribunal in 2002 in The Hague, Netherlands.

Despite Rubio’s assertions to the contrary, the ICC upholds state sovereignty. It is considered a court of last resort, meaning it complements national courts – it does not replace them. That is, the ICC intervenes only if a national court is unwilling or unable to investigate or prosecute international crimes.

The US position on the ICC has been deeply contradictory. The US played a leading role in the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals following the second world war. Then, under the Clinton administration, the US initially supported the idea of a permanent international criminal court. Washington even helped design much of the ICC’s legal architecture, and former president Bill Clinton signed the Rome Statute in 2000.

However, the US ultimately declined to ratify the treaty because it could not secure categorical protection for US personnel.

Instead, the US negotiated over 100 bilateral immunity agreements that required partner countries not to surrender US nationals to the ICC without US consent.

Congress also enacted legislation limiting cooperation with the ICC. Under the so-called “Hague Invasion Act”, passed in 2002, the president can use “all means necessary and appropriate” to secure the release of US or allied personnel detained on behalf of the ICC. (It does not authorise an invasion of the Netherlands, despite the nickname.)

What can the US actually do to the court?

The US cannot legally abolish the ICC because it is an independent international organisation created by a treaty that now has 125 states parties.

Since the US never ratified the Rome Statute – and formally withdrew its signature in 2002 – it also has no legal authority over the court. Only the states parties can amend the Rome Statute collectively or withdraw from it individually. The US cannot abolish the ICC through domestic law or executive action.

However, the US can significantly obstruct the ICC in many ways – and it has done so many times in the past.

In 2020, the Trump administration imposed sanctions against prosecutor Fatou Bensouda and other senior ICC officials. More sanctions were imposed in 2025 following ICC arrest warrants relating to Israel. These measures make international banking, travel and professional cooperation considerably more difficult for officials.

The US can also pressure its allies to minimise cooperation with the court. As the ICC relies on states to execute warrants and gather evidence, this can severely hamstring any cases before the court. Governments or witnesses may reconsider their cooperation if they fear diplomatic consequences from the US.

Arguably, the strongest action the US can take against the court is at the UN Security Council. It could veto the Security Council’s referral of cases to the ICC or prevent any Security Council action supporting ICC investigations.

Attacks on the rule of law

Rubio’s efforts to undermine the court also have broader significance. It represents yet another attempt by the Trump administration to erode the international rule of law and replace it with a global order in which “might makes right”.

This normalises the idea that powerful states may disregard or obstruct international law or independent legal institutions whenever they become politically inconvenient. The Trump administration’s capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro and strikes on Iran are key cases in point.

Without any accountability in place to stop nations from doing whatever they want, the world would be on a dangerous slippery slope into sheer lawlessness.

Shannon Brincat does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/07/15/the-trump-administration-wants-to-dismantle-the-international-criminal-court-can-it/