British Soldier Stabbed Outside Army Base
A British soldier is fighting for his life after being stabbed outside an army base in southeast England on Tuesday evening.
The soldier, who was in full uniform, was stabbed near Brompton Barracks in Gillingham, Kent at around 6 p.m. He was airlifted to hospital and is reportedly in a “serious” condition.
Kent Police said a 24-year-old local man has been arrested on suspicion of attempted murder. They have also not ruled out terrorism as a motive, the Telegraph reports.
A witness told The Times that the attacker pulled up on a moped. “This was with two kitchen knives, about nine to 10 inches long, and there were about seven of us there who witnessed it,” according to the bystander.
“The soldier was in uniform. He works at the barracks, lives in Sally Port Gardens, and was walking home. His wife tried to pull the attacker off.”
The attacker then escaped on the moped.
Another witness who tried to help the soldier told The Sun: “The only person he was targeting was the soldier he attacked.”
“Blood was everywhere as I tried to apply pressure to his wounds until the police arrived,” he added. “When the guy’s wife came out and started trying to pull the guy off he didn’t even try to hurt her.”
Other witnesses said they heard a “blood-curdling scream” as the soldier was attacked. Moments later, the attacker ran his finger across the knife and licked it, one person told The Sun. To date, the known details of the attack are similar to the murder of Lee Rigby, a soldier who was stabbed to death near the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich, southeast London, eleven years ago.
The Gillingham attack occurred on the same day that radical Islamist preacher Anjem Choudary was convicted of terrorism offences at a court in London.
Choudary was accused of directing Al-Muhajiroun (ALM), a banned international terror organisation. During his trial, he admitted to officiating at the wedding of one of the killers of Lee Rigby.
“I was there when he [the killer] became Muslim. I officiated at his marriage. I believe then he stopped associating with anyone I know for years before Lee Rigby was killed,” Choudary told the court.
He was also asked why he had described the killing as “famous.” He responded that it had put Woolwich “on the map.”
Choudary was jailed for five years in 2016 for inviting support for Islamic State, but was released just two years later, subject to strict licence conditions, including a ban on using the internet. However, within three weeks of those terms lapsing in July 2021, he was already putting out messages on social media platforms such as WhatsApp and Telegram.
Choudary then gave more than 40 lectures to a spin-off of ALM in New York, attracting a global audience. He was arrested again last July following a joint investigation by MI5, Scotland Yard, the NYPD, and Canadian police.
Experts are incredulous that Choudary was allowed any internet access after his release, given his long history of radicalising followers.
Alan Mendoza, executive director of the Henry Jackson Society, told the Mail: “He needed to have a different class of conditions and surveillance to keep him from reoffending and trying to radicalise the next generation. The reality was it was no surprise—anyone could have predicted that this is exactly what Choudary would do as soon as he had the means.”
Poland on the Hunt for Migrant who Murdered Polish Soldier on Belarusian Border
Polish authorities have pinpointed and are tracking the individual responsible for the murder of a 21-year-old Polish soldier guarding the border with Belarus, according to unofficial sources from commercial radio RMF FM. The attack occurred on May 28, with Sergeant Mateusz Sitek succumbing to his injuries days later.
Investigations have revealed that the assailant is from the Middle East and currently in Belarus, potentially planning to flee to Syria. The identification of the Polish soldier’s murderer was achieved through the analysis of video footage recorded during the border attack. This critical evidence enabled officials to ascertain the attacker’s appearance.
???WATCH: Dramatic video shows a Polish soldier brutally stabbed in his rib cage at the border by a migrant through the border fence near Belarus.
— Remix News & Views (@RMXnews) May 29, 2024
In this surveillance footage, the soldier is being treated by a fellow soldier while migrants toss objects at him from the other… pic.twitter.com/O5nJUmbx6S
For several weeks, Polish special services interrogated migrants who had entered Poland and utilized informants from migrant groups in Belarus. This thorough investigation has identified the man who, on May 28, during an attempted breach by a group of migrants near the village of Dubicze Cerkiewne, fatally stabbed Sitek with a knife attached to a stick.
Following the attack, the 21-year-old sergeant was transported to a local hospital and later to the Military Medical Institute in Warsaw, where his death was announced on June 6. The Belarusian authorities have not cooperated in apprehending the murderer, underscoring the complicity of Lukashenko’s government in the killing. The situation requires action from special services.
Despite murdering a Polish soldier, migrants are stepping up their attacks on Polish authorities at the border. https://t.co/Ywysju1D3z
— Remix News & Views (@RMXnews) June 10, 2024
In early June, Poland formally requested Minsk’s assistance in identifying and arresting the murderer. However, officials from Alexander Lukashenko’s administration have ignored the request, and unless there is a sudden political shift, it is expected they will continue to do so. It is important to note that Minsk has been orchestrating further assaults by migrants on the Polish border.
There is a possibility that upon the revelation of his identification, the assailant may flee Belarus for Syria or another Middle Eastern country. Capturing him there and bringing him to trial might actually prove easier for Polish authorities than apprehending him from Belarus.
After a Polish soldier was murdered by a migrant while defending the border, his mother is calling on the left-liberal government to make sure it never happens again. https://t.co/nMmDJqerPy
— Remix News & Views (@RMXnews) June 13, 2024
The case has been discussed by Minister of Defense Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz, who emphasized that the prosecution and both civil and military special services are conducting the investigation.
“The outcome is of utmost importance; this case is absolutely vital, prioritizing the security of the Polish state and its citizens,” he stated.
Kosiniak-Kamysz further declared that anyone committing such a heinous act as an attack on a Polish soldier must face the consequences, and the state will relentlessly pursue and punish the perpetrator.
UK: Labour to Grant Thousands of Illegal Migrants an ‘Effective Amnesty’
It’s difficult to imagine how the Labour government’s approach to illegal migration could be any softer than that of the Conservative administrations that came before it. But new home secretary Yvette Cooper is giving it a good go.
For starters, her department is labelling illegal Channel crossings not as “illegal” but “irregular.” This, said Reform leader Nigel Farage, demonstrates from the off that “Labour wants to bury illegal immigration as a subject.”
Labour wants to bury illegal immigration as a subject and they are now using the word ‘irregular’.
— Nigel Farage MP (@Nigel_Farage) July 24, 2024
We will not let them get away with it. https://t.co/9jE40PstUv
Now, after barely three weeks in office, Cooper has announced plans to fast-track the processing of more than 100,000 asylum claims of people the last government said would not be permitted to settle here. The Refugee Council—a refugees’ rights organisation which was openly delighted by the home secretary’s appointment—estimates that up to 90,000 people will be granted asylum in the UK.
As ineffective as the Conservatives might have been at tackling illegal migration, former home secretary James Cleverly was right to describe this move as an “effective amnesty” which will encourage more migrants to risk the dangerous journey across the Channel. Before the July 4th election, migrants themselves said a Labour government would be an “incredible” boost for crossings.
More than 2,000 migrants have crossed the Channel since Starmer became prime minister earlier this month, and the figure stands at almost 16,000 for the year as a whole.
Only small pockets of illegal migrants are expected to be returned to their countries of origin. Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour Party has long indicated that it would direct its attention not to deterring migrants from crossing the Channel but to “smashing the gangs” behind this movement, instead. It scrapped the Conservative government’s scheme for deterring illegal migration—the ‘Rwanda Plan’—in its first full day in office.
Farage yesterday used his maiden speech in Parliament to highlight that, while previous Labour governments deported illegal migrants in large numbers, “none of that happens anymore” because of the “increased role” of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), whose convention was enshrined into British law under Labour.
My maiden speech to the House of Commons. I’ve had a long time to think about it! pic.twitter.com/qwfzbGFMyz
— Nigel Farage MP (@Nigel_Farage) July 23, 2024
The Reform leader said the ECHR has “now completely outlived its usefulness” and called for a referendum on Britain’s membership of it.
The Conservatives, who pretended to be interested in questioning the overreach of the court in UK politics, are highly unlikely to back this proposal. Starmer has also made it clear that, under his leadership, “we will never withdraw.”
ICJ Orders Israel to End Its Unlawful Occupation of Palestinian Territories
The International Court of Justice (ICJ), the highest United Nations body for hearing disputes between states, has ruled 14-1 that Israel’s presence in the occupied Palestinian territories is unlawful and should come to an end “as rapidly as possible” as it issued an unprecedented and sweeping condemnation of Jerusalem’s rule over the lands it captured 57 years ago.
ICJ President Nawaf Salam read out the “nonbinding advisory opinion” issued by the 15-judge panel. They pointed to a wide list of policies, including the building and expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, the use of the area’s natural resources, the annexation and imposition of permanent control over lands and discriminatory policies against Palestinians. According to them, all of these measures violated international laws against acquiring territory by force and impeded Palestinians’ right to self-determination.
According to a summary of the more than 80-page opinion, other nations were not obliged to “render aid or assistance in maintaining” Israel’s occupation in the said territory. Israel’s “abuse of its status as the occupying power” renders its “presence in the occupied Palestinian territory unlawful,” the court said.
“Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and the regime associated with them, have been established and are being maintained in violation of international law,” the decision further read.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu criticized ICJ’s opinion, saying the territories are part of the Jewish people’s historic homeland. But the resounding breadth of the decision could impact international opinion and fuel moves for unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state. The court’s opinion was sought by the UN General Assembly after a Palestinian request concerning Israel’s massive genocidal assaults on Gaza.
According to The Hague court, the General Assembly and Security Council should consider “the precise modalities” to end Netanyahu’s men’s presence in the territories. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres will send the advisory opinion to the 193-member world body.
“It is for the General Assembly to decide how to proceed in the matter,” UN deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq said.
Guterres has signified his call once again for Israel and the Palestinians to engage “on the long-delayed political path towards ending the occupation and resolving the conflict in line with international law, relevant resolutions and bilateral agreements,” the spokesperson said.
Guterres also stressed that a two-state solution is “the only viable path” to seeing Israel and “a fully independent, democratic, contiguous, viable and sovereign Palestinian state” living side by side in peace and security, Haq said.
World leaders react on ICJ’s landmark decision
Following the historic decision of the ICJ, leaders from around the globe reacted. Palestinian officials lauded ICJ and said the Justice ruling was a “watershed moment” in their decades-long fight for justice. Israel’s reaction is expected to be not favorable as the United States’ top ally criticized the ruling on Saturday, July 20, after initial silence.
United Kingdom’s newly formed Labour government said it “respects the independence of the ICJ” and is considering the ruling before making an official response. The Foreign Office added the U.K. is “strongly opposed to the expansion of illegal settlements and rising settler violence.”
(Related: EU states considering SANCTIONS against Israel for defiance against ICJ ceasefire order.)
For Norwegian Foreign Affairs Minister Espen Barth Eide, the ICJ ruling is crystal clear. “Israeli policies and practices are to be considered annexation of large parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and are in violation of international law,” he wrote on X. Malaysia called on all states to compel Israel to abide by the ruling of the ICJ and immediately end their support to Israel in continuing its illegal occupation of Palestine.
Jordan’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Ayman Sadadi said: “Israel’s impunity must end. Its war crimes must be stopped. Israel must be held accountable.” Moreover, Kuwait’s foreign minister called on the international community to carry out its “legal, political and moral duties to achieve the aspirations of the brotherly Palestinian people to establish their independent state and to stop the aggression against Gaza.” Saudi Arabia welcomed the ruling while stressing the “need to take practical and credible steps to reach a just and comprehensive solution to the Palestinian cause.”
Meanwhile, U.S. President Joe Biden’s administration denounced the ICJ’s opinion that Israeli settlements are “inconsistent” with international law.
“We are concerned that the breadth of the court’s opinion will complicate efforts to resolve the conflict and bring about an urgently needed just and lasting peace with two states living side by side in peace and security,” the Department of State told Reuters.
On the other side, Spain was taking a safer stance. “The government urges the UN and the international community to take into consideration the conclusions of the report and to adopt appropriate measures in this regard,” it said.
IsraelCollapse.com contains similar stories regarding Israeli violations of international law.
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith Promises Bill Protecting Rights to Refuse Vaccines is Coming
(LifeSiteNews) – Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has promised that the province’s Bill of Rights will be amended this fall so that there are protections added for people’s personal medical decisions that most likely will include one having the right to refuse a vaccine.
Smith’s promise to add protections for personal choice on vaccinations comes because of the COVID jab mandates put in place for a time in Alberta under former Premier Jason Kenney.
Speaking to Albertans at a recent town hall in Bonnyville, Smith said that the COVID crisis resulted in many people being discriminated against for their own medical decisions and that “it shouldn’t have happened.”
Smith, who leads the United Conservative Party (UCP), said that she believes “every person has to be able to do their own assessment, their own health assessment, to be able to make those decisions.”
The original plan by Smith was to add protections for one’s vaccine status directly Alberta Human Rights Act (AHRA). However, this plan was nixed after she was advised by Public Health Emergencies Governance Review Panel chair Preston Manning that this was not the right legislation for an additional protection.
Instead, Smith promised that a better “law” dealing directly with vaccine status will be forthcoming.
On Monday, Smith confirmed on X that an updated version of the Bill of Rights is coming.
“It’s time. Let’s get this done,” she wrote.
Last year, Smith, as reported by LifeSiteNews, promised to enshrine into “law” protections for people in her province who choose not to be vaccinated as well as strengthen gun rights and safeguard free speech by beefing up the provincial Bill of Rights.
“You have my commitment, no one’s going to be forced to be vaccinated,” Smith told Alberta blogger Shaun Newman.
On Smith’s first day on the job and only minutes after being sworn in, she said that during the COVID years the “unvaccinated” were the “most discriminated against” group of people in her lifetime.
She took over from Kenney as leader of the UCP on October 11, 2022, after winning the party leadership. The UCP then won a general election in May 2023. Kenney was ousted due to low approval ratings and for reneging on promises not to lock Alberta down during COVID.
Smith promptly fired the province’s top doctor, Deena Hinshaw, and the entire Alberta Health Services board of directors, all of whom oversaw the implementation of COVID mandates.
Under Kenney, thousands of nurses, doctors, and other healthcare and government workers lost their jobs for choosing to not get the jabs.
While Smith has not said much regarding the COVID shots since taking office, she has allowed her caucus members to have broad views when it comes to known safety issues related to the jabs.
UCP MLA Eric Bouchard hosted a sold-out event titled “An Injection of Truth” that featured prominent doctors and experts speaking out against COVID vaccines and mandates.
“Injection of Truth” included well-known speakers critical of COVID mandates and the shots, including Dr. Byram Bridle, Dr. William Makis, canceled doctor Mark Trozzi and pediatric neurologist Eric Payne.
The COVID shots were heavily promoted by the federal government and all provincial governments in Canada, with the Alberta government under Kenney being no exception.
The mRNA shots have been linked to a multitude of negative and often severe side effects in children.
New Emails Reveal Big Tech-Biden Collusion on Covid Narratives, Involving CDC & Twitter Censorship
Trying to refute collusive practices involving major social media companies is probably not high on the agenda of the US government right this moment; nevertheless, the evidence of the highly controversial practice keeps rolling in.
America First Legal (AFL), a conservative non-profit, has disclosed a new batch of documents obtained through litigation, this time against the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). It concerns May 2021 communications meant to set the tone online and “manage” the government agenda around topics related to Covid vaccines.
The emails were exchanged between Facebook and CDC – and the documents focus on the activities of CDC spokesperson Carol Crawford, who also “happened” to be involved with Twitter’s Partner Support Portal around the same time.
This Twitter program’s “secret superpower” was that it allowed government-affiliated individuals to participate in flagging content for censorship.
Genelle Adrien (of the Politics and Government Outreach Team over at Facebook) and Crawford “star” in the email chain obtained by AFL, with the latter being asked point blank that the CDC approve Facebook’s “COVID-19 Information Center FAQ.”
Of concern to Adrien was particularly what the platform’s users should be allowed to say about the vaccine’s side effects. And CDC provided that guidance – some words were replaced, and other sentences were removed.
Thus “joint pain” was gone, but “nausea” was added as a possible side effect. And then these whole two sentences disappeared from what Facebook had prepared as its Covid vaccine safety FAQ:
“More serious side effects are extremely rare. A person is far more likely to be seriously harmed by a disease than by its vaccine.”
There are various ways to interpret this decision, but one is that CDC (by proxy, as Facebook’s guidance adviser) may have wished to avoid the risk of getting sued (alas, it did get sued – but for colluding with Facebook).
Even though the original language was fairly “soft” – if anything, the social platform looked keen to minimize any serious side effects, and promote the vaccines – it was too much for CDC to stand behind.
In one of the emails, Crawford writes that the CDC had no “cleared language, as far as I know, to support the second and third sentences.”
However, the Biden administration continued to urge people to get the jab throughout that year, with Biden himself spreading seemingly unfounded fear that the unvaccinated people would “soon overwhelm hospitals” with “a winter (2021/22) of severe illness and death” up ahead.
But, as AFL notes: “The CDC appears to have admitted that in May of 2021, months after the vaccine had already been rolled out, they could not confirm that the vaccine was safer than contracting COVID-19 itself and developing natural immunity. Nonetheless, the CDC continued to push the American people to take the vaccine.”