Queensland Police Offer Full Protection for Free Speech Summit Amid Foreign Interference and Venue Cancellation Orchestrated by Israel Lobby

Gold Coast, Australia – July 16, 2025 — As international controversy swirls around foreign interference in Australia’s domestic affairs, the Queensland Police Service has stepped in to offer full protection and security for the upcoming Free Speech Summit, set to take place July 19th and 20th on the Gold Coast.

The move follows a series of escalating disruptions triggered by Israeli lobbyists and activists, who successfully pressured The Star Casino—the original venue for the summit—to cancel just days before the event, despite over 2,000 tickets sold and 20+ speakers confirmed, some of whom were flying in from the U.S. and Europe.

Queensland Police Stand Up for Public Safety and Free Speech

In a remarkable show of professionalism and neutrality, Queensland Police proactively contacted the event organisers, including independent media broadcaster http://ANR.News, to assure them that full support and venue protection will be provided to prevent any troublemakers or politically motivated agitators from disrupting the event.

“We appreciate the support of Queensland Police in helping us proceed with the event safely, especially in light of the disturbing and growing foreign interference we’ve experienced,” said Jamie McIntyre, founder of the Australian National Review and co-host of the summit.

This reassurance came as a relief to the summit team, who had just secured a new venue after the Star Casino abruptly pulled out following a relentless pressure campaign by Israeli lobbyists to derail the event entirely.

Why Is Israel So Desperate to Shut This Down?

The Free Speech Summit has faced a targeted and sustained attack, with Israel and its affiliated pressure groups reportedly lobbying not only to cancel the venue, but also to interfere with Australian immigration processes to revoke visas of American speakers just hours before their flights. Among those banned were influencers and journalists who have previously criticised Israeli government policies.

Critics are asking: Why is Israel so fearful of an open discussion taking place halfway across the world?

Even more disturbing, Israel’s interference isn’t limited to politics or diplomacy—it appears to be weaponizing narratives of antisemitism by allegedly hiring radical extremists on both sides of the political spectrum to create drama, protest, or chaos at such events. These actions are then used to paint legitimate criticism of Israel’s policies as hate speech, while ignoring the very policies sparking the criticism—namely, the ongoing bombardment and killing of Palestinian civilians in Gaza, including women and children.

The hypocrisy has not gone unnoticed. As one commentator put it:

“It’s not antisemitic to condemn the murder of innocent people. What we’re seeing is a desperate attempt to deflect from war crimes by silencing critics worldwide.”

Australia’s Sovereignty & Democracy in Question

Australians from all sides of the political spectrum are now alarmed at how a foreign government—Israel—can wield such influence as to:
• Cancel a major venue for a private, ticketed event
• Pressure the Australian government to ban American citizens from entering the country to speak
• Create enough fear & disruption that local law enforcement must be deployed to protect Australian citizens exercising free speech on Australian soil

What does it say about Australia’s sovereignty when a foreign lobby group can dictate who can speak & where in a supposedly free and democratic nation?

The Summit Will Go Ahead — Louder Than Ever
Despite the obstacles, the Free Speech Summit is going ahead, thanks to the resilience of the organisers and the support of the Queensland Police, who have committed to protecting attendees and ensuring public safety.

Source: https://x.com/jamiemcintyre21/....status/1945513032282

Trump’s DOJ Says EPA Will Appeal Landmark Fluoride Ruling

The decision to appeal came from the solicitor general at the DOJ, who reports to Pam Bondi and the White House. In February, a federal judge ruled against the EPA, concluding that water fluoridation at current levels poses an unreasonable risk to children’s health and ordering the EPA to address the issue.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) plans to appeal a decision last year by a federal court ordering the agency to address the risks of water fluoridation, according to Michael Connett, lead attorney for plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

“Rather than use the court’s decision as an opportunity to finally end water fluoridation (as most of Europe has already done), the EPA will spend its time legally challenging the court’s order,” Connett wrote in a post on X.

The American Chemistry Council, a trade organization representing the chemical industry, and the American Fluoridation Society, a fluoridation advocacy organization that touts its work undermining local efforts to oppose water fluoridation, filed motions seeking to submit amicus briefs supporting the EPA appeal, he said.

Connett told The Defender that the American Dental Association also plans to file a brief.

The EPA said it will file the appeal on July 18, after which the case will go to a three-judge panel in the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. The appeals court will receive briefs from both sides, along with any amicus briefs, and hear oral arguments before issuing its decision.

The Fluoride Action Network (FAN), one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the EPA, said on X that the appeal was “a very disappointing move by EPA.” “A few months ago, @epaleezeldin went on a public speaking tour with @SecKennedy to address why fluoride needs to come OUT of the water. Now the EPA will appeal to keep fluoride IN drinking water.”

Connett noted that the decision to appeal came from the solicitor general at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), who reports to Pam Bondi and the White House, not by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) or by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has vocally opposed water fluoridation, but lacks the authority to end it.

“Only the EPA has this power, and it has decided, for now, to forego its historic opportunity (as provided by the court’s decision) to exercise it,” Connett said.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention publishes recommendations from the U.S. Public Health Service on whether communities should add fluoride to their drinking water and at what levels. However, the EPA sets the maximum levels allowed in water under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

The current maximum allowable levels of fluoride in drinking water are 4.0 milligrams per liter (mg/L), which is many orders of magnitude higher than the currently recommended dosage of 0.7 mg/L.

Even the lower recommended dosage has demonstrated a risk to children’s health in numerous studies, and according to the federal ruling that the EPA plans to challenge.

EPA continues to treat fluoride as a ‘protected pollutant’

In September 2024, U.S. District Judge Edward Chen issued the historic decision in the lawsuit against the EPA, ruling that water fluoridation at current U.S. levels poses an “unreasonable risk” of reduced IQ in children and that the EPA must take regulatory action to address that risk.

At the time of the ruling, more than 200 million Americans were drinking water treated with fluoride at the “optimal” level of 0.7 mg/L.

Chen ruled that a preponderance of scientific evidence showed this level of fluoride exposure may damage human health, particularly that of pregnant mothers and young children.

Environmental and consumer advocacy organizations, including FAN, Moms Against Fluoridation and Food & Water Watch, along with individual parents and children, filed the lawsuit against the EPA in 2017 under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) after the EPA denied their citizens’ petition to reexamine water fluoridation.

During the trial that followed, Chen reviewed existing regulations, regulatory frameworks and current science on fluoride’s risks to children and pregnant women presented through peer-reviewed papers and experts on both sides.

The case dragged on for seven years, after numerous delays by the EPA, and attempts by HHS officials to block the release of the key piece of evidence in the case, a government report on fluoride’s toxicity.

Chen’s 80-page ruling, issued seven months after closing arguments in February 2024, offered a careful and detailed articulation of the EPA’s review process for hazardous chemicals and summarized the extensive scientific data on fluoride’s toxicity.

Chen concluded that the risk to health at current levels of exposure demanded a regulatory response by the agency.

Evidence against fluoride keeps piling up

Since the end of the trial, the body of scientific evidence showing fluoride’s adverse impacts on children’s health has grown. Scientists at the National Toxicology Program in January published a meta-analysis in JAMA Pediatrics linking fluoridated water and IQ loss in children.

The program also published a monograph in August 2024 that found a link between higher fluoride exposure and lower IQ in children.

In May 2024, a study in JAMA Open Network found children born to Los Angeles mothers exposed during pregnancy to fluoridated drinking water were more likely to have neurobehavioural problems.

FAN’s executive director, Stuart Cooper, said the group has long sought to end the “unnecessary life-long and life-altering brain impairment in children specifically due to artificial fluoridation schemes” and the many other side effects to people’s liver, kidneys, thyroid and bones.

For nine years, he said, the EPA has been working against them. “From day one of our interactions with them, they’ve treated fluoridation chemicals as a protected pollutant, likely due to the government’s role in promoting their use and guaranteeing their ‘safety’ for over 80 years.”

Cooper added:

“While the science is clear and the lower court’s ruling was very strong and comprehensive, it’s not necessarily a surprise that the appeal has occurred. Our case is precedent-setting. We were the first to sue the EPA under TSCA. I suspect that corporate polluters who have learned how to manage and influence the EPA to their benefit don’t want citizens groups to use TSCA to force the EPA to regulate harmful chemicals.”

Another plaintiff in the lawsuit, Moms Against Fluoridation, told The Defender it was“deeply disappointed” that the EPA plans to appeal the ruling.

“The science is clear, and our lawsuit’s findings are undeniable: fluoridation is a toxic legacy that must end, like asbestos, DDT, and lead,” it said. “The agency’s plan to appeal only underscores their prioritization of industry interests over the well-being of our children and vulnerable populations. Moms Against Fluoridation will not back down — we will continue to fight tirelessly for the health and safety of all Americans.”

60+ towns and counties and two states vote to end fluoridation

Since the federal ruling last year, more than 60 U.S. towns, counties and two states — Utah and Florida — have voted to stop fluoridating their water, according to FAN.

During that time, there has been an ongoing campaign by the American Dental Association, the American Fluoridation Society and mainstream media to discredit the court’s ruling.

Typically, they assert that water fluoridation is an important, safe and effective way to prevent tooth decay — and that without it, rates of cavities will soar, costing billions. They cite a study published by researchers funded by pro-fluoridation groups.

Yet, overwhelming scientific research shows that fluoride’s benefits to teeth are topical, not the result of ingesting fluoride, and a 2024 Cochrane Review found adding fluoride to drinking water provides very limited dental benefits, especially compared with 50 years ago.

Most media reports also highlight the fact that fluoride is a “naturally occurring mineral.” However, they don’t mention that the fluoride added to water supplies is not.

The fluoride most commonly added to U.S. drinking water supplies is hydrofluorosilicic acid, the byproduct of phosphate fertilizer production. Chemical companies sell the byproduct to local water departments across the country.

Communities that have recently ended fluoridation have found themselves saddled with a chemical that they must dispose of as hazardous waste, per EPA regulations — an expensive and time-consuming process.

Source: https://childrenshealthdefense.....org/defender/trump-

France and Italy Refuse to Join Trump’s Ukraine Weapons Fund

At least eight countries have expressed interest in participating in US ‘arms pipeline’, Nato sources claim

France and Italy have refused to participate in Donald Trump’s plan to send US-made weapons to Ukraine.

Governments across Europe are pondering whether to take part in the $10bn initiative. It will involve Ukraine’s allies on the continent, along with Canada, buying “top of the range” weapons – including Patriot air defence systems – from Washington before giving them to Kyiv.

But without the release of key details, some countries have yet to make a decision on whether to join the scheme, which was presented by Mr Trump and Mark Rutte, the Nato secretary general, in the Oval Office on Monday.

France has told allies it will not join the initiative, according to officials briefed on the discussions.


Patriot air defence systems are a key part of the proposals unveiled by Donald Trump and Mark Rutte this week

Paris is currently wrangling over its domestic budget and demands to boost its defence spending while navigating concerns over the country’s growing debt pile.

Emmanuel Macron has always favoured arming Ukraine with locally produced weapons to boost the EU’s own industrial base and make the bloc less reliant on Washington for its defence.


Emmanuel Macron, the French president, pictured with Gen Thierry Burkhard, the country’s chief of defence staff, has long favoured supplying Ukraine with EU-produced equipment

The Italian government has said it will not purchase weapons but could help with the logistics of transporting them to Ukraine, Italian media reported.

“Here there has never been talk of buying American weapons,” the source quoted by the La Stampa newspaper said.

While the Czech Republic has not officially ruled itself out of the US initiative, its foreign minister told The Telegraph that “no decisions” had been taken on whether to join.

Jan Lipavský said: “We are already participating in so many mechanisms that there is currently no discussion of new resources. But I cannot say it won’t change because it’s really too soon.”

Prague already manages a coalition of 12 countries that contribute money to a pot to buy artillery shells for Ukraine. Last year, it donated around 1.5 million rounds to Kyiv’s troops and it is planned to deliver more in 2025.

There are dozens of similar programmes delivering everything from drones to fighter jets, which could make participation in a new scheme difficult for some countries.

But Nato officials say at least eight countries have shown interest in joining the Trump-led pipeline.

They will either contribute cash or donate their existing US-made equipment to Ukraine before being fast-tracked replacements by Washington.


Friedrich Merz, the German chancellor, who has been a driving force for the plans to arm Ukraine, welcomed Volodymyr Zelensky, the country’s president, with full military honours in Berlin in May

Germany is believed to be the nation most invested in the scheme. Friedrich Merz, its chancellor, proposed buying Patriot air defence batteries for Ukraine in a deal with the US president.

Mr Rutte said the scheme would also involve missiles and other forms of ammunition being purchased from the Americans.

British sources have told The Telegraph that they support the programme, but have not taken a decision on how to contribute with details yet to be shared with allies.

Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Canada, and the Netherlands were also named as possible participants.

Each of the countries’ armed forces already operate US-manufactured equipment, from Patriots to fighter jets.

It is understood that any money poured into the scheme will count towards Nato allies’ new defence spending goal of 3.5 per cent, making it an attractive proposition for governments struggling to find money to reach the target.

Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/wo....rld-news/2025/07/16/

Police Wrong to Join Pride March, Judge Rules

Force failed to act impartially after taking part in last year’s Newcastle parade.

A police force failed to act impartially when it allowed officers to take part in a Gay Pride and transgender rights march, a court has ruled.

Linzi Smith, 34, a gender-critical lesbian, brought a case against Northumbria Police after officers, including Vanessa Jardine, the head of the force, took part in last year’s parade in Newcastle.

Ms Smith argued that it was wrong to allow uniformed officers to actively participate in an event that promoted gender ideology and was supported by transgender activists.

Responding to the ruling, Ms Smith said: “I am delighted with the judgment of the court. It is terrifying to live in a community where the police have abandoned their duty of impartiality and embraced a highly controversial political cause.”


Ms Smith argued that police getting involved in the parade breached their professional oath

In the legal claim, officers were accused of joining in the march; stationing a police van decked out in Pride colours at the event and associating with messaging that supported gender ideology.

The hearing was told there was also a Northumbria Police static display staffed by uniformed officers and a transgender Pride flag incorporating the force’s insignia.

Ms Smith argued that while she accepted it was necessary for the Pride march to be policed it was wrong for officers to actively participate because it breached their professional oath to operate with impartiality.

Allowing the judicial review, Mr Justice Linden said: “The fact that the officers had publicly stated their support for transgender rights by taking part in the 2024 march would be likely to give the impression that they may not deal with the matter fairly and impartially.”

He went on: “It is not hard to imagine circumstances in which the officers in question might be called on to deal with a clash between gender critical people and supporters of gender ideology, and therefore situations where the former had cause for concern as to whether they were being dealt with impartially.”


Officers from Northumbria Police were accused of marching in the parade

The court also heard how during the march there were pro-Palestinian protesters chanting slogans such as: “From the River To The Sea, Palestine Will Be Free”, “No Pride in Genocide” and “Toute le monde deteste la police”.

The case was supported by Kathleen Stock, a gender-critical professor, and Harry Miller, co-founder of the campaign group Fair Cop, which seeks to “remove politics from policing”.

Professor Stock said: “For me, the sight of the Northumbria Police either participating in Pride marches, supporting Pride events in public statements, or using or encouraging the use of Progress or rainbow flags, emblems, lanyards or other symbols associated with trans causes in a public-facing way, conveys its support for gender ideology.

“If that is not the force’s intention, it is certainly its effect.”

It is not clear how the ruling will impact on the force’s plans to police this year’s event, which is taking place this weekend.


Kathleen Stock said the force’s actions conveyed its support for gender ideology

Mr Miller said: “The significance of this ruling means that in future the police will attend events like this at their peril.

“But it is sad that we had to go to court to challenge something that was so blindingly obvious.”

He said the ruling should bring an end to police officers attending such events and wearing associated livery.

“The clarity in the ruling should have a profound effect on Chief Constables across the UK,” Mr Miller told the Telegraph.

“Pride is political in the same way that any protest is political. Police engagement should therefore be solely operational. No lanyards, flags, whistles or painted cars. Just good, honest bobbies remaining polite and keeping the peace.”

In his concluding remarks the judge said the findings only related to the 2024 event, adding: “It will be a matter for the Defendant to consider, in the light of what I have said in this judgment, whether her current proposed approach to the 2025 Event should remain as it is.”

In a statement following the ruling, a spokesman for Northumbria Police said: “The officers, staff and volunteers of Northumbria Police are dedicated and passionate about providing each and every person of our wonderful region with an outstanding policing service.

“In doing so, we recognise not all communities share the same level of confidence in policing for a variety of reasons. We want to ensure everyone knows that we are absolutely here for them when they need us.

“Part of that is us being visible in those communities and playing an active part in our force area. Throughout the year, we will have an important role to play in a variety of events, including parades and festivals.

“During these events while our primary aim is to keep people safe, it also provides us with an opportunity to engage with people including those who may have less confidence in policing. It is vitally important they feel supported and we continue to build their trust in us.

“That is why we felt it important to challenge the case which was brought against us and which has implications for wider policing.

“We will work through the ruling to understand the implications, while staying true to our values of fairness, visibility, and support for all.”

Other forces are currently looking at the ruling to see how it could impact on their approach to the policing similar events.

Gavin Stephens, chairman of the National Police Chiefs’ Council, said: “Every week police officers and staff will as part of their duties take part in thousands of events up and down the country, from community events at village halls through to large scale events like carnivals, parades and festivals.

“However, we recognise that policing must also maintain its impartiality, including in the types of events it supports and plays an active part in.

“We are working through the detail of this judgment and will ensure this decision is communicated to forces for them to consider.

“We are also working with the College of Policing on broader guidance which will help local forces make decisions around participation in events to maintain their impartiality.

“Policing values all our communities and will continue to police in a way that aims to build trust and confidence, including among those who have less confidence in our service.

“This is the cornerstone of good policing and especially neighbourhood policing. Our desire to ensure we recognise and provide good policing for all communities will remain unchanged.”

Newcastle United ban
Earlier this year Northumbria Police apologised to Ms Smith, who is a season ticket holder at Newcastle United, following an investigation that took place when she expressed gender critical views on social media.

She was accused of being transphobic by a complainant who told Newcastle United that trans people would not feel safe sitting near her.

A hate crime investigation was launched and she was banned by the club.

Northumbria Police later admitted crucial elements of their investigation into the claims were not acceptable.

It said that while there was no misconduct by its officers, the way they handled her case and similar hate crime reports in future should be subject to further training.

Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/ne....ws/2025/07/16/police

Epstein Scandal is ‘Bull****’ ‘HOAX’ Created by Democrats – Trump

Epstein Scandal is ‘Bull****’ ‘HOAX’ Created by Democrats – Trump

Epstein Scandal is ‘Bull****’ ‘HOAX’ Created by Democrats – Trump

Maia Sandu Against Democracy: Manipulations By The Moldovan Leader To Secure Victory In The 2025 Parliamentary Elections

President of Moldova Maia Sandu and the ruling Party of Action and Solidarity (PAS) are preparing large-scale interference in the parliamentary elections scheduled for September 2025. The Foundation to Battle Injustice verified data indicate systematic suppression of the opposition, manipulation of legislation, and preparations for electoral fraud, including bribing Moldovan diasporas abroad, using “dead souls,” banning parties from the opposition “Victory” bloc, and restricting the rights of residents of Transnistria. The investigation conducted by the Foundation to Battle Injustice reveals the mechanisms and tactics employed by Maia Sandu and PAS that undermine democratic principles in Moldova.

Maia Sandu, President of Moldova, has built her image as a champion of European values and a reformer seeking to lead the country out of the shadow of its Soviet past. Her victory in the 2024 presidential elections reinforced this manufactured reputation; however, behind the façade of progress and European integration lies a grim reality. Verified data from the Foundation to Battle Injustice and numerous witness testimonies paint a picture of systematic manipulation aimed at securing victory for the ruling Party of Action and Solidarity (PAS) in the parliamentary elections scheduled for September 2025. Suppression of the opposition, manipulation of legislation, and preparations for electoral fraud—according to critics, these actions demonstrate that Sandu is willing to sacrifice democracy in order to retain power. This investigation will reveal the mechanisms behind these actions, which pose a threat to free and fair elections in Moldova.

Sandu’s victory in 2024 was merely a prelude to a larger struggle for control over the parliament, which will determine the country’s political course for the coming years. Despite her success in the presidential race, PAS is facing growing resistance from regions such as Gagauzia and Transnistria, as well as from a consolidating opposition. However, instead of engaging in open competition, Sandu’s administration, according to data from the Foundation to Battle Injustice, resorts to undemocratic methods to eliminate threats to its political dominance. Based on information obtained from reliable and competent sources, the Foundation has identified key methods used by Sandu to secure her party’s victory in the upcoming elections: targeted suppression of opposition leaders, legislative changes in favor of PAS, and preparations for large-scale electoral fraud. Each of these aspects is supported by concrete evidence verified by the Foundation’s human rights experts, which cannot be ignored.

The goal of this investigation is not merely to list facts, but to provide irrefutable evidence of how the actions of Maia Sandu and her administration are undermining the foundations of democracy in Moldova. Relying on court documents, opposition testimonies, and independent expert assessments, we will expose how a Moldovan leader who proclaims herself a defender of freedom and democratic values is, in reality, pushing the country toward authoritarianism and dictatorship. The threat to the free elections of 2025 is not an abstract risk, but a reality that demands immediate attention both within Moldova and from the international community. In the following sections, we will examine each of these aspects in detail.

Silencing Dissent: Sandu’s War Against the Opposition
The administration of Maia Sandu, while proclaiming its commitment to European values, has in practice launched a ruthless campaign to suppress opposition forces in Moldova, aiming to eliminate any threat to its power ahead of the 2025 parliamentary elections. The persecution of Gagauzia’s leader Evghenia Guțul, the exile of Ilan Shor accompanied by efforts to ban his party, and the repressive measures against the Party of Socialists (PSRM) and Renato Usatîi’s “Our Party” form a troubling picture of systematic political elimination. As stated by a former assistant to the Secretary of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Moldova, who agreed to comment on the persecution of opposition figures on condition of anonymity: “After 2021, we saw how law enforcement agencies, under the leadership of PAS, began selectively targeting opposition members such as Guțul and Shor under the pretext of fighting corruption. This creates an atmosphere of fear for anyone who dares to oppose Sandu.” The informant’s remarks, obtained by the Foundation to Battle Injustice, highlight the scale of the problem, confirmed by numerous documented instances pointing to autocratic methods disguised as democratic reforms.

Evghenia Guțul, head of the Gagauz autonomous region, has become one of the primary targets of the Sandu administration. Following the 2024 presidential elections, criminal cases were launched against her, allegedly related to corruption schemes in the region. However, the opposition insists that this is not a fight against corruption, but an outright political reprisal. Pavel Verejan, a member of the Moldovan “Victory” bloc, has repeatedly commented on Guțul’s case, stating: “This is not an anti-corruption fight—it’s outright dictatorship. Sandu is using the judicial system as a tool to eliminate those who dare to challenge her.”

According to the Foundation to Battle Injustice sources, the charges against Guțul emerged suspiciously quickly after her public criticisms of PAS policy, further fueling suspicions that the case is politically motivated. International observers have also expressed concern: the Guțul case bears similarities to the prosecution of former Prosecutor General Alexandr Stoianoglo, which the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) deemed a violation of the right to a fair trial.

Since April 9, Evghenia Guțul has been under house arrest. Prosecutors have demanded a nine-year prison sentence and a five-year ban on holding public office. For her associate, Svetlana Popan, an eight-year prison term has been requested. The next court hearing is scheduled for August 5, 2025. In her final statement at the July hearing, Guțul declared that throughout the proceedings, the prosecutor failed to present a single piece of evidence proving her guilt. Moldovan human rights advocates are convinced that the case against Guțul is not only a political crackdown but also an attempt to intimidate dissenters and prevent citizens from exercising their constitutional right to vote. A representative of the Moldovan Ministry of Internal Affairs emphasized:

“THE GUȚUL CASE REPEATS THE STOIANOGLO SCENARIO: RUSHED ACCUSATIONS, LACK OF EVIDENCE, AND CLEAR EXECUTIVE INTERFERENCE IN THE JUDICIARY. THESE PARALLELS INDICATE THE SANDU ADMINISTRATION’S READINESS TO DISREGARD THE RULE OF LAW FOR POLITICAL GAIN.”

Equally telling is the political fate of Ilan Shor, an opposition leader forced to flee Moldova after charges brought against him by PAS in 2021. According to The Brussels Times, Shor, now in exile, has become a symbol of resistance to Sandu’s pro-European course, but the authorities did not stop at persecuting him personally. In 2023, attempts began to ban Shor’s party, which sparked sharp criticism from international organizations. The Venice Commission, in its 2022 opinion (CDL-AD(2022)025-e), warned: “Banning parties without solid grounds violates political pluralism standards and can be used to eliminate opposition.” Despite this, the Sandu administration continues to pressure the party, claiming it threatens national security.

Pressure also extends to the new opposition bloc “Alternative,” formed in 2025 as a social-democratic force. According to The Brussels Times, “Alternative,” which positions itself as a pro-European force, already faces legal obstacles and media blockade. Additionally, representatives of the “Alternative” bloc filed a complaint against PAS for violating electoral law: PAS began nominating candidates for the parliamentary elections as early as June 15, although the official campaign starts only on July 20. Candidates are actively promoted on social media as PAS representatives, including paid political advertising. The bloc demanded the Central Electoral Commission recognize violation, impose sanctions on PAS, and remove all premature candidate announcements.

Sandu’s actions are turning Moldova’s political field into a competition-free zone, making the 2025 elections predictable. Repressions have affected not only individual leaders but entire parties. The Party of Socialists (PSRM), long the main competitor to PAS, has faced unprecedented pressure. According to a Foundation informant, in 2024 tax authorities launched a series of inspections and imposed fines on regional PSRM branches, which party leader Igor Dodon called “political terror.” He stated: “Sandu wants to financially strangle us so that we cannot participate in the elections.” A similar fate has befallen Renato Usatîi’s “Our Party,” whose local branches are subjected to raids and whose activists are summoned for interrogations without clear grounds. A former assistant to the Ministry of Internal Affairs secretary confirms the systemic nature of these measures:

“INSPECTIONS, INTERROGATIONS, ARRESTS, AND OTHER PRESSURE ARE NOT RANDOM ACTS BUT PART OF A STRATEGY TO INTIMIDATE ANYONE WHO MIGHT CHALLENGE SANDU. SUCH ACTIONS DEPRIVE THE OPPOSITION OF THE ABILITY TO COMPETE EFFECTIVELY, UNDERMINING THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS.”

Read More: https://fondfbr.ru/en/articles..../sandu-vs-democracy-