The only remaining US-Russia nuclear treaty expires this week. Could a new arms race soon accelerate? | The Conversation

All entries on Feminist Legal Clinic’s News Digest Blog are extracts from news articles and other publications, with the source available at the link at the bottom. The content is not originally generated by Feminist Legal Clinic and does not necessarily reflect our views.

The New START treaty, the last remaining agreement constraining Russian and US nuclear weapons, is due to lapse on February 4.

There are no negotiations to extend the terms of the treaty, either. As US President Donald Trump said dismissively in a recent interview, “if it expires, it expires”.

The importance of the New START treaty is hard to overstate. As other nuclear treaties have been abrogated in recent years, this was the only deal left with notification, inspection, verification and treaty compliance mechanisms between Russia and the US. Between them, they possess 87% of the world’s nuclear weapons.

The demise of the treaty will bring a definitive and alarming end to nuclear restraint between the two powers. It may very well accelerate the global nuclear arms race, too.

Source: The only remaining US-Russia nuclear treaty expires this week. Could a new arms race soon accelerate?

Revealed: Australia’s secret Anti-Protest Force for US Department of War – Michael West

All entries on Feminist Legal Clinic’s News Digest Blog are extracts from news articles and other publications, with the source available at the link at the bottom. The content is not originally generated by Feminist Legal Clinic and does not necessarily reflect our views.

Most people won’t be aware that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) has established a new command.

Headed by Commissioner Krissy Barrett, our national police force is made up of five regional commands (Northern, Eastern, Central, Southern and Western) and a number of functional commanders dealing variously with crime, fraud and corruption, cyber operations, counter-terrorism and special investigations, and protective security.  No surprises there – the AFP structure is well established and pretty much what you would expect.

But now there’s a new AFP “AUKUS Command”, established with little fanfare and headed by AFP Assistant Commissioner Sandra Booth.

AUKUS Command’s roles are centred on security for the AUKUS nuclear submarine project and interestingly include ‘Public Order Management’, but its mandate is much broader than protecting nuclear submarines.

The AFP’s FOI response came in late and was covered with large swaths of black ink redacting most of the information, but enough has been revealed to show that the Government is boosting its capability to deal with anticipated political protest activities against a much expanded US military and intelligence presence in Australia.

Nuclear protestors not tolerated

Although anti-nuclear protests focused on visiting US Navy nuclear powered submarines have so far been small in scale, the AFP has likely been alerted to the possibilities of larger scale water-borne protest by the “Rising Tide” environmental actions at Australia’s largest coal export terminal at Newcastle. 

Protest groups involved in those activities have already been subject to close scrutiny by the AFP and New South Wales Police.

But wait, there’s more, much more

But it turns out that protecting nuclear submarines is only part of the AUKUS Command’s responsibilities.

Major upgrades are taking place at a number of other Australian Defence Force facilities to accommodate an expanded US military presence in Northern and Western Australia.

Significant works have also been underway at Australian intelligence facilities, including a major perimeter security upgrade and installation of new satellite dishes at the ASD’s Shoal Bay Receiving Station, nineteen kilometres north-east of Darwin. 

As the US defence and intelligence footprint expands, it’s likely that the AUKUS Command’s security and “public order management” responsibilities will be quite wide-ranging.

Source: Revealed: Australia’s secret Anti-Protest Force for US Department of War – Michael West

Major Step Forward on Gun Safety After Bondi Tragedy – Gun Control Australia

All entries on Feminist Legal Clinic’s News Digest Blog are extracts from news articles and other publications, with the source available at the link at the bottom. The content is not originally generated by Feminist Legal Clinic and does not necessarily reflect our views.

20 January 2026

Gun Control Australia welcomes the passage of the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Act 2026 and commends the Albanese Government, with Greens support, for acting decisively to strengthen Australia’s gun laws in the wake of the Bondi mass shooting.

This legislation represents a significant step forward in protecting our communities. It establishes a national firearms buyback scheme – an approach with a proven record of reducing the number of high-risk firearms in circulation and preventing future tragedies.

The reforms also strengthen firearms background checking by enabling assessments to draw on defined national intelligence inputs, closing critical gaps that have existed across jurisdictions. In addition, the legislation strengthens oversight of firearm and related component imports and exports at Australia’s borders.

We particularly welcome the Government’s commitment to establishing a National Firearms Safety Council, as proposed by Greens Senators Larissa Waters and David Shoebridge. The Council will provide independent, evidence-based oversight to ensure firearm laws and regulations consistently prioritise public safety across Australia.

These reforms align with long-standing community expectations, reinforced yet again by the horror of the Bondi gun massacre. Australia is home to more than four million privately owned firearms, many of them stored insecurely in suburban homes. Around 2,000 guns are reported lost or stolen each year, roughly one every four hours.

By reducing the number of firearms in the community and strengthening national safeguards, this legislation will help make Australia safer. While there is more work to do, today marks an important and historic step toward preventing gun violence and protecting lives.

Source: Major Step Forward on Gun Safety After Bondi Tragedy – Gun Control Australia

Freemasons to sue Met for forcing officers to declare membership | The Telegraph

All entries on Feminist Legal Clinic’s News Digest Blog are extracts from news articles and other publications, with the source available at the link at the bottom. The content is not originally generated by Feminist Legal Clinic and does not necessarily reflect our views.

The Freemasons are to sue the Metropolitan Police over Scotland Yard’s decision to force officers to declare they are members of the organisation.

The United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE) has written to Sir Mark Rowley, the Metropolitan Police commissioner, setting out its intention to seek a judicial review of the decision unless it is suspended immediately.

It has criticised the new rules forcing police officers to declare their membership as “unlawful, unfair and discriminatory”, warning that they will “cast an aura of mistrust” over all Freemasons.

Under the rules, announced last week, police officers and staff are now required to declare membership “past or present” of any organisation that is “hierarchical, has confidential membership and requires members to support and protect each other”.

Defending the decision, Met Commander Simon Messinger said: “Successive leaders of the Met have considered for many years whether we need to amend our declarable association policy, particularly in relation to Freemasonry.

“After such conclusive results from our consultation, we have decided now is the right time to address long-standing concerns and that public and staff confidence must take precedence over the secrecy of any membership organisation.

Source: Freemasons to sue Met for forcing officers to declare membership

Why can someone in suburban Sydney own 6 guns legally? New laws might change that | The Conversation

All entries on Feminist Legal Clinic’s News Digest Blog are extracts from news articles and other publications, with the source available at the link at the bottom. The content is not originally generated by Feminist Legal Clinic and does not necessarily reflect our views.

Australians have watched on in horror as more details have come to light about the shooters in the Bondi terror attacks.

As people grapple with the tragedy, many wonder how such a thing could have happened in a country that has long prided itself on its tough gun laws.

The 50-year-old father, Sajid Akram, and 24-year-old son, Naveed Akram, had six guns. Police confirmed all of them were registered firearms. The father, who was fatally shot by police, had a recreational hunting licence and was a member of a gun club.

National Cabinet has since committed to a raft of new gun laws, including renegotiating the National Firearms Agreement, caps on the amount of firearms any one person can own and limiting open-ended licensing.

Gun control laws vary slightly in each state and territory, but are broadly similar. We’ll look here at the laws in New South Wales.

The first step is to apply for a firearms licence. As part of this, authorities will conduct a background check to ensure there’s no criminal history, including mental health orders or domestic violence charges.

The applicant must also pass the “fit and proper person” test. NSW Police says this test checks someone is “of good character, law abiding, honest, and shows good judgement”.

If these standards are met, a firearms licence is granted.

But in order to actually buy a firearm, people must apply for a “permit to acquire”. This is linked to the specific firearm they’d like to purchase. Subsequent guns do not need a waiting period as long as it’s in the same category they already have approval to own.

They must also pass a safety course, with both practical and theoretical components, including a written test.

Firearms, once acquired, must be stored in a specific way. Guns cannot be stored while loaded, for instance, and ammunition must be kept in a separate safe.

Finally, someone must have a “genuine reason” to buy a firearm. These include working as a primary producer, or participating in recreational hunting, among others. They need to prove a genuine reason for each and every firearm purchase. Personal protection is not a a genuine reason.

Applicants need to prove their reason is truthful. This may be proof of membership to a gun club, or a letter with express permission from the landowner on whose property they intend to hunt.

Importantly, if someone holds a firearm licence for recreational purposes, they must compete in a certain amount of competitions each year. In NSW, it’s two to four.

It’s not uncommon for people to have more than one firearm. Licensed firearm owners in NSW have an average of about four, according to a 2025 report.

Source: Why can someone in suburban Sydney own 6 guns legally? New laws might change that

WDI Statement on Wars 

All entries on Feminist Legal Clinic’s News Digest Blog are extracts from news articles and other publications, with the source available at the link at the bottom. The content is not generated by Feminist Legal Clinic and does not necessarily reflect our views.

The twin purposes of Women’s Declaration International are to
promote the Declaration on Women’s Sex-Based Rights and to
promote the global movement to liberate all women everywhere
from patriarchy.

We acknowledge that wars everywhere subject women to male
violence that includes acts of rape, torture, and murder. During
wartime especially, male armies tend to target women not only
as residents of the enemy nation, but also specifically as
women.

We also acknowledge that feminists feel strongly about such
violence, but may be deeply divided as to which side is more
responsible. Discussions quickly become heated and personal,
and carry the imminent potential to be divisive of our
organization.

WDI aims to bring all women together in forums where we can
speak and act as feminists to promote the Declaration and build
a Women’s Liberation Movement. In the interests of unity on
our narrow aims, we have decided to limit conversations on our
platforms, including our webinar chats and breakout rooms, to
these two core topics. There are many forums available to
debate who is at fault in any given armed conflict; but WDI
provides a unique and valuable space for all women, regardless
of nationality, ethnicity, or other politics, to work together to
advance our singular mission. We will not let our organization
be divided, diverted, hijacked, or torn apart by conflicts
ultimately created by men; and we ask for the cooperation of all
signatories in this endeavor.

Source: WDI Statement on Wars – WDI_Statement_on_Wars.pdf

Time to challenge identitarian bullies of the extreme left | Drew Hutton | The Australian

Across the world anti-democratic parties of the right are gaining increasing support. The response to this on the left has been mixed. Calls for unity ignore the fact there are two main streams of left-wing thought in Australia and they are incompatible.

There is the pluralist, democratic left, whose adherents believe in democratic institutions, freedom of speech, a regulated market and the rule of law. They are a mixture of mostly radical liberals and social democrats, and they believe that while our society is a liberal democracy, there is much that needs reforming, and so they favour nonviolent, radical reform achieved after rational debate.

The new kids on the block are the identitarian left. They promote a mixture of transgender/queer and critical race theories and, while having different emphases, they tend to work together and are often described as woke. While there are probably many more Australians on the pluralist, democratic left, they tend to run scared of the identitarians, who have no compunction in cancelling their opponents.

This is done in the name of social justice or human rights but there are many differences between how each of these left-wing streams interpret these concepts.

I am a lifelong inhabitant of the political left. After nearly two decades of work inside the peace and civil liberties movements, I formed the Queensland Greens in 1990. After nearly 60 years of activism, my life membership of the party was suspended because I would not delete women’s posts that were gender-critical on my Facebook page. This suspension turned into an expulsion in May 2025.

Identity is the key term in the identitarian left. Each one is tribal and they tend to co-operate with each other. The transgender grouping believes biological sex is unimportant in identity and people are what they think they are.

This is not necessarily an anti-social belief except that the movement has been able to convince enough governments around the world to pass legislation making it illegal for women to have women’s-only spaces such as toilets, change rooms, prisons, refuges, women’s sport and lesbian events. It also promotes the gender-affirming model of treating troubled young people to deal with their problems with puberty blockers, hormones and life-changing surgery.

Queer theory builds on postmodernism; it valorises the blurring and disruption of boundaries. After the LGB movement won the end of structural discrimination, the T and the Q were added, and queer theory found a home in legacy LGB organisations.

Both leftist streams might campaign on the same issue – that the Israelis are committing genocide in Gaza – but from completely different viewpoints. The identitarians, for example, support the Palestinians and demand the destruction of Israel as a white settler colonial society, while the universalist left would be more likely to demand a ceasefire, Palestinian statehood and a two-state solution.

Source: Subscribe to The Australian | Newspaper home delivery, website, iPad, iPhone & Android apps

Eighty Years of Lies: Why the US Really Nuked Japan  | MPN

Eighty years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, declassified records and military testimony reveal the atomic bombings were unnecessary.

American generals and war planners agreed that Japan was on the point of collapse, and had, for weeks, been attempting to negotiate a surrender. The decision, then, to incinerate hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians was one taken to project American power across the world, and to stymie the rise of the Soviet Union.

“It always appeared to us that, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse,” General Henry Arnold, Commanding General of the U.S. Army Air Forces in 1945, wrote in his 1949 memoirs.

Arnold was far from alone in this assessment. Indeed, Fleet Admiral William Leahy, the Navy’s highest-ranking officer during World War II, bitterly condemned the United States for its decision and compared his own country to the most savage regimes in world history.

By 1945, Japan had been militarily and economically exhausted. Losing key allies Italy in 1943 and Germany by May 1945, and facing the immediate prospect of an all-out Soviet invasion of Japan, the country’s leaders were frantically pursuing peace negotiations. Their only real condition appeared to be that they wished to keep as a figurehead the emperor—a position that, by some accounts, dates back more than 2,600 years.

“I am convinced,” former President Herbert Hoover wrote to his successor, Harry S. Truman, “if you, as President, will make a shortwave broadcast to the people of Japan—tell them they can have their emperor if they surrender, that it will not mean unconditional surrender except for the militarists—you’ll get a peace in Japan—you’ll have both wars over.”

Many of Truman’s closest advisors told him the same thing. “I am absolutely convinced that had we said they could keep the emperor, together with the threat of an atomic bomb, they would have accepted, and we would never have had to drop the bomb,” said John McCloy, Truman’s Assistant Secretary of War.

Nevertheless, Truman initially took an absolutist position, refusing to hear any Japanese negotiating caveats. This stance, according to General Douglas MacArthur, Commander of Allied Forces in the Pacific, actually lengthened the war. “The war might have ended weeks earlier,” he said, “If the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor.” Truman, however, dropped two bombs, then reversed his position on the emperor, in order to stop Japanese society from falling apart.

At that point in the war, however, the United States was emerging as the sole global superpower and enjoyed an unprecedented position of influence. The dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan underscored this; it was a power play, intended to strike fear into the hearts of world leaders, especially in the Soviet Union and China.

To this day, Japan remains deeply tied to the U.S., economically, politically, and militarily. There are around 60,000 U.S. troops in Japan, spread across 120 military bases.

Many in Truman’s administration wished to use the atom bomb against the Soviet Union as well. President Truman, however, worried that the destruction of Moscow would lead the Red Army to invade and destroy Western Europe as a response. As such, he decided to wait until the U.S. had enough warheads to completely destroy the U.S.S.R. and its military in one fell swoop.

War planners estimated this figure to be around 400. To that end, Truman ordered the immediate ramping up of production. Such a strike, we now know, would have caused a nuclear winter that would have permanently ended all organized life on Earth.

The decision to destroy Russia was met with stiff opposition among the American scientific community. It is now widely believed that Manhattan Project scientists, including Robert J. Oppenheimer himself, passed nuclear secrets to Moscow in an effort to speed up their nuclear project and develop a deterrent to halt this doomsday scenario. This part of history, however, was left out of the 2023 biopic movie.

The Pentagon, too, is recruiting Elon Musk to help it build what it calls an American Iron Dome. While this move is couched in defensive language, such a system – if successful – would grant the U.S. the ability to launch nuclear attacks anywhere in the world without having to worry about the consequences of a similar response.

Source: Eighty Years of Lies: Why the US Really Nuked Japan

Help Us Fight the Psyopcracy – Consortium News

William Casey, C.I.A. director under Ronald Reagan, said: “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”

Thus the American people are continuously subject to a number of psychological operations otherwise known as “the news.”

U.S. intelligence officials feed journalists disinformation to create a false narrative that is intended to mislead the public and cover-up what is actually taking place.

The constant reinforcement of these lies becomes entrenched in the public mind and after time comes to be accepted as unquestionable truth.

Through such operations, the American people were led to believe for years that the United States was winning in Vietnam, when it was actually losing, as the Pentagon Papers proved.

Since then, many examples have followed of completely false stories being planted into people’s minds to start and keep a war going, the fake WMD narrative in Iraq perhaps the most infamous.

Today the wars people are being fooled about are in Ukraine and Gaza.

Sometimes a psyop doesn’t involve inserting false information, so much as leaving out what’s true.

Robert Parry, the founder of this website, in March 2017 wrote the article, “How US Flooded the World with Psyops,” in which he reported for the first time:

“Newly declassified documents from the Reagan presidential library help explain how the U.S. government developed its sophisticated psychological operations capabilities that – over the past three decades – have created an alternative reality both for people in targeted countries and for American citizens, a structure that expanded U.S. influence abroad and quieted dissent at home.

 

So many people are subject to psyops that telling the truth becomes a formidable task. You become the one that is out of step. You are the one that seems to be mad.

[Ed: The trans movement is clearly a psyop.]

Source: Help Us Fight the Psyopcracy – Consortium News

Friday essay: are wars and violence inevitable, or is there another way to live? | The Conversation

Most of us want to live in peace and safety. Yet violence is in epic proportions, particularly towards women and children.

Every day, a new atrocity blares from the radio or across huge screens in gyms, railway stations and homes, causing widespread fear, feelings of powerlessness, and despair.

Is this violence just human nature, and inevitable?

Politicians repeatedly urge us to “change the culture” of violence. But what exactly does this mean? How can it be achieved? And don’t governments send mixed messages when they spend far more on nuclear submarines, weapons and fighter planes than on violence prevention?

In 2016, actor Matt Damon visited Australia to shoot a violent, gun-filled Jason Bourne film, featuring an Anglo hero out to rid the world of a psychopathic Venezuelan. While here, he said he wished the US could have gun laws like Australia’s, seemingly unaware his films almost certainly reinforce and spread US gun culture.

Histories and museums can glorify war and patriarchy, or commemorate effective nonviolent movements such as the suffragists.

Australia has more war memorials than any other nation. They’re often in the middle of towns (like the War Memorial in Sydney’s CBD), making them a central part of our lives. “Remembrance Driveway”, the highway between Sydney, Australia’s economic powerhouse, and Canberra, the nation’s capital, has 24 rest stops dedicated to Victoria Cross war heroes. All were men.

Our new and former parliament houses are in line with the avenue to the Australian War Memorial. There’s no shortage of funding for upgrades to the War Memorial, including more than $830,000 from arms manufacturers in three years, meaning its histories are unlikely to be objective or anti-war.

The militarisation of Australian history means other stories go untold. One under-recognised figure is Wiradjuri resistance leader Windradyne, who in 1824 led a delegation to Parramatta to call for peace. He addressed the governor, calling for an end to the killing, wearing a hat with “peace” written in English on it.

There’s no major road or museum in Australia recognising the effectiveness of suffragists and nonviolent movements, often led by women, for land rights, social justice, the environment and peace.

Ninety per cent of movies contain violence. Even children’s stories, such as Peter Rabbit, The Cat in the Hat, Peter Pan and the Tintin adventures, are often made violent or more violent when adapted for the screen, even though their original authors, such as Dr Seuss and Hergé were increasingly pro-peace.

Violent films often glorify weapons and make people more fearful – and likely to accept the narrative that armed violence is necessary and more effective than nonviolent action, despite strong evidence to the contrary. This narrative is actively pushed by the military-industrial complex, (the individuals and institutions involved in the production of weapons and military technologies), and by the media and entertainment outlets it influences and supports.

Militaries want films like Top Gun because they make the armed forces seem glamorous, exciting, social and sexy. So they often give filmmakers cheap or free access to billions of dollars worth of taxpayer-funded jet fighters, aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines. In return, the movies serve as sophisticated, enticing forms of recruitment propaganda.

The military-entertainment complex supports such movies because they encourage a favourable view of militarism, “defence” spending and the purchase of their products. As psychiatrist Emanuel Tanay observes, “what we call entertainment is really propaganda for violence”. He continues: “If you manufacture guns, you don’t need to advertise, because it is done by our entertainment industry.”

Arms dealers also do this through the media companies they own or influence. General Electric, which has ties to Mobil, owned the NBC TV network until 2013. Disney Entertainment, which owns the American Broadcasting Company, collaborated with Boeing to create flying X-Wings to soar over their Star Wars: Galaxy’s Edge theme park in California’s Disneyland Resort. Inevitably, the editorial leanings of military-linked media are pro-war, biased and critical of peace activism, if they cover it at all.

Media can also be influenced by think-tanks sponsored by arms companies and “defence” departments. For example, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, which has numerous arms-related sponsors, was behind the Red Alert series of front-page articles in Australia’s Nine newspapers, which argued for more military spending to resist a supposedly imminent war with China.

The military-industrial complex, with its “revolving door” relationship with governments, is gaining influence in universities and schools. The University of Melbourne trumpeted the arrival of a new laboratory in partnership with Lockheed Martin, the world’s biggest and wealthiest arms corporation, with a history of bribery and corruption.

Wars and violence are neither inevitable, nor an inherent part of human nature. The power to reduce violence is in our hands, words and TV remotes.

Source: Friday essay: are wars and violence inevitable, or is there another way to live?