Attorney Martin Hood, who participated in drafting South Africa’s Firearms Control Act, has released a video highlighting concerns over proposed amendments to the legislation. Hood cites a previously commissioned report — the Vitz Report — which examines crime trends and the impact of firearm laws from 2000 to 2014. According to Hood, the findings indicate that the Act has a limited effect on crime reduction.

Firearms Control Act.
We’re fortunate to have people like him, @Paratus2014 , @IanCameron23 and co. exposing the comrades.
📽️Attorney Martin Hood pic.twitter.com/OGLaD2iY6H

— ALooterContinua™ (@ALooterContinua) February 17, 2026

Findings of the Vitz Report

Key points of the research, obtained by Hood through formal access requests, include:

• The Firearms Control Act is linked to less than 5% of reported crimes.
• Policing effectiveness, criminal justice performance, and enforcement capacity are stronger predictors of crime reduction than firearm restrictions.
• The report has not been widely circulated and was reportedly suppressed by the Civilian Secretariat for Police Service.

Hood stated that while some government officials have dismissed the report as “not peer-reviewed,” it is consistent with other official statistics on crime and firearm licensing.

Legislative Context

The proposed amendments revisit the 2021 Firearms Control Amendment Bill, which was overwhelmingly rejected by over 118,000 public submissions. The bill is currently moving through NEDLAC and the Civilian Secretariat for Police Service. Key concerns include:

• Reintroduction of a previously rejected draft without public consultation

• Lack of transparency in parliamentary responses

• Limited engagement with firearm stakeholders

• No improvements to the Central Firearms Register, which has been subject to inefficiency and corruption

• Evidence from SAPS statistics shows that illegal firearms, rather than licensed gun owners, are the main driver of violent crime

Related Incident

Hood’s video coincided with media coverage of a student fight at a McDonald’s in Stellenbosch. While the incident received viral attention, authorities confirmed no firearms were involved. The case is under investigation.

Public Participation

Hood and advocacy groups are encouraging South Africans to submit formal comments opposing the reintroduction of the 2021 bill. Submissions can be made via FreeSA’s platform.

The report challenges the assumption that firearm legislation alone significantly reduces crime. It raises questions about the focus of South Africa’s criminal policy and the transparency of the legislative process as the government moves to amend the Firearms Control Act.

The post Martin Hood Exposes Shocking Suppression of Gun Law Report appeared first on Casting Out Deceptions.

Former President Trump’s controversial policy, which sought to bar transgender people from military service, has once again been stopped by the courts. The ban, originally implemented in 2017, was designed to prevent individuals undergoing gender transition from enlisting or serving in the armed forces. However, recent legal decisions have blocked its implementation, siding with advocacy groups that argue the ban violates the constitutional rights of transgender individuals.

The ruling represents a blow to the Trump-era stance on military service and transgender rights, further igniting the ongoing debate about the treatment of transgender individuals within the U.S. military. The plaintiffs in the case, who include transgender military personnel, have voiced strong opposition to the exclusionary policies, claiming they are both harmful and unjustified. Legal experts believe the ruling will have significant long-term consequences for similar policies aimed at disenfranchising marginalized groups.

Supporters of the ruling argue that there is no credible evidence linking transgender individuals to any greater disruption to military readiness, noting that numerous studies show that transgender soldiers perform their duties just as well as their cisgender counterparts. The decision could also have broader implications for transgender rights in other sectors, prompting further legal challenges to discriminatory practices in employment and public service.

The court’s ruling is a significant step forward in the fight for transgender rights and inclusion, especially within institutions like the military. However, it raises critical questions about the future of transgender rights in the U.S., especially given the political landscape and the potential for future administrative attempts to bypass such legal protections.

The post Trump’s Push for Transgender Military Ban Faces Legal Setback appeared first on Casting Out Deceptions.

This legislation has sparked significant opposition from residents, civil society, businesses, and political parties. The Democratic Alliance (DA) and the African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP) have voiced strong dissent. Belinda Echeozonjoku, the DA’s caucus leader in Johannesburg, criticized the law for introducing a complex and costly registration process affecting homeowners, businesses, and community policing forums that have installed CCTV cameras to protect their properties and public spaces. She argued that instead of collaborating with stakeholders to strengthen crime prevention efforts, the city is imposing additional bureaucratic hurdles, forcing residents to seek approvals, renewals, and compliance checks accompanied by undisclosed fees and penalties.

ACDP councillor Ronald Winston Harris expressed concerns about the practicality of monitoring compliance and the potential integration of private systems into public CCTV infrastructure. He questioned whether a fee structure would be implemented and how the by-law would affect those selling surveillance technology. Harris emphasized the lack of clarity regarding the intrusion into citizens’ lives, acknowledging the necessity of technology for public safety but expressing uncertainty about its impact on private citizens.

Business owners, including suppliers and installers of CCTV cameras, have indicated intentions to challenge the law. Some argue that enforcing regulations on private cameras that might record public areas is akin to attempting to regulate cellphones, which can capture similar footage when taking photos and videos.

The Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse’s Johannesburg Community Action Network has raised concerns about the lack of public engagement accompanying the by-law. They argue that while the legislation adds protections and regulations to ensure constitutional rights, certain implications equate to extensive overreach into individuals’ lives and private property. They emphasize the need for proper public consultation and citizen education to consider these aspects thoroughly.

The by-law stipulates that no CCTV camera can be erected, operated, or maintained without prior written approval from the city. Applicants are required to submit detailed plans, including the location, technical specifications, and the intended purpose of the surveillance system. Failure to comply with the regulations could result in severe penalties, including fines, imprisonment of up to two years, or both.

Proponents of the by-law argue that it ensures compliance with the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA) and enhances public safety by regulating the use of surveillance technology. They contend that unregulated footage poses dangers and that the legislation requires residents with cameras facing public spaces to register with the city and display signage indicating recording, thereby informing the public. They assert that footage should only be provided to law enforcement agencies and not to unauthorized individuals.

As Johannesburg implements this by-law, the debate intensifies over the balance between public safety and individual privacy rights. The effectiveness of this regulation in achieving its intended goals while addressing the concerns raised by various stakeholders remains to be seen.

Questions to Ponder:

• Does the by-law strike an appropriate balance between enhancing public safety and protecting individual privacy rights?

• How might the registration and approval process impact residents and businesses financially and operationally?

• Could the integration of private surveillance systems into municipal oversight lead to potential misuse of surveillance data?

• What measures can be implemented to ensure that the by-law does not disproportionately affect certain communities or infringe upon civil liberties?

• How can the City of Johannesburg improve public engagement and transparency in the implementation of such regulations?

Source:mg.co.za

The post Johannesburg’s New CCTV By-Law: Safeguarding Security or Invading Privacy? appeared first on Casting Out Deceptions.

In their recent article dated February 6, 2025, News24 tries to convince the public that Akkerland Boerdery was sold privately for R80 million, denying the farm’s connection to South Africa’s controversial land expropriation policies. However, this claim is a blatant distortion of history. In their own 2018 article, News24 reported that the farm was selected by the government as a test case for expropriation without compensation. The article explicitly states: “While government is willing to pay for the land, the Akkerland case comes as the ANC’s top structures have decided over the past weeks that government must urgently proceed with test cases in order to test the concept of expropriation without compensation.”

This stark contradiction exposes News24’s duplicity. The farm was not merely sold—it was caught in the crosshairs of a government agenda aimed at testing the limits of land expropriation policies. News24, conveniently ignoring this historical context, now attempts to bury the truth by shifting the narrative to one of a private sale. This is an outright gaslighting tactic, manipulating public perception and erasing key facts from the timeline.

Adding to the evidence of governmental involvement, Theo De Jager, Chairman of SAAI, revealed that Afriforum had leaked a document listing properties for potential expropriation, and Akkerland was at the top of this list. This leaked document, alongside the 2018 article, strengthens the argument that Akkerland was being targeted by the government for expropriation, a fact that News24 has deliberately ignored or minimized.

But News24’s gaslighting doesn’t stop there. They are actively covering up a pattern of systemic land grabs aimed at shifting the ownership of agricultural land for strategic and financial gain, especially in areas rich in minerals. This is part of a much larger, orchestrated effort to undermine private property rights under the guise of land reform. The fraudulent narrative pushed by News24 is nothing more than a smokescreen for the ongoing theft of land, masked as a “test” of expropriation policies.

News24’s attempts to distort the truth about Akkerland’s land sale are not just misleading—they are deliberate acts of gaslighting, intended to obscure the real agenda behind expropriation without compensation. The truth is clear: Akkerland was part of an effort to test the waters for land grabs, and News24’s revisionist reporting is nothing more than propaganda. As citizens, we must demand accountability and call out such lies for what they are. News24’s misleading coverage serves only to further their own agenda while ignoring the crucial questions of property rights and justice in South Africa.

The post News24’s Gaslighting and Propaganda: The Truth Behind Akkerland’s Sale and Expropriation appeared first on Casting Out Deceptions.

Key Events Leading to Resignation: The dispute began in 2022 when two students at Jackson Memorial Middle School requested that Geraghty address them by names and pronouns aligning with their gender identities. Geraghty declined, asserting that doing so would violate her religious convictions. Shortly thereafter, the school district pressured her to resign, effectively ending her teaching career.

Court Ruling: In August 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio ruled in Geraghty’s favor. The court found that the school’s pronoun policy was not neutral and constituted compelled speech, infringing on Geraghty’s First Amendment rights. This decision set a critical precedent, emphasizing the balance between professional obligations and individual constitutional protections.

Settlement Details: Following the court’s ruling, Jackson Local School District agreed to a $450,000 settlement to avoid further legal battles. While the district maintained its commitment to fostering safe and inclusive environments for students, the financial resolution underscores the complexity of navigating legal and ethical challenges in education.

Implications for Education: The case highlights the growing tension between educators’ personal beliefs and the rights of students, particularly in issues involving gender identity. As schools strive to accommodate diverse student needs, this ruling may influence future policies and legal standards nationwide. Educators and administrators alike are grappling with how to balance inclusivity with respect for individual freedoms.

BREAKING: @JacksonLocal_SD in Ohio to pay $450,000 to a teacher they forced to resign because she refused to use two transgender students’ preferred names and made-up pronouns.

HUGE pic.twitter.com/kJKXdSMJR9

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) January 3, 2025

The $450,000 settlement between Jackson Local School District and Vivian Geraghty serves as a stark reminder of the challenges in addressing complex social issues within public education. As debates over personal rights and inclusivity continue, this case underscores the need for thoughtful, balanced approaches that uphold both constitutional protections and the dignity of all students.

The post Ohio Teacher Wins $450,000 Settlement in Transgender Pronoun Dispute appeared first on Casting Out Deceptions.

The controversy began when Jones filed for bankruptcy in 2022 after being ordered to pay $1.5 billion in defamation damages to the families of victims from the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. His repeated claims that the shooting was a hoax led to lawsuits and the eventual bankruptcy filing. The auction of Infowars, which was intended to help cover some of Jones’ debts, featured two primary bidders: The Onion, which offered $1.75 million in cash and other incentives, and First United American Companies, linked to Jones, which bid $3.5 million. Despite the higher bid from Jones’ affiliates, the bankruptcy trustee overseeing the sale selected The Onion‘s offer.

Judge Lopez, however, ruled that the auction process was flawed, stating that the trustee had made a “good-faith error” by rushing the final offers and not encouraging more back-and-forth bidding. He also expressed concern that the process had not maximized the potential value of Infowars for Jones’ creditors, including the families of the Sandy Hook victims. As a result, he ordered the trustee to revisit the sale, resolve disputes between creditors, and attempt a new auction.

In defence of the auction process, Christopher Murray, the trustee overseeing the sale, testified that the offers were fairly evaluated. He also noted that only two entities had shown interest in Infowars, with The Onion’s bid being deemed far superior to that of Jones’ affiliated company. Jones, however, continued to argue that the auction was biased and claimed that The Onion’s bid was artificially inflated by the support of the Sandy Hook families.

Judge Lopez’s ruling highlights the complexity and contentious nature of Infowars’ sale. While the decision to halt the sale may prolong the uncertainty surrounding Jones’ financial future, it also reflects the ongoing tension between creditors, bidders, and legal authorities. This ruling does not only affect Jones and his bankruptcy case; it also raises broader questions about the dynamics of media company sales under financial distress, especially when legal and moral issues are at stake.

The post Legal Setback for Infowars as Bankruptcy Judge Rejects Sale to The Onion appeared first on Casting Out Deceptions.

The Ban and Its Mechanisms

The legislation compels social media platforms to implement advanced identity verification systems to block underage users. Companies face hefty fines for non-compliance. The government has allocated AUD 6.5 million for trials of age-assurance technologies, underscoring its commitment to enforcing the ban. Authorities emphasize that the move is a response to mounting concerns over cyberbullying, online predators, and exposure to harmful content.

Australia’s eSafety Commissioner will oversee the initiative, marking a significant expansion of governmental authority in digital spaces. The policy is part of a broader effort to create a safer online environment for minors, reflecting growing global concerns about the impact of social media on youth development.

A Slippery Slope to Authoritarianism?

Critics of the ban warn that it represents an alarming shift toward authoritarianism. The mandatory identity verification raises significant privacy concerns, with sceptics questioning the security of sensitive data collected during the process. Opponents argue that the policy strips parents of the autonomy to decide what is best for their children, while potentially marginalizing young users from digital education and social interaction.

Comparisons to China’s heavily monitored internet landscape have also surfaced, highlighting fears that such measures could pave the way for broader surveillance systems under the guise of child protection.

Global Implications and Ethical Concerns

The move sets a precedent that other countries may emulate, sparking global discussions about balancing child safety with individual freedoms. While the intention to safeguard youth is commendable, the policy raises critical questions: How far should governments go in regulating digital behaviour? Does the cost of privacy and autonomy outweigh the benefits of protection?

Australia’s decision is a reminder of the delicate interplay between technology, governance, and ethics, as nations grapple with the challenges of the digital age.

Conclusion

Australia’s social media ban for under-16s represents a bold step in internet regulation. Whether this is a necessary safeguard or a worrying overreach remains to be seen. As the global community watches, the consequences of this landmark decision will likely shape future discussions on the balance between safety and freedom in the digital era.

The post Australia Imposes Social Media Ban for Under-16s: Protection or Overreach? appeared first on Casting Out Deceptions.