A punishment once relegated to the darkest chapters of history – “civil death” – has been quietly resurrected. Under ancient French law, it meant stripping a convicted individual of all legal rights, family connections, and even their very existence, while remaining physically alive. Abolished in 1854 as a cruelty too extreme, it was believed to be a relic of a brutal past.
The European Union, however, has effectively reinvented this chilling practice, and in a way that surpasses its historical form. The case of Swiss Colonel Jacques Baud, suddenly barred from the EU and stripped of his assets, first revealed the disturbing trend. Despite extensive investigation, the specific accusations against Colonel Baud remained elusive.
A deeper look into EU legal texts unveiled a startling power grab. In October 2024, the EU granted itself the authority to ban individuals and seize their assets for alleged “manipulation of information and interference.” This sweeping decree extends not only to those directly involved but also to anyone associated with or supporting them.
But what constitutes “manipulation of information”? Is it not inherent in nearly all political communication, particularly regarding complex issues like energy and the environment? Consider the EU’s own narrative surrounding the conflict in Ukraine – a narrative often presented as a relentless portrayal of Russia’s imminent collapse. Is that not, itself, a form of carefully crafted information?
Objective information is a myth. All communication carries a degree of human interpretation, a subtle shaping of perception. The EU’s definition dangerously overlaps with “disinformation,” the very term used to justify censorship on social media platforms. Ironically, the U.S. government, prioritizing freedom of speech, is actively pushing for its removal from these regulations.
The process for imposing this modern “civil death” is terrifyingly simple. All it takes is a request from the EU’s “Minister of Foreign Affairs,” a validation from the Council, and a person can be effectively erased from the European landscape. No trial. No hearing. No investigation. Just a decision, made in isolation.
Currently, that “Minister of Foreign Affairs” is Kaja Kallas, the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. A relatively unknown figure from Estonia, a nation of just 1.372 million people, she wields extraordinary power – including the ability to condemn individuals to a life devoid of rights within the EU.
Ms. Kallas’s background is complex, marked by a family history deeply intertwined with the Soviet occupation. Since the invasion of Ukraine, she has become known for her intensely critical stance towards Russia, a position some describe as bordering on hostility. Her actions suggest a desire to escalate tensions, potentially dragging Europe – and the United States – into a wider conflict.
With its October 8th decision, the EU has essentially armed itself with the power to ostracize, to “zombify” anyone it deems undesirable. This is the very essence of arbitrariness, a concept so vague – “manipulation of information” – that it allows for the destruction of lives based on the whims of those in power. It is a direct assault on the rule of law, a descent into despotism.
On December 15, 2025, at Ms. Kallas’s request, Jacques Baud became the first victim of this new EU power. The justification? Simply “manipulation of information.” No illegal act was alleged, no offense even hinted at. His ideas, it seems, simply displeased the High Representative.
Colonel Baud’s rights have been extinguished, his assets seized, without a single opportunity to defend himself. Even the Inquisition allowed its accused a voice before sentencing. This entire process is purely administrative, offering no recourse, no appeal. The legal safeguards of centuries – habeas corpus, the Magna Carta – are rendered meaningless.
Historically, civil death was a consequence of a criminal conviction, imposed by a court of law with all due process. It was not a standalone punishment, but a civil effect of a criminal act. The law of 1854 abolished it precisely because of its cruelty – until the EU resurrected it as an independent penalty, wielded by administrative decree.
We are witnessing a return to unchecked power, to the arbitrary rule of absolutism, and to the irrational fury that seems to consume Ms. Kallas when Russia is involved. The focus on Ursula von der Leyen, while warranted, should not overshadow the role of Kaja Kallas in this dangerous evolution.
