University crackdown on Palestine solidarity encampments a grievous violation of Charter freedoms
By Laurie Adkin | Canadian Dimention | March 9, 2025
If the repression of Palestine solidarity protests on Canadian campuses is permitted to go unchallenged, we risk a serious erosion of Charter-protected rights and freedoms. The cases of the Universities of Calgary and Alberta highlight what is at stake.
In May 2024, the University of Calgary executive[1] called in the police to forcibly remove the Palestine solidarity encampment on that campus within hours of its appearance. The University of Alberta executive quickly followed suit, deploying riot police to drive members of the People’s University for Palestine (PU4P) from the campus. The executives thus revealed the vacuity of their institutional slogans and their unwillingness to defend university autonomy from political direction. University records[2] and media reports show that United Conservative Party government officials were urging the deployment of police against the universities’ students, faculty, staff, alumni, and community supporters.
Since October 2023, university executives have been implementing security regimes that put their students, staff, and faculty under continual surveillance and subject them to policing that not long ago would have been unthinkable. The Kent report confirms that the University of Alberta Protective Services and the Edmonton Police Service collaborate in surveillance of the conversations, social media posts, and activities of students, staff, and faculty on campus (using patrols, video cameras, and facial recognition technology). Police presence on campus has become routine. Operating procedures for protests were amended unilaterally by executives on both campuses in May 2024 in anticipation of the Palestine solidarity encampments. The result is that the environment for freedom of expression on campuses has been significantly degraded. However, the failure of university executives to stand up for constitutional freedoms is a grievous abdication of democratic duty to all citizens. Given what is at stake, it is urgent that court challenges to their actions be initiated, and that those responsible be required to apologize and make reparation to those who were traumatized and whose freedoms of political expression and assembly were unreasonably denied.
The UCalgary’s executive has tried to establish the legality of its actions by commissioning a consultancy report described by legal experts as “superficial.” The UAlberta executive no doubt hopes that the Report on the Encampment they commissioned from retired Alberta Court of King’s Bench Justice, Adèle Kent, will close the book on its decision to deploy police against the PU4P. The Kent report concluded that “the administration’s ability to have the police dismantle the encampment was reasonable and justifiable under the Charter” (78). This opinion—which is not a judicial ruling—is unsubstantiated by evidence and hinges on an incomplete (and often contradictory) review of the legal tests required to arrive at such a conclusion.
UAlberta President Bill Flanagan issued a cluster of statements in May 2024 attempting to justify the forcible removal of the PU4P by police on the grounds that it posed “serious and potentially life-threatening risks” to “university community members and members of the public,” and that its removal was intended to “ensure public safety and security.” The evidence—including highly credible first-hand testimony—effectively eviscerated these claims; even Justice Kent and campus security agreed the PU4P presented no threats to anyone’s safety at the time the police were sent in.
What the executive and the justice turned to, then, to justify the camp’s removal was the possibility of future threats that could be (and were) imagined by the president’s executive council and the police. One fear they raised was that counter-protestors might show up on campus and altercations between the groups might ensue. There was no indication at the time that such events were likely, but even if they had been, we should question the logic of the argument that is being made here for the denial of Charter freedoms of expression and assembly. If the possibility of a future counter-protest that might be violent is considered grounds to ban otherwise peaceful political expression and assembly, then effectively, these Charter freedoms are null and void.
The “community safety” pretext offered by President Flanagan further lacks credibility because alternatives were available to ensure the safety of the PU4P participants that entailed far less risk of harm than the option that was chosen (sending in riot police at the crack of dawn). In this regard, the executive’s decision clearly fails the Charter tests of “least impairment” and “rationality” in relation to its supposed objective. Members of the executive chose not to meet with the PU4P, instead spending hours in “crisis management” meetings among themselves and with government officials and the police, grasping at pretexts to simply get rid of the protestors without having to answer their demands. They misled students and the public about their intentions, concealing their decision to deploy the police from student leaders and implying that negotiations were in progress when this was not true. This is the kind of bad faith treatment to which pro-Palestinian student activists have become accustomed.
We cannot overlook the likelihood that these Palestinian solidarity encampments were labelled security threats because of the relentless pressures on university administrators exerted by Zionist politicians and pro-Zionist government officials to characterize any criticism of Israel as threatening to the “safety” of Jewish students and faculty. Such pressures have been well-documented in the cases of the Universities of Alberta and Calgary, and are exhibited in many of the submissions to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights’ investigation of “antisemitism” on Canadian campuses (May 2024). Notably, the committee’s December 2024 report recommended, among other measures, that universities adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism which encompasses anti-Zionism or criticism of the state of Israel.
In contrast, we see clearly how little the safety of “community members” from racialized Muslim backgrounds (and non-Zionist Jews) has mattered for university executives—how quickly their safety was sacrificed to achieve higher-ranked priorities. The repression of pro-Palestinian protest on university campuses is consistent with the denial of rights and the violence being inflicted upon Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank on a massive scale by Israel and its military and diplomatic allies.
It can have escaped no one’s notice that we live in times of rising authoritarianism. If Canadians accept the flimsy, speculative pretexts offered by university authorities to crush peaceful protest—if we do not subject them to rigorous Charter tests—we risk the further erosion of our political rights and freedoms. If these rights may be trampled underfoot on university campuses without legal challenge, where are they protected? Constitutional lawyers, don your armour.
Laurie E. Adkin is a professor emerita in the Department of Political Science at the University of Alberta.
References
1. By “executive” I refer to the president, the president’s executive team, or council, and the Board of Governors. While responsibility for the decisions falls ultimately on the shoulders of the university presidents, the reviews have been vague in identifying who authorized what and when. Some members of the executive team at UCalgary were away from the university when the decision to call in the police was taken; none, however, have subsequently resigned their positions. In the UAlberta case, we know that the Chair of the Board was closely involved in the decision-making about the PU4P, but we do not know if other governors on the Board were consulted; none have publicly expressed their agreement or disagreement with the action that was taken. This is typical of the lack of meaningful accountability of these board members to both internal constituencies and the broader public.↩
2. Its flaws notwithstanding, the UAlberta-commissioned Kent report provides very useful information in its excerpts from interviews with executive decision-makers and the appended (though redacted) “Rolling Update” on meetings, decisions, etc., maintained by the Crisis Management Team. Additional records were obtained by journalist Jeremy Appel through a FOIPP application to the UAlberta.↩
Remove Hamas and the other Resistance groups from the Home Office list of proscribed organisations
By David Miller | Al Mayadeen | March 14, 2025
The British government should de-proscribe all of the Palestinian and Lebanese Resistance groups currently listed on the anachronistic list maintained by the Home Office. The first and most obvious reason for this is that banning these groups does not in any way prevent or disrupt political violence in the UK. This sounds like a dramatic claim. So, let’s take a close look.
After a year and a half of genocide by the illegitimate Zionist entity, voices are beginning to be raised calling for the removal of Palestinian resistance groups from the government list of proscribed organisations. But what is the list and what offences are attached to it?
When I was detained by officers of SO15 or the Counter Terrorism Command (formerly the Special Branch) under Schedule 7 the other day, I was given a piece of paper with the legal basis of the detention which I was required to sign and was given a copy to keep. It states that the detention is to enable whether I appeared ‘to be a person who is or has been concerned in the commission of instigation of acts of terrorism.’
And yet, they asked me no questions about commissioning or instigating acts of “terrorism”. Not a single one.
Instead, they asked about extremism, the Western way of life, and asked me to characterise specific views on political violence. If the Trades Description Act applied to the Terrorism Act 2000 and to the activities of SO15, I would be making a complaint to the Heathrow Trading Standards Officer.
But the reason for this is that Schedule 7 is not really intended to disrupt actual terrorism, but to surveill and repress political views and political speech which is critical of UK foreign policy, including of course support for the Palestinians’ legitimate right to resist the Zionist occupation. Don’t believe me? Let’s look closely at the Home Office list of offences related to proscribed organisations.
As one can see from the offences below, none of them have anything to do with actual acts of violence. Let’s take each in turn.
- Obviously being a member of a proscribed group might have some relevance, but membership is not itself an act of terror. And certainly, professing to be a member of Hezbollah is not, in itself, an act of terror.
- Inviting support for a proscribed group is an offence. How does one ‘invite’ support for a ‘terrorist’ organisation? The language is of course similar to the ‘notice’ issued to UK broadcasters on 19 October 1988. Otherwise known as the Broadcasting Ban, this was an attempt to suppress support for the Irish Republican movement and in particular its political wing Sinn Fein, which throughout the period remained a legal political party with many elected councillors in the north of Ireland. It made, as I argued at the time, no appreciable difference to the Irish Republican Army, the wing of the movement engaged in armed struggle. But what does it mean to ‘invite’ support? It’s not altogether clear and it is pretty plain that this particular provision has been of little use to the British state, resulting, as it has, in precious few convictions. As a result, the government added a wider and more vague clause to the act via the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019, to which we turn next.
- Express an ‘opinion’ or ‘belief’ that is supportive of a proscribed organisation. What does that mean? It obviously has the potential to be stretched quite far into opinions and beliefs that are shared by most people, even in the UK. Is saying that Seyed Hassan Nasrallah, the assassinated leader of Hezbollah, was widely respected and admired an opinion which is ‘supportive’ of a banned group? Notice the language is ‘will be’ encouraged not ‘is’ encouraged. So, at best this is a conjectural crime which does not require that anyone is actually encouraged, only that the hypothetical ‘reasonable person’ might think that. Again, nothing here that relates to involvement in planning any ‘act’ of violence.
- Arranging or managing a meeting is, manifestly, not an act of violence, whether or not it involves giving ‘support’ for a proscribed organisation and whether or not a representative of the organisation speaks, or whether the purpose of the address is to encourage support. In fact, the more we hear the voices of those (in proscribed organisations and legal ones alike) who are involved in resisting the menace of Zionism and genocide, the better it will be for the possibility of ending the genocide.
- Next is Clothing: It is an offence to ‘wear clothing or carry or display articles in public in such a way or in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that the individual is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation’. Articles of clothing are also not in themselves acts of terror, no matter how they are displayed. Obviously, what they have in mind here is branding relating to specific organisations, such as a Hezbollah flag, a Qassam Brigades head band, or other perhaps less directly connected imagery or items. Obviously, given the attemtps of the Zionists and their craven allies in the British security state, there is a push to widen the parameters so they can scoop up more and more supporters of the Palestinians. Thus the case of the young women found guilty under these powers of sporting parachute patches (below).
Or, the case of the young man found guilty of supporting Hamas for wearing a green headband with the Shahada (the Muslim profession of faith) on it (first below). This is of course not a ‘Hamas headband’. Al-Qassam Brigades, the military wing of Hamas, do have a specific headband with a gun on it! As can be seen, it is not at all similar (right below).
6. It is an offence to “publish an image of an item of clothing or other article, such as a flag or logo, in the same circumstances.” This is obviously intended to cover social media posts, which are manifestly not ‘acts’ or terrorism. This provision was inserted (12.4.2019) by Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019.
Overall, then, as we see these ‘proscription’ powers have nothing at all to do with interfering with material acts of political violence or armed struggle.
The proscription offences are not terrorism offences. It is an absurd nonsense, not to mention a colossal waste of resources, that SO15 are required to attempt to police thoughts, beliefs and speech as the vast majority of their activities at ports.
When the leading journalist Asa Winstanley was recently raided (but not arrested), he was told that it related to his alleged support for proscribed groups. A letter addressed to him ‘from the “Counter Terrorism Command” … indicates that the authorities are “aware of your profession” as a journalist but that “notwithstanding, police are investigating possible offenses” under sections 1 and 2 of the Terrorism Act (2006). These provisions set out the purported offense of “encouragement of terrorism.”’
And yet, if you look at the passage at the beginning of this article about commission or instigation of acts of terror, the implication is that to be of interest one would have to be involved in setting up a branch of Qassam Brigades in North London, or a version of Hezbllah’s Radwan Force in Reading. There is nobody in the entire counter-terrorism apparatus who believes that that is what Asa, me, or anybody else, is doing.
And when you put it like that, it’s also manifestly the case that neither Hamas, Hezbollah, the PFLP-GC or Palestinian Islamic Jihad are planning to set up branches in the UK, or – indeed – to carry out attacks here. Given the UK’s role in directly participating in the genocide, that is generous of them, but it appears to be a fact.
But more than that, free speech about armed groups fighting an almost universally acknowledged genocide should not be criminalised and proscribed.
And the case for proscribing their welfare, health, education and other manifest functions of Hezbollah and Hamas is even weaker.
They should be de-proscribed now.
Kremlin comments on ECHR Odessa massacre ruling
RT | March 14, 2025
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruling holding Ukraine accountable for the massacre in the city of Odessa in 2014 appears to be a “glimpse of common sense,” Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told TASS on Friday. However, a single ruling is not enough to draw broader conclusions, he added.
The ECHR found the Ukrainian authorities guilty of the deaths of the so-called anti-Maidan activists who burned to death after taking refuge in the Odessa trade union building, which was subsequently set on fire by radical nationalists. The court ruled on Thursday that Ukraine failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent the violence, halt it once it began, or rescue those trapped in the building.
“A very belated decision, but it seems like a glimpse of common sense,” Peskov remarked. “To confirm this, we need to see other similar actions. Which, of course, we would like to witness.”
On May 2, 2014, clashes erupted in Odessa between Ukrainian nationalists, who supported the armed coup in Kiev that had occurred several weeks before, and those who opposed it. The pro-Maidan activists attacked a tent where local residents were gathering signatures for a referendum on the federalization of Ukraine and recognition of Russian as a state language.
Outnumbered by the far-right radicals, the anti-coup activists took refuge inside the city’s trade union building. However, the nationalists surrounded the building, lobbed Molotov cocktails at it and eventually set it on fire, resulting in 48 deaths and over 200 people injured.
More than a decade later, Kiev has neither identified nor prosecuted any of the perpetrators. Instead, it has shifted the blame to Moscow, alleging that the events in Odessa were “a pre-planned and well-financed operation” by the Russian security services. Moscow has repeatedly called for an investigation into the massacre, even advocating for a special tribunal to be convened.
Relatives of 25 victims, along with three survivors of the fire, filed complaints against Ukraine with the ECHR. The court ruled that the Ukrainian police had “had ignored the available intelligence and the relevant warning signs” and made no “meaningful attempt to prevent the clashes” that led to the fire. While the ECHR acknowledged that “propaganda from Russia had had its part” in tensions being escalated, it admitted that this did not absolve Kiev of responsibility for the massacre.
Yale suspends Iranian scholar after AI site said she supports a pro-Palestine group
Press TV – March 13, 2025
Yale Law School has suspended an Iranian scholar following accusations stemming from an Israeli AI-powered website article that highlights her advocacy for Palestine and Iran, as well as her outspoken criticism of Israeli genocide during the Gaza war.
Helyeh Doutaghi, who serves as the Deputy Director of the Law and Political Economy (LPE) Project at Yale, in a public statement on Wednesday, denounced her suspension as a retaliatory action against her pro-Palestinian stance and a violation of her constitutional rights to free speech and academic freedom.
“AI is being weaponized to target students, faculty, and organizers who dare to speak out against genocide, systemic starvation, and the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians,” she warned, highlighting the broader implications of the misuse of artificial intelligence in academic and public discourse.
Doutaghi, an expert in international law who held the position of Associate Research Scholar at Yale Law School, was informed of an article published by an obscure AI-powered right-wing Zionist platform, Jewish Onliner, on March 3, which falsely labeled her a “terrorist.”
Doutaghi, who has been vocal about the implications of US military operations, imperialism and the US-Zionist genocide and the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Palestine, reported that the accusations from the article have led to online harassment and even death threats against her.
Less than 24 hours after the article’s release, Yale Law School administration placed Doutaghi on leave.
She criticized the administration for conducting an interrogation based on AI-generated allegations without due process or providing her with sufficient time to attend an interrogation.
Doutaghi also expressed concerns about Yale’s choice of attorney for her interrogation, David Ring from the firm Wiggin and Dana, whose public profile indicates a focus on services related to Israel.
She questioned his neutrality in a case involving a pro-Palestinian academic.
“The actions of YLS constitute a blatant act of retaliation against Palestinian solidarity,” Doutaghi remarked, asserting that the administration prioritized the approval of its Zionist donors over a fair investigation.
Doutaghi pointed out that Yale’s asset managers include firms linked to General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin, which produce components for the F-35 fighter jets used by Israel in committing genocide, asserting that the move creates a conflict of interest that undermines academic integrity.
“This crackdown is a dangerous escalation in state repression, fostering an atmosphere of fear on campus,” said Doutaghi. “We are witnessing a new era of Zionist McCarthyism, where dissent is met with violence, and solidarity with Palestine is rendered a punishable offense.”
“Yale is bending the knee to Trump’s effort to suppress free speech, crush academic freedom, and establish a dictatorship,” Eric Lee, Doutaghi’s lawyer wrote on social media in light of her suspension.
Meanwhile, the US State Department is reportedly considering the use of AI to potentially revoke visas for international students accused of supporting Hamas, raising further concerns about the consequences of such technology on civil liberties.
On Saturday, Mahmoud Khalil, a recent Columbia University graduate who helped lead last year’s solidarity protests in support of the Gaza Strip, was detained by Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) and said to be deported despite having a green card.
Following the detention of Khalil, US President Donald Trump declared it was “the first of many to come,” labeling Khalil a “radical foreign pro-Hamas student” and emphasizing that his administration would adopt a strict stance against any pro-Palestinian activities within American universities.
Maybe the reason the Trump administration wants to deport Mahmoud Khalil is because there’s no good reason
By Adam Dick | Peace and Prosperity Blog | March 13, 2025
The Donald Trump administration is offering no good reason to deport Mahmoud Khalil, who was involved in protests at Columbia University in New York City related to the Israel government and to United States government support for that government. He is not charged with a crime of violence or fraud. He is just singled out for advancing communication that challenged US foreign policy — exercising rights listed in the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Why, many people ask, is the US government so intent on deporting Khalil? Wouldn’t it instead make more sense to go after other noncitizens, making at least arguably credible accusations they committed crimes?
Answers to these questions are suggested by considering the fact that, because Khalil’s accused offense is just speaking up, his arrest, detention, and deportation can have maximum impact in discouraging people from taking a stand the US executive branch may oppose. Speech, assembly, or petition alone, the Trump administration is making clear, is sufficient to bring upon one the wrath of the US government. A Tuesday post at the website of the free speech advocacy organization The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) titled “Trump administration’s reasons for detaining Mahmoud Khalil threaten free speech provides elaboration:
There are millions of people lawfully present in the United States without citizenship. The administration’s actions will cause them to self-censor rather than risk government retaliation. Lawful permanent residents and students on visas will fear a knock on the door simply for speaking their minds.
If constitutionally protected speech may render someone deportable by the secretary of state, the administration has free rein to arrest and detain any non-citizen whose speech the government dislikes. The inherent vagueness of the “adversarial to the foreign policy and national security interests” standard does not provide notice as to what speech is or is not prohibited. The administration’s use of it will foster a culture of self-censorship and fear.
Khalil is being put forward as an example by the US government. The message to potential critics of the Israel government or US policy related to it is as simple and direct as it is sinister: Shut up or the US government will destroy your life.
Professor at Center of Columbia University Deportation Scandal is Former Israeli Spy
Keren Yarhi-Milo poses with Hillary Clinton during Clinton’s 2023 guest teaching stint at Columbia. Photo | Facebook | Hillary Clinton
By Alan MacLeod | MintPress News | March 11, 2025
The professor at the center of the Columbia University deportation scandal is a former Israeli intelligence official, MintPress News can reveal.
Mahmoud Khalil, a recent graduate of the university’s School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA), was abducted by Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) Saturday for his role in organizing protests last year against Israel’s attack on Gaza. Khalil’s dean, Dr. Keren Yarhi-Milo, head of the School of International and Public Affairs, is a former Israeli military intelligence officer and official at Israel’s Mission to the United Nations. Yarhi-Milo played a significant role in drumming up public concern about a supposed wave of intolerable anti-Semitism sweeping over the campus, thereby laying the groundwork for the extensive crackdown on civil liberties that has followed the protests.
Spooks in Our Midst
Before entering academia, Dr. Yarhi-Milo served as an officer and an intelligence analyst with the Israeli Defense Forces. Given that she was recruited into the intelligence services because of her ability to speak Arabic fluently, her job likely entailed surveilling the Arab population.
After leaving the world of intelligence, she worked for Israel’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations in New York. While there, she met and married her husband, Israel’s official United Nations spokesperson.
Although she is now an academic, she has never left the world of international security, making the subject her area of expertise. She has made a point of trying to lift women’s voices in the field. One of these was the then-U.S. Director of National Security, Avril Haines, whom she spoke with in 2023. But even though Khalil was a student in her school, she had nothing to say about his arrest. Indeed, rather than speak out on the issue (as activists have demanded), she instead chose this week to invite Naftali Bennett, prime minister of Israel from 2021 to 2022, to speak at Columbia. Students protesting Tuesday’s event were condemned by university authorities for “harassing” Yarhi-Milo.
Unprecedented Protests, Unprecedented Repression
Columbia was the epicenter of a massive protest movement across university campuses nationwide last year. It is estimated that at least eight percent of all American college students participated in demonstrations denouncing the genocidal attack on Gaza and calling on educational institutions to divest from Israel. The response was equally vast in its scale. Well over 3,000 protestors were arrested, including faculty members themselves.
The nationwide movement began at Columbia on April 17, when a modest Gaza solidarity encampment was established. Protestors were shocked when university president Minouche Shafik immediately called in the New York Police Department – the first time the university had allowed police to suppress dissent on campus since the famous 1968 demonstrations against the Vietnam War.
Mahmoud Khalil was among the leaders of the movement. The Syrian-born Palestinian refugee was willing to speak calmly and cogently to the press about the protest’s goals. A permanent resident of the United States, he was abducted by ICE on Saturday.
“ICE proudly apprehended and detained Mahmoud Khalil, a radical foreign pro-Hamas student on the campus of Columbia University. This is the first arrest of many to come,” President Trump stated. Secretary of State Marco Rubio echoed Trump’s ominous threat, announcing, “We will be revoking the visas and/or green cards of Hamas supporters in America so they can be deported.” In another clear threat, the Trump administration moved to cancel $400 million in funding to Columbia University, citing the institution’s failure to sufficiently crack down on “antisemitic” incidents on campus.
Khalil’s eight-month pregnant wife was initially told that he had been taken to a facility in Elizabeth, New Jersey. In fact, he had been moved halfway across the country to a center in Jena, Louisiana. Journalist Pablo Manríquez of Migrant Insider explained that ICE often goes “immigration ‘judge shopping’ by putting detainees in detention centers under jurisdictions of courts that very rarely decide in favor of migrants.”
The very high-profile attempt to deport the holder of a Green Card because of political speech criticizing a foreign government has left many civil rights lawyers deeply worried. Alec Karakatsanis, for example, stated that “I’ve never seen a more clear-cut First Amendment violation, or a more flagrant government declaration of intent to violate blackletter law.” “The government does not claim he committed a crime, just that he held views that the government doesn’t like about Israel. Bone chilling,” he added.
Columbia’s Billionaire Pro-Israel Backers
Much of Columbia’s funding comes from donations from billionaire benefactors. But those gifts come with strings attached. This became apparent in the wake of the protest movement, as many pro-Israel patrons demanded the university take action. Manufacturing magnate Robert Kraft, for example, publicly announced he was cutting his alma mater off from his lavish funding over its failure to effectively suppress the demonstrations.
Hedge fund manager Leon Cooperman did the same, demanding that Columbia’s “crazy kids” “have to be controlled.” These “kids” evidently also included 61-year-old Jordanian professor Joseph Massad, whose views on the Middle East Cooperman found intolerable, and called for his firing. Soviet-born oligarch Len Blavatnik, meanwhile, urged police to hold the protestors to account.
Between them, Kraft, Cooperman and Blavatnik are believed to have donated nearly $100 million to Columbia, giving them considerable influence over the political direction of the university.
There were also voices from within the university clamoring for the violent suppression of the student movement. Assistant Professor of Business Management Shai Davidai, for example, denounced the protestors as “Nazis” and “terrorists” and called for the National Guard to be set upon the encampment, obliquely referencing the Kent State University Massacre while doing so. Davidai, an Israeli-American, served in the IDF and has publicly expressed his pride in doing so.
Given its most recent addition, it appears unlikely that the School of International and Public Affairs will moderate its pro-Israel positions. In January, the school announced that Jacob Lew would join the faculty. Lew had just left his job as the U.S. Ambassador to Israel under the Biden administration, a role in which he facilitated American complicity in genocide, supplying Israel with weapons and providing it with diplomatic support for its efforts.
Defending Israel, Destroying Free Speech
Longtime readers of MintPress News will be less surprised than many to hear that Israeli military intelligence officials hold such important positions in American public life. Previous MintPress investigations have uncovered giant networks of former Israeli spies working in top jobs in big tech and social media companies, including Microsoft, Google, Meta, and Amazon. Even TikTok, often labeled a Chinese spying app, has hired former Israeli spies to run its affairs. And in October, we revealed that former Israeli spooks are writing America’s news, with multiple former agents working at top U.S. outlets, including CNN, Axios, and the New York Times.
Perhaps, then, the fact that the dean of the very school at the center of a worldwide media storm is a former Israeli military intelligence officer should not be such a shock. But it remains a stark reminder of the level of extraordinary institutional bias in favor of Israel displayed across the United States.
Kiev does kill civilians, contrary to the claims of EU’s top diplomat – Moscow
RT | March 12, 2025
EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs Kaja Kallas’ claim that Russian civilians “are not dying” in the Ukraine conflict is erroneous, Russia’s envoy to the UN Vassily Nebenzia has said.
During a UN Security Council meeting on Tuesday, Nebenzia denounced Kallas’s remarks from February as “immoral assertions” from an official peddling “fantasies.” He said that in 2024 alone, Ukrainian military action resulted in the death of 809 Russian civilians, including 51 children.
Those killings constituted “real crimes” and not a “theatrical performance like Bucha that was staged by the Ukrainian authorities” to garner Western support, Nebenzia stated. Kiev has cited claims that Russian forces had committed a “massacre” in the town in 2022 to justify its decision to abandon peace talks, while Russia contends that the evidence was fabricated.
Speaking at a panel discussion during the Munich Security Conference, Kallas claimed that the two nations take radically different positions: “The difference is that Russian civilians are not dying. I mean Russian children and women are not dying, it’s soldiers on the ground” who do, she stated.
In response, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova labeled Kallas’s comments as evidence of the “degradation” of senior EU officials, asserting that the senior diplomat has reached a new low in “cynicism and immorality.”
“How can one seriously negotiate with people who have declared lies as their official position?” Zakharova questioned.
Kallas, known for her hawkish stance towards Russia, became the EU’s foreign policy and security chief last December after stepping down as Estonia’s prime minister under public pressure.
USAID funded Ukraine group that smeared Vance
Protesters gather outside USAID headquarters, February 3, 2025 © Bill Clark / CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images
RT | March 10, 2025
The US Agency for International Development (USAID) has been implicated in funding a Ukrainian organization, Molfar, which labeled Vice President J.D. Vance and other US officials and public figures as “foreign propagandists” aligned with Russia, according to an investigation by The Grayzone.
Molfar, established in 2019, describes itself as an open-source intelligence community platform which “collects lists of Ukrainian enemies to bring war criminals to justice.” The group’s website identifies USAID and the US Civil Research and Development Fund (CRDF) as partners, indicating financial and operational support from US government agencies.
The group’s online blacklist not only targeted Vice President Vance for his statements opposing continued US financial support for Kiev and his stance against Ukraine’s NATO membership, but also targeted other American figures, including US Counterterrorism Director Joe Kent and Representative Thomas Massie. Molfar’s website advocated for their “removal from public positions, the introduction of sanctions, and investigations into personal involvement in crimes.”
In addition to political figures, Molfar has targeted American journalists, including Max Blumenthal, editor-in-chief of The Grayzone. The organization accused Blumenthal of disseminating Russian narratives and threatened to expose his personal information, including home addresses and family details.
Other notable figures targeted by Molfar include billionaire tech entrepreneur Elon Musk, journalists Glenn Greenwald and Tucker Carlson, and award-winning American economist and public policy analyst Jeffrey Sachs.
A report published by Ukraine’s National Coordination Cybersecurity Center (NCSCC), bearing USAID’s logo, highlighted that Molfar assisted in training thousands of Ukrainian government employees in cyber warfare techniques and psychological operations. The report stated that over 2,000 public workers participated in practical assignments covering topics such as open-source searches, contact search, using Telegram bots, psyop as a method of information warfare, human intelligence and social engineering.
According to The Grayzone, Molfar’s activities are part of a broader network of Ukrainian organizations involved in Kiev’s information war efforts at the expense of US taxpayer money.
Another self-styled “fact-checking” outfit, VoxUkraine, has received substantial funding from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and USAID. Its VoxCheck project has been involved in censoring Americans’ social media posts deemed pro-Russian. Similarly, the Center for Countering Disinformation (CCD), an official body under Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council, has collaborated with both Molfar and VoxUkraine to combat “disinformation,” often labeling US public figures as promoters of Russian propaganda, including smearing now-Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard.
Immediately upon assuming office, President Donald Trump suspended most US foreign assistance pending a three-month review to determine whether programs should continue based on their alignment with the new administration’s “America First” goals.
USAID, Washington’s primary mechanism for funding political projects abroad, has seen tens of billions of dollars’ worth of approved grants frozen as a result. The NED’s government funding was also frozen. Officially a US State Department-funded nonprofit for distributing grants to pro-democracy causes abroad, the NED has long faced allegations of acting as a CIA cutout for toppling foreign governments.
The questions they didn’t ask Marty Makary at his confirmation hearing
By Maryanne Demasi, PhD | March 9, 2025
By all accounts, Marty Makary’s confirmation hearing to lead the FDA went smoothly. As an experienced surgeon at Johns Hopkins with impeccable credentials, he handled questions with ease.
But the real issue was not what the senators asked Makary—it was what they didn’t ask him that was most concerning. They sidestepped the FDA’s recent, glaring failures, leaving critical issues unaddressed.
Much of the hearing consisted of senators pressing Makary for commitments on data he had not yet reviewed, such as mifepristone, vaping, and food additives. They also questioned him about recent FDA job cuts—decisions in which he had no involvement. As a result, there were no substantive revelations.
Makary promised greater transparency at the FDA and vowed to restore public trust. But why did no one press him on the agency’s most egregious missteps?
Speedy drug approvals
One of the most troubling trends at the FDA is its increasing reliance on expedited drug approval pathways.
Today, 65% of new drugs are pushed through these faster routes, despite clear evidence linking them to greater safety risks and a higher likelihood of requiring black box warnings.
The case of Aducanumab, the controversial Alzheimer’s drug, exemplifies this problem. It was approved in 2021 based on surrogate markers rather than meaningful clinical outcomes.
Despite an almost unanimous vote against its approval by the FDA’s advisory committee, the agency proceeded regardless, leading three committee members to resign in protest.
Harvard professor of medicine Aaron Kesselheim called it “probably the worst drug approval decision in recent US history.” Yet not a single senator questioned Makary on how he planned to reform this broken system.
When drugs are rushed through accelerated pathways, companies are required to conduct confirmatory trials to confirm efficacy and safety. But these confirmatory trials are frequently delayed, never completed, or ignored when results are unfavourable.
The FDA rarely penalises companies for non-compliance, allowing unsafe or ineffective drugs to remain on the market. Yet, the senators failed to ask Makary whether he would commit to stricter enforcement of these requirements.
A culture of secrecy
The FDA is the only major drug regulator in the world that receives individual participant data from clinical trials—yet it refuses to routinely release these data for independent scrutiny. If the agency stands by its approvals, why not allow external verification?
During the Covid-19 pandemic, the FDA granted Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA) for Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine trial in just 22 days—an unrealistic timeframe for proper analysis.
Worse still, it failed to conduct trial site inspections, despite knowing billions of doses would be administered, with experts calling the FDA’s oversight “grossly inadequate.”
When whistleblower Brook Jackson provided documented evidence of scientific misconduct in Pfizer’s pivotal clinical trial, the FDA ignored her.
The agency’s own Office of Criminal Investigations, whose job it is to conduct criminal investigations into illegal activities involving FDA-regulated products, turned a blind eye.
How can the agency expect public trust when it turns ignores such evidence?
Adding to its opacity, the FDA attempted to withhold Pfizer’s vaccine trial data for 75 years, only relenting after a legal battle. The Judge in this case said the court order would “pierce the veil of administrative secrecy.”
This should have been a major topic at the hearing. I personally have had an FOIA request pending with the FDA for over three years, and the last time I checked, the agency claimed it was still “in triage.”
Concealing data
The FDA knew early on that the immunity conferred by Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine waned rapidly, yet it withheld these findings for months, during which time millions of people queued to get vaccinated under the assumption they offered lasting protection.
The agency, despite promising transparency early in the pandemic, consistently delayed releasing safety data, preventing doctors and the public from making informed decisions. None of this was brought up by Senators at the hearing.
FDA’s drug promotion
The FDA is a regulatory body, not a marketing agency—yet it actively promoted Covid-19 vaccines, claiming they prevented long Covid despite no supporting evidence.
Former FDA Commissioner Robert Califf falsely stated that the Pfizer’s antiviral Paxlovid could prevent long Covid and even admitted to deliberately “cheerleading” the drug.
Meanwhile, the agency mocked alternative treatments like ivermectin, infamously tweeting: “You are not a horse, you are not a cow, seriously, y’all. Stop it.” It later removed the tweet after being sued. The FDA has no business dictating treatment choices or engaging in pharmaceutical advertising.
The agency also capitulated to political pressure.
The Biden administration pushed for universal Covid-19 booster approval despite weak data, prompting the resignation of two top vaccine officials, Marion Gruber and Phillip Krause. Senators should have demanded to know exactly how Makary would prevent future political interference.
False advertising
Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla publicly claimed that the company’s Covid-19 vaccine prevented transmission, even though the FDA’s own EUA documents stated this was never assessed.
The agency did nothing to correct this false advertising, yet no senator questioned Makary about how he would address misleading pharmaceutical advertising going forward.
Nor did they raise the issue of banning direct-to-consumer advertising—a policy Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has pledged to end.
Unanswered safety questions
Despite the pandemic ending, Moderna and Pfizer vaccines for young children remain under EUA. Why? There is no emergency justifying this continued authorisation.
Moreover, independent researchers have repeatedly raised concerns about excessive residual DNA in Covid-19 mRNA vaccines. The FDA has refused to investigate these findings, even as scientists continue to warn of potential risks.
Now, legal and medical experts have petitioned the FDA, citing regulatory violations and concluding the vaccines were “unlawfully approved.” Why was this not discussed at the hearing?
Beyond vaccines, the FDA has persistently ignored citizen petitions on other drug safety issues.
One example is its failure to update SSRI labelling to include warnings about post-SSRI sexual dysfunction (PSSD), despite overwhelming evidence. This inaction has led to legal action against the agency. Why did no senator demand accountability?
The task ahead
Makary was not responsible for the FDA’s past transgressions, but when confirmed, he inherits an agency in crisis.
To his credit, he was one of the few who publicly challenged flawed Covid policies during the pandemic.
Many hope he will now use his surgical precision to excise the rot within the FDA.
CHD, Doctors Ask Supreme Court to Hear Medical Free Speech Case
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender |March 6, 2025
Children’s Health Defense (CHD), Physicians for Informed Consent and a group of doctors who sued the Medical Board of California after it disciplined them for allegedly spreading COVID-19 “misinformation” have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review their case.
The plaintiffs in Kory v. Bonta submitted their petition on March 1, following the November 2024 dismissal of their case by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta is named in the suit, along with the state’s medical board.
The lawsuit, filed in January 2024, is a follow-up to a previous complaint filed in 2022 and an amended suit filed in 2023, which challenged California’s Assembly Bill (AB) 2098 — a law allowing the medical board to discipline doctors who give “false” information about COVID-19 for engaging in unprofessional conduct.
A federal judge blocked AB 2098 in January 2023, and the law was later repealed. However, according to the lawsuit, the Medical Board of California is still targeting “COVID misinformation” and is threatening physicians with disciplinary action.
Three medical professionals — Dr. Brian Tyson, a board-certified family practitioner who owns an urgent care facility; Dr. LeTrinh Hoang, a pediatric osteopathic physician; and Dr. Pierre Kory, president emeritus of the Independent Medical Alliance, launched the lawsuit.
According to the petition to the Supreme Court, the Medical Board of California and the Osteopathic Medical Board of California, “with the assistance of the California Legislature,” have threatened disciplinary actions against the plaintiffs and other physicians for offering information to patients that departs from official COVID-19 narratives.
In April 2024, a federal district court rejected the plaintiffs’ request for an injunction against the medical board. The 9th Circuit upheld the ruling in November 2024. In January, the Supreme Court rejected the plaintiffs’ emergency application for an injunction.
Lawsuit hopes to set precedent that ‘informed consent is free speech’
The case seeks to resolve contradictory precedents from two federal appeals courts on whether the First Amendment protects physicians’ communications to patients — “a question that is particularly significant in a field like medicine, where scientific understanding is continually advancing and rarely settled.”
In a Physicians for Informed Consent press release, Rick Jaffe, who represents the plaintiffs, said the lawsuit “touches on the foundational rights of professionals to share knowledge and opinions essential for patient autonomy and informed consent.”
Tyson said patients cannot provide informed consent if their physicians are denied the opportunity to speak freely.
“We want doctors and all providers to be able to discuss risks and benefits with our patients, be able to speak out against things that are wrong, and be heard when breakthroughs are made,” Tyson said. “The hope is the Supreme Court will set the precedent that informed consent is free speech.”
Supreme Court asked to decide between competing legal precedents
According to the petition, federal courts have established competing legal precedents relating to medical free speech.
In a 2022 decision in Tingley v. Ferguson, the 9th Circuit upheld the ability of professional boards in Washington to restrict members’ speech, arguing this is similar to the boards’ enforcement of “other restrictions on unprofessional conduct.”
But in a 2020 decision in Otto v. City of Boca Raton, the 11th Circuit struck down local ordinances that limited the speech of therapists and counselors, finding that such content-based and viewpoint-based restrictions violate the First Amendment, which has no carveout for controversial speech.
Tyson said the California Medical Board’s disciplinary proceedings against him jeopardized his career. “I had to defend my position against the [board] and almost lost my license … That would have been devastating to the community I serve and to all those I employ.”
Jaffe said Kory v. Bonta is similar to another First Amendment case relating to medical speech, Stockton v. Ferguson. Filed in March 2024, the lawsuit seeks “to protect the right of physicians to speak” and the public’s right to hear such speech.
CHD is a plaintiff in the lawsuit, as are several doctors facing disciplinary proceedings by the Washington Medical Commission for their public statements criticizing mainstream COVID-19 narratives. Basketball legend John Stockton is also a plaintiff, advocating for the public’s right to access and listen to “soapbox speech.”
In January, the Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs’ emergency appeal in Stockton v. Ferguson. The case remains active before the 9th Circuit. Oral arguments are scheduled for May 14, Jaffe said.
“The two cases represent the entire spectrum of cases involving what physicians say and would allow the court to give a definitive and comprehensive answer to whether and how much the First Amendment protects professionals when they communicate to patients and the public,” Jaffe said.
According to Physicians for Informed Consent, four justices must agree before the full court can hear Kory v. Bonta. If the Supreme Court decides to take the case, it will hear Kory v. Bonta in October.
Jaffe said the Supreme Court may ultimately jointly consider Kory v. Bonta and Stockton v. Ferguson. He credited CHD with its role in supporting both cases.
“We hope to establish the constitutional right of healthcare providers to speak out against the prevailing medical and scientific consensus about COVID-19, as well as whatever public health challenges face the country in the future,” Jaffe said.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Yemen gives Israel four-day ultimatum to stop blocking Gaza aid
The Cradle | March 8, 2025
The leader of Yemen’s Ansarallah resistance movement, Abdul Malik al-Houthi, announced on 7 March a four-day grace period for Israel to resume ceasefire talks and lift its blockade on humanitarian aid for Gaza, threatening to resume Sanaa’s naval operations against Israeli-linked ships.
“We meet the siege with a siege,” Houthi emphasized, adding that Yemen “cannot stand by and watch the Israeli enemy’s aggressive approach in starving the Palestinian people in Gaza.”
“We do not just issue statements, but we can support the Palestinians in several areas,” the Ansarallah leader said, pointing out that “in the course of implementing the ceasefire in Gaza, it was clear that the Israeli enemy was procrastinating in fulfilling its obligations, especially those related to the humanitarian file.
The Ansarallah-led Yemeni Armed Forces (YAF) ceased military operations in support of Palestine following the start of a US-sponsored ceasefire in Gaza earlier this year. Since November 2023, the YAF repeatedly targeted US, UK, and Israeli-linked commercial ships and western warships in the Red Sea, the Indian Ocean, and the Mediterranean Sea.
Sanaa’s efforts to stop the US-Israeli genocide in Gaza prompted an illegal war initiated by Washington and London, resulting in hundreds of airstrikes in the Arab world’s poorest nation.
Despite the western onslaught, the YAF were undeterred in their military campaign and forced several US aircraft carriers and European warships out of the Red Sea. The country has also downed 15 US MQ-9 Reaper drones and recently fired its air defenses on a US F-16 jet.
A year ago, the former US Special Envoy for Yemen, Timothy Lenderking, admitted that “there is no military solution” for Yemen.
“I don’t think people really understand just kind of how deadly serious it is what we’re doing and how under threat the ships continue to be,” Commander Eric Blomberg with the USS Laboon told US media last year.
Houthi’s warning comes almost a week after Israel reimposed a total blockade on humanitarian aid shipments for Gaza after obstructing the ceasefire agreement from moving forward by demanding an extension of the first phase.
Hamas has rejected any extension of phase one and is demanding strict adherence to the agreement and international pressure on Israel.
“The resumption of war on Gaza will be met with the entire [Israeli] enemy entity coming under fire … If the war returns to Gaza, we will intervene with support through various military means,” Houthi warned on Sunday.
Featured Video
MIT Professsor Ted Postol: Patriot Missile Capabilties
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Jewish Guilt is the Discourse of The Goyim
By Gilad Atzmon | April 24, 2018
For quite some time the British have accepted that British Jewish organizations have hijacked the political discourse. As has happened in other Western countries, the British political establishment has engaged is a relentless rant against antisemitsm. Sometime the focus drifts for a day or two. An alleged ‘Russian nerve gas attack’ provided a 48 hour pause. Occasionally we bomb Arabs in the name of ‘human intervention’ only to realize a day or two later that we have, once again, followed a premeditated foreign agenda. But, somehow, we always return to the antisemitism debate, as if our media and politicians are a herd of flies gravitating to a pile of poop. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- There Are No Budget Constraints In New York City: “Coastal Resiliency” Edition
- The UN’s plan to levy taxes on global trade is a sinister power grab
- Is there a future for the U.S. strategy in the Arctic?
- UN inquiry finds Israel ‘intentionally’ targeting Palestinian children in Gaza, occupied West Bank
- Citizens Around the World Demand Israel’s Expulsion From the United Nations
- ‘Israel not party to US-Iran talks, will continue full operations in Lebanon,’ Israeli far-right minister says
- Two killed in brazen Israeli ceasefire violation in southern Lebanon
- Which Country Is the Big Loser from the Ramadan War?
- Israeli Intel Whistleblower: Israel Ended Clinton Iran Deal With Epstein Blackmail
- MIT Professsor Ted Postol: Patriot Missile Capabilties
- If Americans Knew
- UN: Israel Continues to Commit Genocide and Other Atrocity Crimes by Deliberately Targeting Palestinian Children
- Bari Weiss, Free-Speech Fraud & Zionism Promoter, Would Rather Deport Than Debate
- ‘Doctor of the Poor’: Israeli Occupation Arrests Prominent Palestinian Physician
- Search for Your Church (and see if it has been targeted by the Israeli gov’t)
- Mark Levin Flying to Israel as Netanyahu Reportedly Seeks to ‘Leverage’ Levin to Trash Trump’s Iran Deal
- Watch: Zionist Brags about Israel’s Power to Get the World to Do What Israel Wants
- In Gaza, another senseless death on what should have been a joyous day – Daily Update
- The Republican & Democratic Politicians Trying to Scuttle Iran Agreement
- Israel’s continued targeting of civilians in Lebanon renders ceasefire meaningless
- U.S. intelligence warns Israel is likely to undermine Iran peace deal, officials say
- No Tricks Zone
- 3 New Studies Find Increasing Trends In Solar Radiation Since The 1980s – Easily Explaining Warming
- THE TRANSCEIVER PARADOX: Why Organoid Intelligence (OI) Could Become Our Ultimate Alien Predator
- German Wind Turbines Face Regulatory Shutdown Due To Excessive Noise
- New Study: Chile’s Relative Sea Level Was 3.2 Meters Higher Than Today During The Mid-Holocene
- Beyond The Pitch: Why FIFA’s World Cup Is One Of Humanity’s Best Investments
- Climate Alarmists Now Using Natural Phenomena To Support Their Claims
- New Study: Significant CO2 Fluxes From Non-Volcanic Sources Are Largely Neglected In Carbon Budgets
- Women Climate Scientists Being Harassed, Insulted By Skeptics, Claims Berkeley Earth Researcher
- Germany’s Longterm Spring Climate Data Show “No Climate Trend”
- New Study: Solar Photovoltaic, Wind Power Fail To Meet Annual Energy Demands 62% Of The Time
Aletho News 