NIH hit with lawsuit for blocking COVID Gain of Function research evidence
NIH Failed to Promptly Release Documents Concerning “Gain of Function/Gain of Threat” Research on Influenza, MERS, SARS, and COVID
Center for Food Safety | May 4, 2021
Last week, Center for Food Safety (CFS) filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the National Institutes of Health (NIH), an agency with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). CFS is suing the agency over its failure to release government documents related to the approval and issuance of NIH contracts and grants that fund research projects involving controversial gain of function/gain of threat studies with dangerous, so-called “enhanced potential pandemic pathogens.”
“The NIH’s refusal to make public the research it is funding to enhance the transmissibility, infectiousness, and lethality of potential pandemic viruses is grossly irresponsible,” said Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of Center for Food Safety. “We are litigating to get that information because transparency and public knowledge about these highly hazardous experiments could be an important step in avoiding the next pandemic.”
An enhanced, “laboratory-generated” potential pandemic pathogen results from the enhancement of a potential pandemic pathogen’s transmissibility or virulence in humans. Gain of function/gain of threat studies, or research that improves the ability of a pathogen to cause disease, is a subset of life sciences research that most commonly involves the creation or use of enhanced potential pandemic pathogens.
CFS’s lawsuit focuses on the agency’s withholding of records concerning NIH’s funding of proposed research that could create, transfer, or use enhanced potential pandemic pathogens for which additional review under HHS’ Framework for Guiding Funding Decisions about Proposed Research Involving Enhanced Potential Pandemic Pathogens (HHS P3CO Framework) is required.
“FOIA requires NIH to release records promptly. Unfortunately, the agency has failed to comply with FOIA’s statutory deadlines with respect to our request,” said Victoria Yundt, staff attorney at Center for Food Safety.”Consequently, NIH has unlawfully deprived the public of its statutory right to obtain records containing crucial information about government approval and funding of new and continued gain of function/gain of threat studies that consist of creating, transferring, or using enhanced potential pandemic pathogens in U.S. laboratories, which—if released from a laboratory accident—could result in catastrophic consequences to the human environment.”
Without the requested records, CFS cannot determine how many gain of function/gain of threat projects have been funded by the NIH, nor how many of these projects have undergone the proper review or comply with other federal laws and regulations.
NIH’s unlawful withholding of public records undermines FOIA’s basic purpose of government transparency. CFS has a history of suing the federal government to compel agencies to be compliant with FOIA. CFS’s FOIA program is committed to upholding the principles embodied in FOIA, such as maintaining an open and transparent government.
Biden Regime Blocks Security Council Action on Israeli East Jerusalem Violence

By Stephen Lendman | May 11, 2021
On Monday, Security Council members met behind closed doors to discuss weeks of Israeli state terror against defenseless Palestinians in East Jerusalem.
The Biden regime blocked a statement — demanding that Israel “cease settlement activities, demolition and evictions” of Palestinians from their homes and land, according to AFP.
Short of a binding international law resolution, the watered down statement expressed “grave concern regarding escalating tensions and violence in the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem.”
It called for “refraining from provocative actions and rhetoric, and upholding and respecting the historic status quo at the holy sites.”
Since establishment of a Jewish state on stolen Palestinian land in 1948, the US supported and ignored the worst of Israeli crimes of war and against humanity against Palestinians and regional states.
Instead of condemning Israeli violence in Occupied East Jerusalem, State Department spokesman Price said the following on Monday:
The Biden regime “condemns in the strongest terms the barrage of rocket attacks fired into Israel” from Gaza.
Price ignored Palestinian retaliation against weeks of Israeli state-terror.
He was silent about IDF terror-bombing of multiple parts of the Strip, killing at least two dozen Gazans, injuring many more, traumatizing thousands, causing extensive damage.
Defying reality, he “welcome(d) (nonexistent) steps by the (Netanyahu regime) aimed at avoiding provocations (sic).”
At the same time, he called Israeli aggression “self-defense.”
Asked if he condemned Israeli killing of Palestinian children, he ignored reality by claiming:
“(W)e don’t have independent confirmation of facts on the ground yet, so I’m very hesitant to get into reports that are just emerging.”
Instead of denouncing Israeli plans to dispossess Palestinian Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood families of their homes and land, he largely ducked the issue, saying:
“We’ve been clear in urging the Israelis to act responsibly, to treat Palestinian residents with compassion and with humanity in this case.”
Refusing to call East Jerusalem occupied, he said what’s going on in the city “is a final status issue to be determined by the parties (sic).”
Ignored was that following the Oslo Accords over a generation ago, Palestinians got nothing in return but empty Israeli promises, colonization, apartheid, and occupation harshness.
They got nothing for renouncing armed struggle, recognizing Israel’s right to exist, and agreeing to leave major unresolved issues for later final status talks. They’re still waiting.
Major unresolved issues include an independent sovereign Palestine free from occupation, the right of return, settlements, borders, water and other resource rights, as well as East Jerusalem as exclusive Palestinian territory and future capital.
One-sidedly supported by the US — while pretending otherwise — Israel refuses to accept all of the above, its hard-wired policy for over half a century.
It includes delaying resolution of issues with Palestinians to facilitate continued theft of their land — wanting all valued parts of historic Palestine Judaized, including Jerusalem as Israel’s exclusive capital, its Arab residents expelled, and diaspora Palestinians denied their right of return.
During a Monday press briefing, Price refused to condemn ongoing Israeli state terror against defenseless Palestinians — calling on both sides to show restraint instead, along with ducking responses to tough questions.
According to the Palestine Red Crescent Society on Monday:
“At least 612 Palestinians sustained injuries in the course of the day in (and around the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound) and the Old City of Jerusalem.”
During the day, Israeli violence escalated after its security forces stormed the Al-Aqsa Mosque — Islam’s third holiest site.
They fired rubber bullets, tear gas and stun grenades at Palestinian worshipers inside, causing large numbers of injuries.
Rocket fire from Gaza on Israel followed its desecration of the holy site.
Ignoring Israeli state terror on Monday and previous days, interventionist Blinken said the following:
“We’re very focused on the situation in Israel, West Bank, Gaza, very deeply concerned about the rocket attacks that we’re seeing now (sic), that they need to stop (sic).”
“They need to stop immediately (sic).” But IDF terror-bombing of Gazan civilians is OK, according to longstanding one-sided US support for apartheid Israel.
A Final Comment
On Monday, the Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) said the following:
“…Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) violated al-Aqsa Mosque and its facilities, suppressed, and assaulted Palestinian worshipers and fired sound bombs and rubber bullets inside the Mosque and in its yards.”
“As a result, 305 Palestinians, including 8 journalists, were wounded — 7 were deemed in critical condition.”
“This serious escalation came only a few hours before a planned demonstration by thousands of Israeli settlers in Bab al-‘Amoud area and near al-Aqsa Mosque’s gates.”
“Chief of Israel Police ordered a large force to raid al-Aqsa Mosque in an attempt to facilitate the entry of Israeli settlers, who were gathering in Bab al Magharibah, into the Mosque.”
“Afterwards, IOF moved into al-Aqsa Mosque’s yards and its facilities via Bab al Magharibah and Bab al Silsilah amid heavy firing of rubber bullets, teargas canisters and sound bombs for 4 consecutive hours.”
At the same time, “Israeli snipers topped al-Aqsa Mosque’s western roofs, in addition to al-Qibli Mosque’s roof, and then raided the Mosque, assaulted Palestinian worshipers, and fired rubber bullets, teargas canisters and sound bombs at them.”
“As a result, dozens of Palestinians, old and young, men and women, who were detained inside the Mosque sustained wounds.”
“Also, IOF prevented medical and paramedics crew from providing first aid for the wounded. Moreover, IOF assaulted and severely beat worshipers.”
The Biden regime and its press agent media ignored virtually all of the above — in support of apartheid Israeli viciousness against defenseless Palestinians.
Using ‘Russiagate’ & ‘bounties’ logic, anonymous officials claim GRU behind mysterious ‘sonic attacks’ on US spies
By Nebojsa Malic | RT | May 11, 2021
Mysterious “sonic attacks” a scientist had identified as the work of crickets are now being blamed on some kind of Russian secret sci-fi superweapon by anonymous US officials, using the same script as “bounties” and ‘Russiagate’.
The “suspected directed-energy incidents” that have allegedly afflicted US diplomats and spies around the world may have been the work of “Russia’s military intelligence unit, the GRU,” Politico claimed on Monday, citing “three current and former officials with direct knowledge of the discussions.”
Both the CIA and the State Department are looking into the alleged attacks, but “all 18 federal intelligence agencies” are now focusing on the GRU’s “potential involvement” according to one anonymous congressional official. That makes it highly likely the source is someone from the office of House Intelligence Committee chair Adam Schiff (D-California), best known as the promoter of the conspiracy theory that Russia “hacked our democracy” in 2016.
That part about “18 intelligence agencies” is almost verbatim the “17 intelligence agencies” line used in Russiagate. The Space Force has added another agency in the meantime, you see. Trouble is, only select teams from four – the FBI, CIA, NSA and ODNI – ended up actually involved in the Russiagate document.
They produced an assessment that the alleged meddling was “consistent with the methods and motivations” they attributed to Moscow. Compare that to Politico quoting one former national security official, who said it “looks, smells and feels like the GRU.”
“When you are looking at the landscape, there are very few people who are willing, capable and have the technology. It’s pretty simple forensics,” said the anonymous former official, somehow supposedly still in the loop.
Another former official said that Israel and China may also have the technology, but not a presence in all the locations of the alleged incidents, or desire to attack Americans. But Russia does? Again, no evidence, or even explanation what any of this is supposed to be based on.
Politico’s sources also admitted no specific weapon was identified, but that didn’t stop them from speculating about a device that could fit into a car or a large backpack, capable of targeting an individual from 500 to 1,000 yards away. Does any such weapon actually exist?
Now that the KGB is no more, US propagandists love pointing the finger at GRU – which hasn’t been known under that name for a decade, by the way. The agency has been accused of everything and anything – without evidence – from hacking the emails of Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager John Podesta and running WikiLeaks in 2016, to paying “bounties” to the Taliban to kill US troops in Afghanistan.
The “Russian bounties” story – likewise based on anonymous sources – emerged just in time to derail President Donald Trump’s plan to withdraw from Afghanistan by the end of 2020, and give then-candidate Joe Biden ammunition to call Trump unpatriotic. After Biden was installed in the White House and announced that he would withdraw from Afghanistan, the “bounties” story was downgraded to “low confidence” and quietly dropped.
Politico’s bombshell speculation was picked up and parroted just as quickly and uncritically as the bounties story had been. In doing so, outlets around the world ignored the publication’s warning earlier in the day that the White House communications team handles all the quotes emanating from administration officials.
While Biden campaigned on “following the science” – a phrase the 78-year-old is fond of repeating in speeches – that commitment seems entirely absent from discussions of the alleged sonic incidents. Back in January 2019, a US Berkeley scientist said he had analyzed the recordings of the “attacks” published by AP and identified them as the chirping of the Indies short-tailed cricket.
Nebojsa Malic is a Serbian-American journalist, blogger and translator, who wrote a regular column for Antiwar.com from 2000 to 2015, and is now senior writer at RT. Follow him on Telegram @TheNebulator.
Putin submits bill for Russia to quit Open Skies Treaty one year after US withdrew from ‘spying agreement’
By Jonny Tickle | RT | May 11, 2021
Russian President Vladimir Putin has submitted a bill to the country’s parliament to leave the Open Skies Treaty, a post-Cold War surveillance agreement that allows signatory countries to openly spy on each other from the air.
The much-maligned pact has come under attack in recent times, and appears to be on its last legs. Last May, under then-President Donald Trump, the US announced it would withdraw from the treaty. This was confirmed six months later, in November.
Following Washington’s decision to leave the agreement, Moscow revealed that it wanted guarantees from America’s NATO military bloc allies that they would not share information gained through Open Skies with Washington. Such reassurances are yet to come, and current US President Joe Biden has not shown a willingness to re-sign the treaty.
On Tuesday morning, Putin submitted a bill to the State Duma, noting that Moscow would “start domestic procedures” to enable the country to withdraw from Open Skies.
The explanatory note attached to the document praised the agreement for “significantly contributing to building confidence in the military sphere,” noting that America’s decision to leave the treaty in its current form threatens Russia’s national security.
“On November 22, 2020, the US withdrew from the treaty under a far-fetched pretext,” the statement says. “Serious damage was done to compliance with the treaty and its significance in building confidence and transparency.”
In January, Russia’s foreign ministry announced that it had launched domestic procedures to withdraw from the treaty. In a statement, it noted that the move was coming after a “lack of progress in negotiations around the continuation of the treaty under new circumstances.”
Keep Weapons Out of Space — ‘The New War-Fighting Domain’
By Brian Cloughley | Strategic Culture Foundation | May 11, 2021
In January it was noted by a New York Times’ columnist that the nominated Secretary of the U.S. Defence Department, General Lloyd Austin, had “told the Senate he would keep a ‘laserlike focus’ on sharpening the country’s ‘competitive edge’ against China’s increasingly powerful military. Among other things, he called for new American strides in building ‘space-based platforms’ and repeatedly referred to space as a war-fighting domain.” This was not a surprising commitment by the about-to-be confirmed head of the Pentagon, which had already added the ominously named Space Force to its war-fighting assets.
Former White House incumbent, Donald Trump, announced creation of the Space Force in December 2019, stating it would be responsible for “the world’s newest war-fighting domain.” He considered that “Amid grave threats to our national security, American superiority in space is absolutely vital. We’re leading, but we’re not leading by enough, but very shortly we’ll be leading by a lot. The Space Force will help us deter aggression and control the ultimate high ground.” His explicit declaration that Washington is prepared to engage in warfare in yet another “domain” was not surprising, but it is regrettable that the Biden Administration shows no sign of reversing the intention to deploy weapons in space.
Russian reaction to establishment of the Space Force was President Putin’s observation that “The U.S. military-political leadership openly considers space as a military theatre and plans to conduct operations there” which is entirely against the letter and spirit of the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, known generally as the Outer Space Treaty. In Article IV of this agreement of 1967, as recorded by the U.S. State Department, “States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner.”
111 countries have agreed to abide by the treaty, and the 23 that have as yet failed to ratify it are unlikely to engage in space activities of any sort. The accord was a major step forward during the Cold War, and it was hoped that in later years its provisions might be extended and made more precise and binding, but this was not to be. The attraction of space as a war-fighting domain was too attractive to be ignored by Washington, and in 1982 the U.S. Air Force was directed by President Reagan to form Space Command, known as the “Guardians of the High Frontier” and it is not surprising that members of the new Space Force are also titled “Guardians”. The problem is the mission of these people includes “maturing the military doctrine for space power, and organizing space forces to present to our Combatant Commands.”
There has been no rebuttal of Trump’s definition of space as “the world’s new war-fighting domain,” and no modification of the Space Command Mission to “enhance warfighting readiness and lethality through the integration of space capabilities with the joint force, allies, and inter-agency partners in all domains.” And there is rejection of international moves to reduce the possibility of confrontation in space that could lead to outright conflict.
Unconditional U.S. opposition to peace in space was exemplified by its 2014 rejection of a UN General Assembly resolution on the prevention of an arms race in that domain. It is extremely difficult to see how any government could object to a proposal that calls “on all states, in particular those with major space capabilities, to contribute actively to the peaceful use of outer space, prevent an arms race there, and refrain from actions contrary to that objective.” But sure enough, although 178 countries consider this to be a good thing for the future of the world, and voted for the resolution, the United States and Israel abstained. It is verging on the incredible that these countries would not endorse a proposal that there should be peaceful use of outer space.
There was worse to come in the saga of space militarisation, for in November 2020 the First Committee of the UN General Assembly received no support from the U.S. for further initiatives that could guide the world away from the disaster that will befall us if there is no check on movement to “war-fighting” in space. Five resolutions were put forward concerning the furtherance of peace in space, and the U.S. voted against four of them, including the one that specified there should be “No first placement of weapons in outer space.” It seemed that the then U.S. administration actually favoured placement of weapons in space, and it is woeful that the Biden administration has not made it policy to cease militarisation of Trump’s “war-fighting domain”.
April 12 is the International Day of Human Space Flight, marking an important anniversary, not only of technical achievement but of a hoped-for dawn of international cooperation. The UN notes that in 1961 there was “the first human space flight, carried out by Yuri Gagarin, a Soviet citizen. This historic event opened the way for space exploration for the benefit of all humanity.” Formalisation of the anniversary was declared by a UN General Assembly stressing that celebration is merited because of international desire “to maintain outer space for peaceful purposes,” and the U.S. representative declared that the “cold war space race is over and we have all won”.
Unfortunately, the Cold War has been resumed by Washington, and the “space race” has been re-established by creation of the Space Force intended to “control the ultimate high ground.”
The fact that the International Day of Human Space Flight involves remembrance of a Russian astronaut is enough to keep the anniversary out of the U.S. mainstream media, and this affected reporting of an important statement made on that day last month.
Russia’s foreign minister Sergey Lavrov reiterated Moscow’s space policy by stating “We consistently believe that only guaranteed prevention of an arms race in space will make it possible to use it for creative purposes, for the benefit of the entire mankind. We call for negotiations on the development of an international legally binding instrument that would prohibit the deployment of any types of weapons there, as well as the use of force or the threat of force.”
The policy could not be clearer. And it was followed by a similar declaration by China’s Zhao Lijian that “We are calling on the international community to start negotiations and reach agreement on arms control in order to ensure space safety as soon as possible. China has always been in favour of preventing an arms race in space; it has been actively promoting negotiations on a legally binding agreement on space arms control jointly with Russia.”
On February 22, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in a speech in Geneva that the U.S. should “engage all countries, including Russia and China, on developing standards and norms of responsible behaviour in outer space.”
Even if Blinken’s words fall well short of equating “responsible behaviour” with any indication of a commitment to refrain from placing weapons in space, he did conclude that “I pledge that the United States is here to work, cooperate, and once again use the Conference on Disarmament to create bold, innovative agreements to protect ourselves and each other.”
Well: get on with it, Secretary Blinken. Start talking with people rather than at them. You might even manage to convince your own Space Guardians that peace is better than war.
US handing out germ warfare weaponry that could wipe out millions across world, Russian official claims
RT | May 11, 2021
The US is becoming a major exporter of deadly biological weapons to nations across the globe, a member of Russia’s Security Council has argued, warning of the potential for a colossal body count if they are ever actually used.
Yuri Averyanov, the first deputy secretary of the country’s top national defense body, used an interview with RIA Novosti on Tuesday to warn that “lethal and dangerous microorganisms… could potentially be released into the environment, allegedly by mistake.” He added that such an attack, if used against Russia, “would lead to a massive destruction of the civilian population” both within the country and in neighboring states.
He added that Washington is currently working to increase biological weapons capabilities in a number of states around the world, including some close to Russia. These programs, he says, weaponize viruses and other pathogens “primarily for military purposes.”
Last month, the secretary of the Security Council, Nikolai Patrushev, also warned about research facilities near the borders of Russia and China, suggesting that they could be used as part of a concerted biological warfare effort against the two nations. “There are research centers where Americans help local scientists develop new ways to combat dangerous diseases,” he said, but claimed that “the authorities in the countries where these centers are located have no real idea what is happening within their walls.”
Germ warfare is formally banned by the Biological Weapons Convention, signed in 1972 and ratified by 183 states. Russia, along with the US and Britain, underwrites the agreement as one of the three depository members responsible for administering membership of the treaty. The convention describes the potential use of biological and toxin-based weapons as “repugnant to the conscience of mankind.”
Despite this, the Federation of American Scientists has previously cautioned that US research on non-lethal bio-agents “exceeds the limits” imposed by the Cold War-era deal. However, the Atlantic Council, a lobby group for the US-led NATO military bloc has implied that Moscow could be breaching the convention, and argued that the pact should be “given some teeth – to keep countries like Russia in line.”
Leading Russiagate conspiracy theorist appointed to key national security role at Biden’s Department of Justice
RT | May 10, 2021
Susan Hennessey, a former Obama-Biden administration lawyer who turned to promoting the Russiagate conspiracy theory during Donald Trump’s presidential term, has finally found her landing spot on President Joe Biden’s team.
Hennessey announced the move herself after seemingly scrubbing her Twitter account of Russiagate tweets, saying on Monday that she’s “honored to be joining the extraordinary team at the Department of Justice (DOJ).” In fact, she will be senior counsel in the DOJ’s National Security Division.
In between her roles with Obama-Biden and now Biden-Harris, Hennessey served as one of the more unhinged voices of the anti-Trump “#Resistance” and supported the Russiagate propaganda campaign through jobs as CNN analyst, Lawfare blog executive editor and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution think tank.
Responding to the appointment, journalist Glenn Greenwald called Hennessey “one of the most deranged Russiagate conspiracists.”
One of her Lawfare articles defended the widely discredited Steele dossier, suggesting that the mere fact the anti-Trump “intelligence community” had briefed the president-elect on the sordid allegations gave the report credibility. Even the fact that then-intelligence director James Clapper – later a CNN contributor and anti-Trump media activist – refrained from calling the dossier false meant that it must be at least partly true, she argued.
Hennessey’s attacks on Trump were wide-ranging, from the more minor “clearly, Melania hates him,” jab, to arguing that FBI officials “were telling the truth” when they misled the court to secretly spy on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. She even wrote a book saying that Trump was waging “war on the world’s most powerful office.”
When then-presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard suggested in 2019 that the US should pursue calm and better relations with Russia, Hennessey called the Democrat congresswoman “absurd.” She blasted Attorney General Bill Barr last year after the DOJ dropped charges against ex-National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, saying there should be mass resignations from the DOJ, despite a review having determined that the case against the retired general was “unjustified.”
Journalist Michael Tracey said it was “blatant, transparent corruption” for Hennessey to seamlessly transition from NSA lawyer to Russiagate propagandist, then shift right back to the “National Security State” after Trump was ousted.
“Hunter Biden getting hired to run DEA would be less absurd than Biden’s decision to hire Hennessey to work on national security law, unless of course DOJ plans to falsify evidence and illegally spy on its political opponents,” Federalist co-founder Sean Davis said. “She’s perfect for that.”
Who needs a totalitarian state when zealous, woke workers ensure that books with ‘invalid opinions’ never get an airing?
By Frank Furedi | RT | May 10, 2021
The publishing industry is encouraging grass roots censorship and increasingly giving in to employees who demand that certain views should never be able to be expressed – especially those involving trans issues.
It looks like publishing is fast becoming a career choice for ambitious would-be censors. The most aspiring and aggressive wing of the grass-roots censorship movement is the lobby policing publications dealing with trans-related issues. Recently a group of individuals from across the publishing industry associated with this lobby wrote a letter to The Bookseller demanding the censoring of books that it deems unfavourable to its cause.
The main point of the letter is to claim that trans culture cannot be a subject of debate and that publishers should prevent opinions that run counter to it from being published. It states:
“Transphobia is still perfectly acceptable in the British book industry. Our industry excuses it, says that to view transgender individuals as having less than full human rights is OK and an opinion as valid as others. Our industry is still very comfortable about giving this form of prejudice a powerful platform. We need to step away from the paradigm that all opinions are equally valid.”
The demand to reject the paradigm that all opinions are valid is a roundabout way of saying that ‘invalid’ opinions can be legitimately censored and authors who hold such views should be cancelled and silenced.
Calls for censorship by freelance inquisitors working in publishing have also been busy in the United States. Employees at Simon & Schuster recently filed a petition insisting that the publisher sever its ties with writers associated with the Trump administration. The petition, signed by 216 employees, gained the support of over 3,500 external supporters, including well-known black writers such as the two-time winner of the National Book Award for Fiction, Jesmyn Ward.
When well-known writers join the queue of enthusiastic censors, it becomes evident that American literary culture is in trouble.
One of the targets of the Simon & Schuster inquisitors is a two-book deal that the company signed with former Vice-President Mike Pence. Since they believe that Pence’s opinions are not as valid as theirs, shutting down one of the leading voices of the Republican Party is a public service to society.
One of the most disturbing features of the inquisitorial movement in the publishing industry is the casual manner with which it seeks to corrupt the ideals of tolerance and free speech.
It is worth noting that the letter sent to The Bookseller is titled ‘The Paradox of Tolerance’. Since it rejects tolerance for views with which it disagrees – it states, “it is clearly not appropriate to say simply ‘everyone is entitled to their opinion’” – it should be titled ‘The Case for Intolerance’!
The hypocrisy of the supporters of censorship in publishing was highlighted in June 2020, by a group called Pride in Publishing. It wrote a circular, ‘Let’s clarify what free speech is and is not: An open letter to the industry from Pride in Publishing’. The aim of this letter was to support employees at Hachette Children’s Books who objected to working on JK Rowling’s latest book. Rowling – the author of the Harry Potter series – had in these employees’ opinion committed the unpardonable sin of refusing to accept the definition of sex and gender promoted by trans activists.
The letter stated: “Let’s clarify what free speech is and is not. Free speech does not entitle an author to a publishing contract. But it does protect the right of a worker to raise the alarm when they’re asked to participate in something that can cause them or someone else harm or trauma. Transphobic authors are not a protected group. Trans and non-binary people are.”
In British law, those using words that express hostility towards so-called protected groups with protected characteristics – such as race, religion, sexual orientation, transgender status and disability – can be charged with a hate crime. The implication of Pride in Publishing’s statement is that the right to exercise free speech is qualified in circumstances when it is directed at a protected group. This letter also highlights what has become one of the most distinctive features of 21st century linguistic policing – the diseasing of free speech.
In effect, the implication of the Pride in Publishing statement is that Rowling’s book represents a threat to the safety and mental health of the trans and non-binary people working at Hachette. It states that “employees should never have to work on content which is detrimental to their mental health or which causes them unnecessary turmoil.” This sentiment echoes the widely held view which insists that verbal and published communications are a potential hazard to people’s well-being and therefore need to be regulated to protect certain groups from offense, psychological trauma, and mental health problems.
This medicalisation of free speech, leading to its diseasing, has become one of the most effective arguments used for undermining freedom of expression.
Activists have, in effect, reinforced their call for censorship by claiming that the publication of invalid opinions by authors who offend them causes them psychological distress and trauma.
The publishing industry has recognised that its new generation of employees do not expect to work with material that upsets them. David Shelley, the CEO of Hachette, and Clare Alexander, a literary agent, recently told a Lords Committee that new recruits into the publishing industry must be warned that they may have to work on books by people they don’t agree with!
That publishers need to warn employees that they may have to work with authors whose views they dislike highlights the precarious position of free expression and tolerance in this industry.
Once upon a time, publishers were worried about the threat posed by state censorship and feared provoking the wrath of authoritarian censors from above. Today the publishing industry has become complicit in acquiescing to cancel culture, and the pressure to police what the public gets to read comes from below, from a new generation of intolerant employees.
Who needs a totalitarian state when zealous, fragile, and woke workers are determined to ensure that ‘invalid opinions’ never get an airing?
Frank Furedi is an author and social commentator. He is an emeritus professor of sociology at the University of Kent in Canterbury. Author of How Fear Works: The Culture of Fear in the 21st Century.


A Review of Conspiracy Theories and Other Dangerous Ideas by Cass Sunstein (based on an earlier paper co-authored with Adrian Vermeule); In Defense of Troublemakers: The Power of Dissent in Life and Business by Charlan Nemeth; and Conspiracy Theories and the People Who Believe Them, edited by Joseph E. Uscinski