The current standoff is, in essence, about the future of free speech in Europe. If notoriously feckless European officials fail to stand firm in the face of mounting Chinese pressure, Europeans who dare publicly to criticize the CCP in the future can expect to pay an increasingly high personal cost for doing so.

"As long as human rights are being violated, I cannot stay silent. These sanctions prove that China is sensitive to pressure. Let this be an encouragement to all my European colleagues: Speak out!" — Dutch lawmaker Sjoerd Sjoerdsma.

"It is our duty to call out the Chinese government's human rights abuses in Hong Kong and their genocide of the Uighur people. Those of us who live free lives under the rule of law must speak for those who have no voice." — Former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith.

"Beijing's strategy is to simply crush and silence any global opposition to its atrocity by inflicting crushingly punitive measures on anyone who speaks out. A very concerning development." — Adrian Zenz, German scholar.

"It is telling that China now responds to even moderate criticism with sanctions, rather than attempting to defend its actions in Hong Kong and Xinjiang." — China Research Group.

"For far too long the EU has believed in the illusion of a middle ground." — Lea Dauber, Süddeutsche Zeitung.

"In plain language: Beijing wants to decide who in Europe can talk or write about China." — Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.

"Beijing's sanctions against the UK and EU — targeting MPs, academics, even legal groups — show the regime of Xi Jinping will not tolerate dissent from anyone, anywhere." — Sophia Yan, China correspondent for the Telegraph.

"Beijing's message is unmistakable: You must choose. If you want to do business in China, it must be at the expense of American values. You will meticulously ignore the genocide of ethnic and religious minorities inside China's borders; you must disregard that Beijing has reneged on its major promises—including the international treaty guaranteeing a 'high degree of autonomy' for Hong Kong; and you must stop engaging with security-minded officials in your own capital unless it's to lobby them on Beijing's behalf." — Matt Pottinger, former deputy White House national security adviser, Wall Street Journal.

"[I]t is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement." — Principles of Medical Ethics, American Psychiatric Association.

[Dr. Bandy] Lee herself has a long history of such unprofessional conduct. She previously diagnosed President Trump, whom I believe she also never met, as being psychotic.

Lee's resort to diagnosis rather than dialogue is a symptom of a much larger problem that faces our divided nation: our unwillingness to debate issues and our willingness to resort to ad hominems and diagnoses instead of reasoned argumentation. Lee is part of that problem, not its solution. So is [Professor Richard] Painter. Shame on them.

Despite her violation of ethical and professional rules, I did not call for Lee to be fired. I simply advised Yale of her actions and asked them to investigate these violations. Yale decided to fire her not because of what I said, but because of what she did.

Lee is now suing Yale and blaming me for having caused her to be fired. She credits me with far more power than I have. I simply exercised my freedom of speech right to correct her falsehoods and to ask Yale to investigate her misuse of her credentials.