Subscribe now

Mark Carney recently declared that “Muslim values are Canadian values,” one more carefully focus-grouped slogan from a political class that increasingly mistakes applause lines for analysis.

Mr. Carney’s talent is not conviction. It is calibration. It is the art of telling people what they want to hear in the moment. He is very good at it.

He is the human equivalent of adaptive camouflage.

Bankers hear prudence. Activists hear compassion. Business leaders hear industrial policy. Internationalists hear global harmony. Muslim audiences hear that their values are Canada’s values. Every room receives its own customized reflection.

One must admire the technique.

The difficulty is that slogans are not arguments. But it seems that there is little appetite for argument.

And a civilization that loses the ability to distinguish between welcoming people and examining ideas eventually loses the ability to defend itself at all.

Before proceeding, an obvious clarification is necessary.

They are nearly two billion individuals spread across dozens of nations, languages, ethnicities, cultures, and political systems. Many are secular. Many are moderate. Millions are loyal citizens of liberal democracies. Millions contribute enormously to Western societies.

This essay is therefore not about Muslims as people.

It is about ideas.

More specifically, it is about whether orthodox Islamic doctrine and liberal democratic values are, in fact, interchangeable.

To ask that question is no more bigoted than observing that medieval Catholicism conflicted with Enlightenment liberalism, Soviet communism conflicted with free markets, or censorship conflicted with free speech.

Ideas must remain open to scrutiny.

Indeed, a civilization that loses the ability to examine belief systems - both its own and others - critically ceases, in any meaningful sense, to be a civilization at all.

Christopher Hitchens understood this perfectly.

That observation cuts directly to the issue.

The central tension between orthodox Islam and liberal democracy is not ethnic.

It is philosophical.

Liberal democracy rests upon several assumptions that were neither inevitable nor historically universal:

1. that individuals possess freedom of conscience;

2. that religion may be criticized;

3. that law emerges from democratic consent rather than divine decree;

4. that women are equal before the law;

5. that citizens may leave a religion without punishment;

6. and that private life is not principally governed by clerics or sacred law.

Orthodox Islam emerged from a very different civilizational architecture.

Islam was not merely a devotional faith.

From its inception, it was also a legal, political, and governing framework.

The Quran and Hadith shaped not only prayer and ritual but also law, commerce, warfare, governance, family structure, and public morality. Muhammad was not simply a religious teacher. He was also a statesman, military leader, lawgiver, and empire-builder.

This distinction matters.

Within roughly a century of Muhammad’s death in 632 AD, Muslim armies had conquered territories stretching from the Iberian Peninsula to Central Asia. Syria, Egypt, North Africa, Persia, Mesopotamia, and vast portions of the Byzantine and Sassanian worlds fell under Islamic rule.

This was not merely a religion spreading through private conversion, philosophical persuasion, or quiet missionary work.

It was one of the most successful military and political expansions in human history.

Entire civilizations were conquered. Ancient states were displaced. New legal, political, and religious institutions were imposed across territories spanning thousands of miles and tens of millions of people.

Nor was conquest an embarrassing footnote later attached to an otherwise spiritual movement.

It was part of the founding story itself.

The early Islamic community did not merely survive. It ruled. It governed. It taxed. It legislated. It fought. It expanded.

The distinction is important because imperial expansion is not some colonial distortion later grafted onto Islam by ambitious rulers. It appears in the tradition’s formative history, sacred narratives, and jurisprudential development. Political authority and religious authority emerged together.

That does not mean every Muslim today seeks conquest any more than every Christian wishes to revive the Crusades.

The issue is not the intentions of individual believers. The issue is what is embedded within the tradition itself.

And embedded within Islam’s formative centuries is the memory of extraordinary military success, political expansion, and civilizational confidence.

The same observation applies to slavery.

Modern Western discussions often speak as though slavery were uniquely European or Atlantic in character. It was not.

From the Umayyads and Abbasids to the Ottomans, slave systems were woven into the economic and political structures of much of the Islamic world for over a millennium. Millions of Africans were transported through the trans-Saharan, Red Sea, and Indian Ocean slave trades. Millions more were taken from Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, the Balkans, and the Mediterranean. Some of the largest and longest-lasting slave systems in human history existed under Muslim rule.

It is simply part of the historical record.

The point is not that Muslims are uniquely imperial or uniquely guilty. The Romans built empires. The Mongols built empires. The Chinese built empires. Europeans built empires.

The point is that Islam emerged not simply as a private faith but as a governing civilization whose formative centuries fused religious authority, political authority, military power, law, and expansion.

That historical reality continues to shape debates about sovereignty, law, governance, and identity in ways that modern Western elites often seem reluctant even to acknowledge.

This was not merely a religion spreading through private conversion.

It was a civilization expanding through governance, taxation, law, military conquest, and political authority.

Nor was this expansion treated as an unfortunate deviation from the faith’s original purpose.

It became part of the tradition’s sacred history.

The issue is not whether every Muslim seeks political domination.

Clearly, they do not.

The issue is whether political expansion, civilizational conquest, and the fusion of religious and temporal authority are present within Islam’s foundational texts, traditions, and historical memory.

The answer is plainly yes.

The crucial distinction is between what is embedded in a tradition and how individual believers choose to interpret it.

Many Muslims interpret Islam primarily as a personal faith emphasizing charity, family, devotion, and spirituality.

But the existence of moderate interpretations does not erase the contents of the underlying texts or the historical reality of the civilization that emerged from them.

The question is therefore not whether individual Muslims can be loyal citizens of liberal democracies.

Millions plainly are.

The question is whether a tradition whose formative centuries fused law, governance, military expansion, and divine authority will always sit comfortably beside a liberal order built upon secular sovereignty, freedom of conscience, and democratic law.

That is not a question of prejudice.

It is a question of history.

Subscribe now

History, however, is not the only source of evidence.

One need not speculate about how orthodox Islamic concepts of law, governance, and religious authority are understood today. We possess polling data from across the Muslim world measuring precisely these attitudes.

The landmark 2013 Pew Research Center survey, encompassing more than 38,000 interviews across 39 countries, found overwhelming support in many Muslim-majority societies for Sharia as official law.

Support reached 99% in Afghanistan, 91% in Iraq, 89% in the Palestinian territories, 84% in Pakistan, and 74% in Egypt.

Western commentators often retreat into a comforting ambiguity here. They suggest that Sharia simply means personal spirituality, ethical guidance, or a general commitment to religious values.

Pew’s own findings dismantle that interpretation.

Among Muslims who supported Sharia, majorities in several countries also supported stoning for adultery, amputations for theft, and the death penalty for apostasy.

Pause for a moment.

A society that supports execution for changing one’s religion is not operating from the same philosophical assumptions as a liberal democracy.

Whatever else one wishes to say about Muslim communities—and one may say many positive things—this is not freedom of conscience.

Nor does the divergence end there.

The Pew data found overwhelming moral opposition to homosexuality across much of the Muslim world. Large majorities endorsed traditional patriarchal structures in which wives were expected to obey husbands. These are not random cultural curiosities. They emerge from longstanding theological and jurisprudential traditions.

This is precisely the sort of civilizational tension Samuel Huntington described in The Clash of Civilizations.

Huntington argued that the post-Cold War world would not primarily fracture along economic or ideological lines but along cultural and religious ones. He warned that Western elites falsely assumed all civilizations were converging toward secular liberal democracy.

His critics often treated such observations as moral crimes rather than arguments to be debated.

Reality has been less cooperative.

It includes profoundly different assumptions about law, authority, religion, sexuality, speech, family structure, and the relationship between the individual and the state.

Some of those assumptions coexist peacefully.

Others collide directly.

These tensions may be managed.

They cannot be wished away.

What is striking, however, is not merely what we know.

It is what we refuse to ask.

The Pew data tells us a great deal about attitudes across the Muslim world. Yet Canada has shown remarkably little curiosity about equivalent questions at home.

In other words, the evidence pointed neither toward alarmist fantasies nor toward the fairy tale that every inherited belief system dissolves automatically into progressive liberalism somewhere over Pearson Airport.

Some immigrants liberalize.

Some become more consciously orthodox.

Some integrate rapidly.

Others retain strong attachments to the political and religious assumptions of their countries of origin.

This should surprise no one.

Identity is not erased by customs clearance.

Yet there remains a remarkable reluctance among Canadian institutions to examine these questions directly.

One suspects there may be a reason.

Modern elites increasingly prefer ambiguity to uncomfortable clarity.

Better not to ask the question than risk discovering an inconvenient answer.

Christopher Hitchens despised this kind of intellectual cowardice.

He argued that ideas deserve no immunity from scrutiny merely because they are sincerely held.

“Human decency,” he observed, “is not derived from religion. It precedes it.”

That insight matters enormously.

Because the issue is not whether Muslims can live peacefully in Canada.

Millions already do.

On that question, honesty matters more than applause lines.

Which brings us back to Mr. Carney.

His declaration that “Muslim values are Canadian values” was not a serious civilizational argument.

It was a slogan.

A politically useful incantation designed to signal inclusion, avoid controversy, and harvest goodwill.

Muslim audiences are told that Muslim values are Canadian values.

Quebec nationalists hear a different melody.

Environmental activists hear another.

Western Canadians receive an Edmonton Oilers jersey and carefully calibrated prairie symbolism.

Economic frustrations accumulated over a decade of Liberal governance are redirected toward Donald Trump and American hostility.

Every audience receives its own flattering reflection.

One must almost admire the technique.

But slogans cannot permanently abolish reality.

The values embedded in orthodox Islamic jurisprudence and those underlying secular liberal democracy are, in important respects, profoundly different.

That does not make Muslims bad people.

It does not make coexistence impossible.

It does not diminish the contributions of millions of Muslim citizens to Western societies.

But it does mean that serious societies must distinguish between tolerance toward individuals and the claim that all belief systems are morally, philosophically, and politically interchangeable.

A confident civilization can welcome newcomers while defending its own foundations.

A civilization that cannot draw that distinction eventually loses not merely its clarity, but its courage.

And no amount of carefully marketed applause lines can change that.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

There was a time—not so very long ago, though it now feels like a prior moral century—when one might have asked what it meant to be Canadian and received, if not a compelling answer, then at least a confident one. Today, the question produces something closer to a shrug wrapped in a flag. We are told, with a certain defensive pride, that we are polite, that we queue, that we apologize with almost liturgical regularity. But these are manners, not meaning. A nation, like a man, cannot live indefinitely on etiquette alone.

One is tempted to admire the honesty, if not the implication. For if a country truly believes it has no centre, no defining thread, then it should not be surprised when its public life begins to fray into a collection of gestures rather than a coherent whole. What is presented as openness begins to look, on closer inspection, like a studied refusal to answer the most basic of questions: not merely who we welcome, but what, if anything, we are inviting them into.

What has crept in to fill the vacuum is something more brittle: an identity formed not on conviction, but on negation. We are, above all, not American. This has become the quiet catechism of the Canadian self. It was there in the student’s backpack, adorned with the maple leaf less as a celebration than as a disclaimer.

“Do not mistake me,” it seemed to say. “I am not one of them.” And from such small gestures a national psychology has been constructed: one part insecurity, one part superiority, and no small measure of dependence.

The difficulty with building an identity on what one is not is that it requires a permanent object of contrast. Remove the American, and the Canadian is left staring into an existential mirror with very little to report back. The cost of this hollowness is not merely philosophical. It is political.

Because people are uncertain of what they will seize, with uncritical enthusiasm, upon anyone who claims to defend what they are not.

Subscribe now

Read more

“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” — Jeremiah 17:9

The most important thing I have learned over the last several years is not political. It is not legal. It is not, in the final analysis, even personal.

It is anthropological. It is spiritual. It deals with the nature of humans.

Read more

Share

I’m a Winnipeg Jets fan.

Not in the modern, floating sense where loyalties change every few years depending on fantasy leagues, jersey designs, or social media trends. I mean genuinely. Irrationally. Permanently.

But I loved it.

I still remember going to see the Jets play in the old WHA days. I remember going to the old Winnipeg Arena near Polo Park — not the polished downtown Canada Life Centre of today, but that old building with its gritty atmosphere, sticky floors, cramped seats, cigarette smoke soaked into the walls, and the sense that hockey in Winnipeg was less entertainment than survival. It was rough around the edges. Dirty in places. Loud. Chaotic. Cold outside and overheated inside.

But they were my team.

I even remember the famous moment when Bobby Hull’s toupee was pulled off during a game, one of those absurd childhood sports memories that permanently lodges itself in your brain.

And hockey, somehow, got into my blood.

I remember one season when our terrible little Rinkydinks somehow made the city playoffs. Every game felt like the Stanley Cup to us. And I remember throwing myself into a pileup in front of the goalie crease, skates flashing everywhere, bodies crashing on top of one another, and coming up with the bottom of my ear nearly sliced off by a skate blade.

There was blood pouring down my neck.

Adults were yelling.

I angrily allowed one of the hockey mums to take me off to Victoria Hospital.

And all I remember thinking was that I did not want to leave the game.

It was Winnipeg. It was hockey. When I left, we were winning. But we lost. It hurt more than the ear.

Subscribe now

And I’ll confess something even more irrational.

Living in Ontario now, I still go see the Jets whenever they play the Leafs. My kind and rich friend gives me tickets.

And during those games, I cannot stand Leaf fans. I say this with affection, but also complete honesty. They are the corporate aristocracy of hockey fandom — overfed on ticket prices, trapped in a building full of investment bankers and vice-presidents discussing secondary scoring between bites of sushi. Their cheers often sound strangely anemic considering the size of the market, as though everyone is slightly worried about spilling Chardonnay on a quarter-zip sweater.

Leaf fans also carry that peculiar mixture of entitlement and trauma that only decades of failure can produce. Every October, they speak as though the Cup is inevitable; every April, they speak as though civilization itself is collapsing.

And yet — here is the strange Canadian thing — once my Jets are gone, if Toronto is the last Canadian team standing, I will become a Leafs fan.

Temporarily. Reluctantly. Slightly nauseated. But sincerely.

The rivalries matter.

But the drought hangs over all of us.

Because somewhere deep down, many Canadians still want the Stanley Cup to come home.

Perhaps, then, this is merely bad luck.

Perhaps the country that invented hockey wandered into a bizarre statistical desert where every overtime goes wrong, every post rings out, every hot goalie appears at the wrong moment, and every Canadian spring eventually ends with another parade somewhere warm.

Fine. Let us concede the mathematics.

But “bad luck” is not an explanation. It is merely a description of an outcome. If a roulette wheel lands on black 32 times, eventually one stops admiring probability and starts checking whether the table is tilted.

And that is where Canadian hockey now finds itself.

The deeper question is not whether luck exists. Of course it does. Edmonton nearly won. Vancouver nearly won. Calgary nearly won. Montreal nearly won. Canada has produced elite rosters, elite coaches, elite goaltenders, and some of the greatest players alive.

The real question is this:

Why do seven franchises sharing the same country, similar tax burdens, similar climates, similar media cultures, and similar player-preference problems continue failing together?

That is not merely a drought.

That is an ecosystem.

Critics immediately point to the NBA, MLB, and NFL.

Those leagues have long droughts, too.

The NBA has franchises wandering through decades of irrelevance. Baseball has organizations seemingly constructed from despair. The NFL has entire museums dedicated to pain.

True.

But those droughts are usually collections of weak franchises assembled after the fact. They are not coherent structural categories. The Sacramento Kings, Charlotte Hornets, and Washington Wizards do not share a national identity, a climate, a tax regime, a media culture, or a player-avoidance problem.

Canada’s NHL teams do.

That is what makes this unique.

The Canadian teams are not collectively incompetent. They are not collectively poor. They are not collectively unpopular. Some have been excellent organizations at various times. Toronto has ice-dominant regular-season teams. Edmonton has Connor McDavid and Leon Draisaitl. Montreal reached a final. Vancouver has had powerhouse eras. Calgary and Ottawa have both been legitimate contenders.

This is not seven hopeless franchises failing independently.

It is seven structurally linked franchises failing together.

That distinction matters enormously.

This is where hockey separates itself from the NFL, NBA, and MLB.

The NFL technically permits no-trade clauses, but they are relatively rare and culturally insignificant. Football overwhelmingly remains management-driven.

The NBA technically allows no-trade clauses, too, but they are extraordinarily rare because eligibility rules are so restrictive that almost nobody qualifies.

Major League Baseball has some movement protections — especially 10-and-5 rights for veterans — but MLB does not structure roster construction around widespread player veto power.

The NHL does.

The NHL has normalized:

• no-trade clauses,

• no-move clauses,

• modified no-trade lists,

• destination vetoes,

• and extensive player-controlled movement restrictions.

Roughly 30 percent of NHL players reportedly possess some form of movement protection.

That is enormous.

And here is the critical point: the preference patterns are not random.

Agents and insiders have repeatedly identified Canadian cities — especially Winnipeg and Edmonton — as common appearances on player no-trade lists. Sometimes explicitly. Sometimes informally. Sometimes through “understandings” between agents and clubs.

But the direction is obvious.

The reasons are not mysterious:

• weather,

• media pressure,

• taxation,

• anonymity,

• lifestyle,

• family preference,

• relentless scrutiny,

• and the psychological intensity of Canadian hockey culture.

The NHL, therefore, has a contradiction embedded in its economic structure.

It claims to be competitive because payrolls are capped equally.

But if a significant portion of elite players can quietly steer themselves away from certain markets, then the cap does not create equality. It creates the appearance of equality while geography continues to exert force underneath the surface.

The ice is not level.

The league simply paints it white and pretends not to notice the slope.

Canadians often become strangely sentimental about taxation.

“Well, if a player really wants to win…”

No.

Professional athletes are rational economic actors with short earning windows and finite careers.

And under the NHL’s hard salary cap, taxes matter enormously because teams cannot simply outspend disadvantages.

NHL contracts are denominated in U.S. dollars, but players do not keep equal amounts of those dollars depending on where they play.

A player earning $5 million USD annually roughly keeps:

• Florida Panthers: approximately $3.1 million USD after tax

• Dallas Stars: approximately $3.0 million USD after tax

• Vegas Golden Knights: approximately $3.0 million USD after tax

• Minnesota Wild: approximately $2.7–2.8 million USD after tax

• Winnipeg Jets: approximately $2.5–2.6 million USD after tax

• Toronto Maple Leafs: approximately $2.4 million USD after tax

The gap between Toronto and Florida can approach $700,000 USD annually on the same headline contract.

Over a seven-year deal, that can mean roughly $5 million more retained income in a low-tax jurisdiction.

And because the NHL has a hard salary cap — unlike MLB and unlike much of the NBA’s softer luxury-tax structure — Canadian teams cannot simply compensate by spending more.

The cap, therefore, magnifies tax inequality.

Again, the system claims neutrality while embedding a structural advantage.

Canadian fans often romanticize the pressure of Canadian hockey. But many NHL players do not dream of becoming permanent public property.

In Canada, hockey is not merely entertainment. It is emotional infrastructure.

A Leafs defenceman is treated like a cabinet minister with worse approval ratings.

A Canadiens goaltender can become a national psychiatric event.

Meanwhile, in Dallas, Tampa, Raleigh, Vegas, or Nashville, a player can often live something approximating a normal, wealthy life.

Even in Minnesota — one of America’s great hockey states — the Vikings remain the emotional cathedral. The Wild matter deeply, but they are not the state’s psychic operating system.

In Canada, NHL players often exist inside permanent emotional surveillance.

That intensity is magnificent for fans.

It is not necessarily attractive to free agents.

The Vegas Golden Knights entered the NHL in 2017 and immediately behaved like a franchise entirely free of sentimentality.

They traded aggressively. They exploited loopholes. They weaponized cap flexibility. They behaved with urgency.

And they won.

Since entering the league, Vegas has reached multiple conference finals, multiple Stanley Cup Finals and won the Stanley Cup almost immediately after its birth.

Now contrast that with Winnipeg.

Since Vegas entered the NHL, the Jets have won remarkably few playoff rounds despite periods of excellent regular-season hockey. Winnipeg often enters the playoffs discussed as “dangerous,” “deep,” or “well-balanced,” only to disappear quickly once the games truly matter.

Yet the organizational culture has often projected extraordinary stability bordering on immovability.

Kevin Cheveldayoff has been the general manager since 2011. The Jets organization frequently appears patient to the point of paralysis. They care more about hometown connections than competency.

The last major coaching departure came not because management aggressively cleaned house, but because Paul Maurice essentially resigned himself.

He fired himself.

Vegas, by contrast, behaves almost ruthlessly:

• coaches are expendable,

• beloved players are expendable,

• sentimentality is expendable,

• and the only sacred object is winning.

This is not merely tactical. It is cultural.

Canada, broadly speaking, is less entrepreneurial than the United States. We are more managerial, more bureaucratic, more consensus-driven, more deferential to continuity and process.

That mentality leaks into hockey.

Canadian organizations often overvalue patience. They confuse continuity with wisdom. They fear appearing rash. They hold meetings about problems while Vegas is already exploiting them.

This is not universal. Toronto has changed management. Edmonton has cycled coaches aggressively. Some Canadian franchises absolutely do take risks.

But the broader pattern remains: American expansion-era franchises often behave with greater ruthlessness and adaptability than Canada’s tradition-heavy institutions.

Vegas did not merely win.

Vegas exposed that modern NHL success increasingly belongs to organizations willing to behave like predators rather than caretakers.

No honest analyst can produce a perfect mathematical proof because key data remains private:

• player preference lists,

• internal trade refusals,

• informal agent conversations,

• tax planning structures,

• behind-the-scenes negotiations.

But the public evidence consistently points in the same direction.

Canadian teams comprise roughly 22 percent of the NHL.

For 32 years, that 22 percent has produced zero champions.

At the same time:

• low-tax American jurisdictions thrive,

• warm-weather markets attract talent,

• player movement clauses disproportionately weaken Canadian leverage,

• and the pressure asymmetry remains obvious.

No single factor explains the drought.

But deserts are not caused by one factor either.

A desert forms through accumulation:

• geography,

• heat,

• wind,

• erosion,

• pressure,

• lack of water,

• and time.

That is what has happened to Canadian hockey.

Not a curse.

A structure.

If the NHL truly cares about competitive balance, it must eventually confront the reality that no-trade and no-movement clauses have become structural market distortions.

If geography becomes a hidden labour advantage, the cap no longer levels the playing field honestly.

Canadian teams themselves must also adapt.

They cannot merely be as smart as American teams. They must be smarter. They cannot merely match aggressiveness.

They must behave less like caretakers of sacred institutions and more like organizations trying to survive inside a structurally hostile environment.

The Canadian Stanley Cup drought is not proof that Canada forgot hockey.

It may be proof that modern NHL economics, taxation, player psychology, media culture, and movement rules have quietly transformed Canada into one of the hardest places in the league to win.

And until hockey admits the desert is real, Canadian fans will keep being told to blame luck while the Cup spends another summer somewhere warm.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

The West is not reducible to a map, a people, or some flattering myth of blood and soil. It is a system—a particular way of arranging human affairs around a set of hard-won and, in their time, deeply subversive ideas: that the individual possesses rights that precede the state; that power must be shackled by law; that truth is to be pursued through argument and evidence rather than proclamation; and that authority must answer to those it governs.

In plainer language, it is the system in which one may criticize the government without imprisonment, publish dissent without disappearance, and replace leaders without the ritual spilling of blood. It is not perfection. It is something far rarer: a structure that restrains power while permitting correction.

And it is not confined to geography. Where these principles have been adopted—Japan, South Korea, Taiwan—the results have converged. Different cultures, different histories, yet broadly similar outcomes. This is not an accident of ancestry. It is the consequence of institutions.

For most of our species’ existence, the default setting has not been liberty under law but rule by decree—empires, monarchies, tribal loyalties, priestly authority, and the occasional enthusiastic tyrant. Even today, the arrangement we flatter ourselves into believing is universal remains decidedly provincial. According to the Varieties of Democracy project, roughly 7 percent of the world’s population lives under what can meaningfully be called a liberal democracy, while the overwhelming majority lives under various forms of autocracy. The supposed endpoint of political evolution is, in practice, a minority taste.

Widen the lens further, and the picture becomes almost comical. Of the roughly 117 billion human beings who have ever lived, only a tiny fraction—statistically negligible—have experienced anything resembling modern liberal democracy. Even if one generously includes the post-Enlightenment populations of Western Europe and North America, one is still left with a rounding error. The idea that this system is humanity’s natural resting state begins to look less like confidence and more like parochial vanity.

Which is another way of saying that the West—properly understood—is not the culmination of history, but a disciplined rebellion against it.

Remove the habits that sustain it—free inquiry, tolerance of dissent, the slow and often tedious respect for procedure—and the system does not gently persist. It collapses, usually with enthusiasm, back into the older and more familiar arrangements: the strongman who promises order, the mob that demands conformity, the censor who offers protection from offence, the ideologue who explains that liberty was always a bourgeois illusion anyway.

That is the point most often missed by those who inherit liberal democracy as if it were a birthright rather than an achievement. They treat it as self-sustaining, like weather, rather than what it actually is: a precarious system that survives only so long as enough people understand why it must.

The West, then, is not inevitable. It is unlikely.

And the proper response to something unlikely is not complacency, but vigilance.

Subscribe now

A Civilization Forged, Not Found

This model was not discovered; it was forged. It emerged from the Reformation’s defiance of absolute authority, the Enlightenment’s insistence on reason, and centuries of contest over rights, sovereignty, and truth. It was shaped by dissenters, philosophers, reformers—often at great personal cost.

What we have inherited is not static. It is a living system that improved precisely because it permitted its own criticism. Its greatest strength has never been purity, but adaptability—its capacity to recognize error and amend itself without collapsing into it.

The Empirical Record

When one sets aside rhetoric and consults the record, the results are not ambiguous. Societies organized around liberal democratic institutions consistently produce superior outcomes across the most meaningful measures of human well-being.

People live longer. Fewer children die. Education expands. Wealth is generated. Innovation accelerates. Freedoms—speech, belief, association—are practiced rather than proclaimed.

These outcomes appear wherever the institutional model is adopted. This is not a cultural claim. It is a structural one.

Serious scholarship has made this point with precision. In Why Nations Fail, Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson demonstrate that prosperity is determined not by geography or culture, but by institutions. Inclusive institutions—those that constrain power, protect property, and enable participation—produce flourishing societies. Extractive institutions—those that centralize authority and suppress dissent—produce stagnation.

What we call “the West” is simply the most successful expression of inclusive institutions yet devised.

The Turn Toward Self-Negation

Given this record, one might expect confidence. Instead, one finds hesitation, even embarrassment. The capacity for self-critique—once the engine of reform—has drifted into something more corrosive: self-negation.

There is a difference between examining one’s history and dissolving into it. The former clarifies; the latter exhausts. The former strengthens institutions; the latter undermines them.

We have, in many quarters, abandoned proportion. Failures are treated not as part of a broader story, but as the story itself. The conclusion is no longer that we must improve, but that we are irredeemable.

This is not serious. It is fatigue masquerading as virtue.

The Quiet Erosion of First Principles

The consequences are no longer merely rhetorical. They are institutional.

This is not the confident exercise of a stable civilization. It is the behaviour of one who has lost clarity about their own foundations.

Subscribe now

Read more

Subscribe now

Share

Subscribe now

There is a well-established principle of persuasion—frequently attributed to Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels—that a claim, repeated often enough, acquires the texture of truth. Not because it has been demonstrated, and certainly not because it has been seriously examined, but because it has been heard and heard again, until familiarity replaces…

Read more

Subscribe now

Share

Their own executives have been found to have expressed wistful dreams of wishing they were alive when Hitler lived, so they could participate in his genocidal nightmare.

(Of course they are not fired for this, but they support firing someone for calling Hamas Nazis, the irony is rich)

Before I even knew the allegations against me, union representatives were already characterizing me as having committed a hate-related offence because I had called Hamas Nazis.

After years of paying union dues, I found myself abandoned precisely when I needed representation the most.

That is why this fundraiser exists.

It will not restore my reputation or get my job back. When lies like that are said about me at an institution, it doesn’t matter whether they’re true; the allegations themselves make the professor unemployable.

The goal is:

Not to harass anyone.
Not to intimidate anyone.
Not to exaggerate anything.

The facts are serious enough on their own.

This fundraiser is about sunlight.

It is about hiring professional public relations assistance so that a story that powerful institutions would prefer to remain hidden can receive broader public attention.

It is about asking why publicly funded institutions are willing to spend extraordinary sums fighting a former professor rather than simply allowing the facts to be examined in public.
It is about asking why support for Israel became grounds for professional destruction.

It is about asking why those who condemn Hamas are treated more harshly than those who demonize Jews or advocate for the elimination of the Jewish state.

Most of all, it is about accountability.

The court of public opinion is often the only court available to ordinary people when institutions possess virtually unlimited resources, and taxpayers fund the lawyers on the other side.

I have managed to attract some attention through my Substack, independent media, Fox News, The Times of Israel, and other outlets. But professional assistance could help ensure that this story reaches a much larger audience.

My story is largely unknown. Canadian media like the CBC and the Globe and Mail will never cover a pro-Israel voice.

The best disinfectant, though, is sunlight.

If you contribute, you are helping fund public scrutiny, public accountability, and professional efforts to bring this story into the open.

You are helping challenge institutions that, in my view, have failed both academic freedom and basic fairness.

You are helping shine light where powerful organizations would prefer darkness.

And you are helping ensure that those who stand with Israel—or who simply refuse to remain silent in the face of antisemitism—know that they are not alone. For the majority of people who live a life untormented and affected by Jew hatred, the academic world may seem foreign, but it is the future, and the degree of normalized Jew hatred in the union movement and academia is real and frightening.

I am not a Jew, I am a Christian. The record of Christians toward Jews is appauling. I cannot change the world, but I can stand up against the monstrous evil that is anti-Semitism.

Thank you for your support. Join me. Please reshare this if you support it.

GO FUND ME

Share

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

Writer Colby Cosh1 recently pointed to a familiar and growing feature of Canadian justice: sentences that bend—not primarily around the crime—but around the biography of the criminal.

You see it often now.

The offender stands before the court, fully sane, fully aware, fully responsible in any ordinary sense—and yet, not quite. Because we are invited to consider something else. His background. His history. His identity. His inherited trauma. His immigration status.

And so the sentence shifts. Not because the act changes—but because the narrative does.

We are told this is compassion. We are told this is progress. We are told this is justice, finally informed by history.

But one is entitled—indeed obligated—to ask:

Is this kindness? Or is it the quiet dismantling of moral responsibility?

From Judgment to Explanation

There was a time when the law spoke plainly.

That was not cruelty. That was dignity. It treated the person before the court as a moral agent—someone capable of choosing between right and wrong.

Now we are drifting into something else.

Now, the courtroom increasingly sounds like a sociology seminar. We are told that behaviour must be understood in terms of upbringing, social conditions, inherited trauma, and identity.

And the more we explain, the less we judge.

This is not a minor adjustment. It is a philosophical shift.

Because a system that explains behaviour as the product of forces beyond control slowly comes to believe in human agency at all.

The Logic That Eats Itself

Follow the reasoning to its conclusion.

If trauma reduces culpability…

If disadvantage reduces culpability…

If social conditions reduce culpability…

If identity reduces culpability…

Then what remains?

Are we heading toward a system where prison exists only to protect the public from dangerous individuals—but no longer to hold them morally accountable?

Where the state says: You are not truly blameworthy, but you are still unsafe, so we will contain you?

That is not justice. That is risk management.

And the logic does not stop where its architects think it will. Because every life, examined closely enough, contains hardship, influence, and explanation.

The principle does not refine responsibility.

It dissolves it.

Subscribe now

The Insult Hidden in the Sympathy

Let us say the quiet part out loud.

When courts reduce responsibility based on race, background, or inherited hardship, the underlying message is unmistakable:

Dress it up however you like—but that is what it says.

You are less capable of restraint.

Less capable of choice.

Less capable of meeting the standard.

That is not equality.

That is condescension.

A particularly insidious form of it—because it arrives wearing the mask of compassion.

When You Remove Agency, You Remove Hope

There is a deeper harm here.

When you begin telling people that their actions are largely the product of forces beyond their control—heritage, skin colour, upbringing, immigration status—you are not performing an act of liberation.

You are performing an act of diminishment.

You are saying, in effect, you are not like others. You are not fully capable of restraint. You are not expected to meet the same standard. You are, in the most politely phrased sense, damaged goods.

And having said that, you proceed—under the banner of compassion—to remove from them the one thing without which no human being can stand upright: agency.

Because hope depends on agency.

Hope says, "You can choose.”

Hope says, "You are not bound by your past.”

Hope says: " You are responsible—and therefore you are free.

But what does this new doctrine say?

It says, "It is not your fault.”

And the silent companion to that statement—the part never spoken aloud, but always present—is this:

Because once you tell a person that their conduct flows inevitably from their identity, their history, their condition, you have closed the door they might otherwise have walked through. You have informed them that the ordinary expectations of self-command do not apply to them, and worse, cannot apply to them.

The result is not dignity, but quiet despair.

A person so explained is a person diminished. A person so excused is a person confined—not by bars, but by lowered expectation. You have not merely reduced their culpability; you have reduced their horizon.

And in doing so, you perform a final cruelty: you make criminality seem almost natural to them, and improvement seem almost unnatural.

Remove agency, and you do not produce compassion.

You produce hopelessness.

And hopelessness, unlike punishment, does not end when the sentence does.

As Immanuel Kant understood, morality rests on the assumption that human beings are capable of choice. Remove that assumption, and the entire structure collapses.

What remains is not justice tempered with mercy.

It is condescension—elevated, systematized, and enforced—dressed up as kindness, and delivered with a clear conscience. These judges are killing people with their kindness.

What About the Victims?

And then there is the question no one seems eager to ask.

What about the victims?

Many of them are Indigenous. Many of them are black. Many of them come from the very communities this doctrine claims to protect.

What are we saying to them?

We are saying, in effect, the person who harmed you is less responsible than we would normally say—because of who he is.

And so the sentence is reduced.

Which means the victim’s family meets him again—on the street, sooner than they should.

What does that communicate?

That their suffering counts for less.

That the life taken, or shattered, weighs differently on the scales.

It is an extraordinary moral inversion.

In trying to show compassion to the offender, we quietly diminish the victim.

The Comfort of Moral Vanity

There is, however, one group that benefits.

With few exceptions, the white-saviour judiciary has taken to the business of excuse-making. And not merely at the margins—right up to Chief Justice Richard Wagner, who has already arranged to walk past his own bronze likeness, as if posterity were a foregone conclusion.

Subscribe now

Because it feels good. It feels enlightened. Humane. Progressive.

There is a certain moral pleasure in it—a sense of standing above the harsher instincts of the past.

But as C. S. Lewis warned, the most dangerous tyrannies are those exercised “for the good of their victims.” Because they are done with a clean conscience.

They feel righteous.

And that is precisely why they are so rarely questioned.

A Harder, More Respectful Truth

There is an older, sterner view of human beings.

It does not deny hardship.

It does not ignore history.

It does not pretend suffering is irrelevant.

But it insists on something essential. That people are still capable of choosing.

Still capable of doing wrong.

Still capable of being held accountable.

Still capable of doing right.

That is not cruelty.

That is respect.

Because it treats every person not as a product of forces, but as an agent.

The Question We Should Be Asking

Of course, we should be compassionate.

But compassion that erodes responsibility is not compassion.

It is surrender.

So the real question is this:

Are we building a justice system that affirms human dignity by holding people accountable?

Or one that replaces accountability with explanation—and calls it progress?

Because once we begin telling people they are not fully responsible for their actions…

Tip Jar - everyone else ask

Subscribe now

Share

Subscribe now

Every few weeks, the smoke detector shrieks because something particularly grotesque escapes into public view. A synagogue is vandalized. A Jewish student is threatened. Someone publicly celebrates terrorism with such enthusiasm that even journalists are forced to acknowledge it. Suddenly, the political class springs into action. Grave expressions appear. Statements are issued. “We condemn this unequivocally.”

Then everyone goes home.

No one opens the walls.

No one examines the wiring.

No one asks why the alarm keeps going off.

The smoke is condemned while the fire is left burning.

Observe the contrast. A flotilla of activists sets sail on what increasingly resembles the Grand Voyage of Moral Self-Importance, complete with cameras, hashtags, and the expectation of arriving as moral celebrities. Political voices suddenly discover urgency. Microphones appear from nowhere. Statements materialize instantly. Social media erupts with displays of cultivated conscience.

Yet Silenced No More entered public discussion with something rather more substantial than slogans and placards. It was a report concerning sexual and gender-based atrocities surrounding October 7 and hostage captivity, assembled through years of documentation and built upon hundreds of interviews and testimonies, extensive visual analysis, and a broader evidentiary archive.

Imagine almost any other issue arriving with such a volume of testimony and documentation attached.

Imagine the emergency conferences.

Imagine the special sessions.

Imagine the institutional soul-searching.

And people notice.

People are not stupid.

Because culture rarely communicates its rules through official memoranda.

Culture communicates through incentives.

Through what receives urgency.

Through what receives punishment.

Through what receives silence.

And third, the oldest instinct of all:

The ancient question was: “Am I my brother’s keeper?”

Modern society has improved upon it.

“I hope somebody else deals with it.”

That combination—performative politics, institutional incentives, and public indifference—is dangerous precisely because it permits everyone to feel virtuous while requiring almost nothing from anyone.

So let us spare ourselves the ritual astonishment and the carefully rehearsed innocence. Let us dispense with the grave faces, the hashtags, the statements drafted by committee, and the solemn declarations asking how hostility and division could possibly have intensified.

When Canada gets our version of the Bondi Beach massacre, it will just mean more temporary screaming of the smoke alarm.

But again, such electrical fires rarely arrive without warning.

For a long time, there has been only smoke.

The smoke detector shrieks.

Everyone condemns the smoke.

No one repairs the wiring.

And after the cameras leave, after the trending topic dies, after the politicians return to electoral calculations and institutions return to congratulating themselves on their moral seriousness, culture moves another inch down the road.

Not through dramatic declarations. Through tolerated excesses. Through selective outrage. Through small permissions. Through exhaustion. That is how cultures drift. Not with a bang. With a shrug.

Because smoke was never the problem.

Subscribe now

Imagine a family living in a large but deteriorating house.

The roof is leaking. The foundation is beginning to shift. The windows are cracked, the insulation is failing, and there is mould quietly spreading in the attic. The bills are piling up. The credit cards are stretched thin. The income is uncertain.

Actually, welcome to my house.

These are not aesthetic inconveniences. They are structural facts. They determine whether the house stands or falls.

Now imagine the father of this household returning home, not with shingles or beams or a repair plan, but with an elaborate electric train set for the basement. Along with it come designer lighting, a new bar, a gleaming drinks machine, and a wall-sized television. And he plans to hold a weekly European-themed party each Friday, with thousands being spent on new party chairs, expensive French decor and the best of wines.

It will be so cultured, and nobody will invite any Americans.

When asked how any of this will be paid for, the answer is breezy: another credit card.

And the family applauds.

They admire the train. They like the lighting. They are charmed by the sense that something exciting is happening. The house may be failing, but the basement has never looked better.

That is Canada.

Now imagine a relative comes to visit.

Call him Uncle Pierre.

He walks through the house, looks at the water stains, the buckling floors, the draft coming through the cracked panes, and says, quite plainly: " This is unsustainable. The foundation needs repair. The roof must be fixed. You cannot decorate a collapsing structure and call it progress.

Subscribe now

These are not controversial statements. They are, in fact, the only adult statements available.

And how does the family respond?

They do not contest the facts.

They do not produce counter-arguments.

They turn on Uncle Pierre.

He is negative. He is tiresome. He is ruining the mood. He ate an apple obnoxiously in front of a reporter who was insulting him. He lacks vision. Why can't he be more supportive, more upbeat, more like the father who at least brings home interesting things? Daddy’s baubles and the tales of his travels are so inspiring, but nothing comes of him, and the house drifts further into squalor.

And so Uncle Pierre is mindlessly dismissed—not because he is wrong, but because he is unwelcome.

That, too, is Canada.

Subscribe now

Read more

Canada has many sacred cows. None is more protected—or less honestly discussed—than “supply management.”

It is presented as stability. It is defended as prudence. It is wrapped in the language of food security and rural preservation. But strip away the euphemisms and you are left with something much simpler: a state-backed system that forces tens of millions of Canadians to pay more for basic food in order to protect a small, politically powerful group of producers.

And now the stakes are no longer theoretical.

Start with the facts.

Supply management—covering dairy, poultry, and eggs—restricts production, fixes prices, and blocks foreign competition through steep tariffs. The result is predictable: higher prices.

Most credible estimates put the cost at roughly $300 to $444 per household per year. That may sound tolerable in the abstract. It is not tolerable to the millions of Canadians for whom groceries are a calculation, not a convenience.

And here is the part almost never stated plainly: this is a regressive transfer.

The poor spend a higher share of their income on necessities. When food prices are artificially elevated, the burden falls hardest on those least able to absorb it. This is not an abstract inefficiency. It is a quiet redistribution from the struggling to the secure.

It is the parent switching to cheaper, lower-quality food. It is the family cutting back on fresh products.
It is the constant arithmetic of what must be given up this week.

We speak in this country about “cost pressures” and “macroeconomic impacts,” as though we are discussing weather systems.

But when economic policy constrains growth, raises costs, or limits opportunity, the consequences are not theoretical. They are human.

When the economy weakens—even slightly—people do not experience it as a percentage point. They experience it as strain. As anxiety. As plans deferred or abandoned. As rising stress inside households already operating on narrow margins.

There is a reason economic downturns correlate with increases in mental health crises, addiction, and family breakdown. When opportunity contracts, lives contract with it. It is assured. But the voices that hurt are not heard, just the millionaires who sponsor ads to be played during hockey broadcasts.

And yet, all of this persists to protect what is, in population terms, a tiny fraction of Canadians.

Nor does the system even perform its own moral theatre convincingly.

Supply management is sold as discipline and order.

In reality, it produces something closer to absurdity. Researchers have estimated that from 2012 to 2024, Canadian dairy farms wasted roughly 6.8 billion litres of milk—about 6% of all production—worth nearly $15 billion.

In Ontario, the numbers remain just as stark: in November 2025 alone, roughly 4.9% of the province’s milk supply was reportedly disposed of. They pull their trucks up to a ditch and dump the milk.

Subscribe now

Share

Read more

Subscribe now

When a man cannot afford to risk his retirement taking large institutions into court, he often does what modern economics and modern justice require of him: he opens a Substack and starts speaking into the digital wilderness.

No army of lawyers. No public relations department. No carefully worded statements drafted after meetings billed by the hour.

It is an odd arrangement.

Institutions receive legal departments, insurers, outside counsel, and resources that most individuals cannot begin to match. The individual receives a keyboard and the hope that ordinary people still possess functioning moral instincts.

So this is apparently the court I can still afford. The Court of Public Opinion.

And it is the best I can do.

I would like the record corrected.

I would like my name cleared.

———

I taught at the University of Guelph-Humber beginning in about 2011. I dedicated myself completely to my students and to the institution. I consistently received among the strongest student reviews in the business department, received repeated favourite-professor commendations, wrote original course materials and textbooks, refused to rely on publisher test banks, did not allow cheating, and made myself available to students in ways that went far beyond what was required.

I believed deeply in teaching, academic integrity, and my students.

On November 27, 2023, I was suspended by the management of the University of Guelph-Humber after making comments online criticizing Hamas — a designated terrorist organization — during an exchange with an individual in Pakistan advocating for the destruction of Israel.

Whatever one’s political views, I had every legal and moral right to express those opinions. What followed was catastrophic to my reputation.

Within hours of a private meeting from which I was excluded, the institutional rumour mill appeared to have achieved a level of efficiency normally reserved for emergency alerts.

Would not any reasonable person, upon learning that staff members and faculty on the job methodically spread defamation from student to student, reach one conclusion: they were directed to do so?

Each student who called me repeated exactly the same story, and that same story matched the narrative signed and endorsed by the University's head, the Vice Provost.

I was told allegations were circulating that I had assaulted a student, ripped a student’s shirt, had been arrested, and possessed a long criminal history. Later, additional insinuations of a sexual nature entered the mix. I can only shudder to imagine what these initial rumours evolved into over the following days and weeks.

Because rumours possess a remarkable quality once institutional oxygen is introduced into the room. They no longer require security reports. They no longer require video evidence. They no longer require the testimony of students whose phones today are practically surgically attached to their hands and capable of recording every waking moment of campus life.

No, apparently a different standard applies.

When people say, “I have witnesses,” or “I have inside information,” and when those statements collide with institutional gossip, ideological enthusiasm, and a system that simultaneously prevents the accused from setting foot on campus or communicating with students, staff, or faculty, evidence begins to acquire an almost mystical flexibility.

Remarkable, isn’t it?

This is why so many faculty and staff later on would cross the street if I came near, and why long-time acquaintances would refuse to speak with me.

I possess screenshots from November 27, 2023, showing discussions involving multiple staff members, including a staff member and a student identified as “VB,” in which these allegations were repeated to students.

Other students informed me they heard the same allegations from faculty members and from students who said the information originated with faculty and management at the University of Guelph-Humber.

And after nearly two years, the University itself acknowledged in writing that its investigation “did not substantiate allegations that a student was assaulted by me,” while another said that it “is not aware of and did not investigate any allegations of criminal conduct by me.”

The absurd contradiction epitomizes this organization, especially those unnamed cowards who have ‘Human Rights’ on their business cards.

Yet neither the management of the University of Guelph-Humber (Humber College) nor that of the University of Guelph ever issued an institution-wide correction.

Senior management has been confronted with clear evidence that they deliberately defamed a faculty member, intending to poison the work environment, and they have not denied it.

In effect, the University of Guelph and Humber College believe that when a faculty member stands with Israel, it is permissible to invent false stories of criminal conduct to aid them in their efforts to terminate the faculty member’s employment.

Imagine a University that runs on the principle that ends justify means.

So much for the age of reason.

Most disturbing of all, despite ultimately acknowledging that these allegations were unsubstantiated, the institutions and their management never seemed to investigate where the allegations themselves originated or how they spread so rapidly within hours of my suspension.

But if and when the most senior administration is the defamatory headwater, one can understand this, can one not?

The chronology raises obvious and deeply troubling questions.

The allegations began circulating almost immediately after my suspension and included details that students told me were attributed to “management” or “senior administration.”

Earlier that same day, an assistant vice-provost had reportedly stated he did not even know why I had been suspended. Yet detailed allegations were already spreading throughout the institution within hours. You could only look above his head, and there was only one person there.

I repeatedly asked the management of the University of Guelph-Humber, Humber College, and the University of Guelph to stop the spread of these allegations and to publicly correct the record. They refused. Instead, when I attempted to defend myself and insist that the defamation stop, I was threatened with allegations of criminal harassment for attempting to protect my own reputation.

False allegations of assault and criminality were permitted to spread unchecked throughout a university community, yet the act of asking that the lies stop was itself treated as wrongful.

I was never given a fair hearing by the University of Guelph-Humber. I received no meaningful adjudication process. Instead, I was subjected to approximately 2 hours of meetings with a highly hostile external investigator hissing at me insane stories of me planting evidence of hate propaganda on my accuser’s LinkedIN.

This is an investigator that is so cynical she even lets the truth slip out -in the first meeting she cancelled after 10 minutes she admitted that I would get no defence. Two witnesses.

Such an “investigator” was brought in to validate a decision that management had already made on the day of my suspension. I have screenshots from staff that support this assertion.

In fact, on the very same day I was suspended — before I even knew the allegations against me — I was informed by students that staff members were already saying senior administration had decided I would be terminated regardless of the outcome.

That is not due process.
That is not fairness.
That is not justice.

One student told me a faculty member WR openly bragged that he intended to get me fired and encouraged outside organizations to pressure my university to terminate me because I had the audacity to publically say that Israeli citizens have a right to live.

Well over 60,000 persons were contacted and asked to write in to demand my termination.

I have the evidence.

The management of the University of Guelph-Humber, Humber College, and the University of Guelph were informed repeatedly that these allegations were spreading. They were informed by me directly. Yet they refused to stop the spread, refused to issue a public correction, and refused to meaningfully repair the damage even after acknowledging in writing that the allegations of assault were unsubstantiated.

At a serious university committed to fairness and academic integrity, false allegations of criminality against a faculty member would have been confronted immediately, investigated seriously, and publicly corrected.

The message this sent was unmistakable: if someone holds unpopular political views, reputational destruction becomes acceptable.

There were also many students who acted honourably — students who reached out privately, who refused to participate in mob behaviour, and who treated me fairly despite enormous pressure. I remain deeply grateful to them.

I wish I could say that one manager or staff member showed the integrity of students.

But what happened at the University of Guelph-Humber — and the refusal of its management, along with Humber College and the University of Guelph, to meaningfully correct the record after acknowledging the allegations were unsubstantiated — should disturb anyone who believes universities are still capable of fairness, restraint, due process, and basic human decency.

May they never escape the memory that faculty, staff, administrators, and institutional actors allowed hatred over a man’s support for Israel — and indulgence toward those who demonized, excused, or glorified anti-Jewish hatred after Oct. 7 — to metastasize into something resembling a Salem tribunal clothed in the language of virtue.

Not courage.
Not justice.
Not principle.

But gossip, cowardice, reputational assassination, and mob panic masquerading as righteousness.

And may those who participated in it remember that there are acts which evade courts not because they are moral, but because powerful institutions possess deeper pockets than the individuals they destroy.

May God one day judge what earthly institutions would not.

Shame on you all.

Paul Finlayson
Former Sessional Lecturer/Professor
University of Guelph-Humber

Subscribe now

Tip?

Subscribe now

I recently watched an interview with a Stanford student who described herself as “pre-med,” one of those credentialed modern labels intended to signal seriousness, intelligence, ambition, and entry into the professional elite.

Stanford, needless to say, is not some mediocre institution tucked beside a freeway exit. It is one of the premier universities in the Western world, a great credentialing factory for the managerial class, producing future doctors, lawyers, professors, regulators, journalists, administrators, and political leaders. And this young woman admitted, almost casually, that in the days immediately following October 71, she believed that Israel had invaded Gaza on October 7th. Not that Israel had responded afterward. Not that Israel had escalated a conflict.

And she did not arrive at this conclusion after examining evidence. Not after reading timelines. Not after reviewing eyewitness testimony, videos, or historical context. She simply absorbed the narrative; she captured the vibe.

But the truly chilling part was not that she was wrong. Human beings have always been wrong. Ignorance itself is not civilization’s greatest danger because ignorance can be corrected. The truly chilling part was the certainty. The moral intoxication. She wore the keffiyeh. She screamed slogans. She hurled abuse at Jews on campus. She joined the ecstatic mob, certain of their righteousness, without once undertaking the elementary discipline of checking whether the foundational claim itself was true.

And this was not some anonymous internet crank marinating in conspiracy theories online. This was Stanford University. This was the future professional elite of the West.

Eventually, to her credit, she was deprogrammed. Somehow, through exposure to facts, through conversations, through reality itself battering against the walls of ideological hysteria, she escaped the narrative prison she had entered. But that only makes the story more disturbing.

Because it means that an intelligent young woman at one of the most prestigious universities on earth could be swept almost instantly into a condition of moral certainty so powerful that she was prepared to publicly vilify strangers, scream abuse at Jews, and participate in a collective frenzy without once pausing to ask the most primitive intellectual question imaginable:

“Is this even true?”

Not long afterward, I read another story, even darker. A family hired a babysitter. Later, after reviewing footage from security cameras inside their house, they convinced themselves that something inappropriate had happened with their children. No evidence existed. No injury. No visible abuse. No corroboration whatsoever. But they disliked his body language. They “felt” something was wrong. So they took the babysitter into the desert, tortured him, abused him, and murdered him.

Later, after arrests were made, investigators determined that absolutely nothing had happened. The babysitter had harmed no one. The accusations were fantasies constructed out of suspicion, emotional projection, and hysteria. The criminal justice system — one of the last institutions in Western civilization still partially tethered to evidence — actually did something extraordinary by modern standards: it investigated before reaching conclusions. Reality intruded too late. The young man was dead because people preferred emotional certainty to factual uncertainty.

Subscribe now

Share

These are not isolated stories. They are warning flares from a civilization that increasingly no longer reasons its way toward conclusions but instead selects narratives first and scavenges afterward for supporting evidence.

And lest one imagine this tendency belongs merely to the ignorant masses, the socially marginal, or the uneducated, the evidence increasingly suggests precisely the opposite. The worst offenders are often the credentialed class itself, those marinated for decades inside institutions that no longer teach inquiry but narrative conformity.

I know this because I lived it.

My own descent into institutional madness began with a statement that, in any sane civilization, would have produced either agreement or disagreement, perhaps even an ugly argument, but certainly not a professional death sentence.

Shortly after October 7, I said to a stranger outside the university that Hamas were Nazis owing to the historical ideological affiliations between the Muslim Brotherhood and Nazi Germany, a historical relationship that is not controversial among serious historians.

Hamas openly calls for genocidal violence against Jews. It glorifies mass murder. It celebrates the burning of families alive. It elevates exterminationist rhetoric into moral theatre. To compare such an organization to Nazism was not some deranged invention. It was a historical and moral analogy.

But what followed was not disagreement. It was hysteria.

A solemn, medieval, witch-trial-like hysteria rose up almost instantly around me. Not because I had advocated violence. Not because I had threatened anyone. Not because I had harassed students.

Subscribe now

And the atmosphere became genuinely frightening. I am convinced one of the few things that prevented actual violence against me was simply the fact that I was already at home and away from campus when the hysteria erupted. That is how fevered it became. That is how quickly narrative selection bypassed every civilizational safeguard supposedly embedded within higher education.

And then came the truly astonishing part. Four weeks before I ever received formal allegations, the university's vice-provost was reportedly walking around openly telling faculty and staff that, no matter what happened, I would be terminated. Before evidence. Before inquiry. Before testimony. Before hearing from the accused. Before any process remotely resembling natural justice. The punishment had already been determined.

And not one of the highly educated people surrounding this process appeared troubled by that fact.

Not the provost.
Not the assistant vice-provost.
Not the dean of veterinary science at the University of Guelph.
Not the administrators drafting the determination letters.
Not the investigators.
Not the human rights bureaucracy.

These were not ignorant people. These were learned people. Highly educated people. People with doctorates, publications, conferences, prestige, institutional authority, and careers built within organizations supposedly devoted to reason, inquiry, and evidence. This is not happening at the fringe of society. It is happening at the centre of society.

And the truly grotesque part is this: the people who ultimately determined my fate never met with me. Not once. They never spoke with me. They never allowed a meeting. They never responded to a single email. I wrote appeals. I pointed out contradictions. I demonstrated how their own written procedures were being openly violated. I explained how the basic tenets of natural justice — the very foundations underpinning Western legal civilization — were being discarded in real time. I pointed out that the accusations were anonymous, the evidence untested, the conclusions predetermined, and the process abandoned.

There was no response.

Not one.

And then came the final obscenity. The more I defended myself, the more the institution treated my defence itself as a form of wrongdoing. The act of advocating for myself became “harassment.” The act of pointing out procedural collapse became “reprisal.”

I was expected to go silently to the pyre.

I was expected to accept exile quietly.

And ultimately, of course, I was fired.

They are mainstream Canadian academic institutions filled with highly credentialed professionals who nevertheless abandoned the most elementary principles of fairness, inquiry, and natural justice the moment a preferred ideological narrative presented itself. That is precisely what makes this so disturbing. If this were happening only at the margins of society, among fringe activists or unstable ideologues, it would be alarming but containable.

But it is not. It is happening within the institutional core of Western society itself — within universities, bureaucracies, tribunals, unions, media organizations, and administrative systems staffed by people who sincerely believe themselves to be enlightened, compassionate, rational, and morally evolved, even as they abandon the foundational principles that once defined civilized inquiry.

And I mention this not to marinate this essay in personal grievance, but because it serves as a perfect illustration of the broader disease now consuming Western civilization.

The modern university increasingly does not train people to think critically. It trains them to select approved narratives and defend them emotionally.

Entire sections of the humanities have ceased functioning as disciplines of inquiry and instead operate as ideological churches where conclusions are predetermined, and evidence is admitted only if it reinforces the approved moral framework.

A narrative is no longer a hypothesis to be tested. It is not a provisional framework awaiting evidence. It is a tribal identity marker. A branding exercise. A moral fashion accessory.

Narrative adoption has become moral cosmetics. The individual selects a narrative the way one curates an Instagram profile or chooses fashionable clothing. It signals membership, compassion, enlightenment, sophistication and righteousness.

And so we accumulate narratives by the dozens until public life itself begins to resemble less a civilization engaged in inquiry than a civilization trapped inside an endless hall of ideological mirrors.

1. Canada’s identity consists primarily of not being America.

2. Every Canadian economic failure can be blamed on Donald Trump.

3. Hamas is fundamentally a resistance movement rather than a theocratic death cult.

4. Palestine has always existed as a coherent nation-state.

5. Western civilization is uniquely evil among civilizations.

6. Slavery was uniquely Western despite millennia of Arab, African, Ottoman, and Asian slave systems.

7. All indigenous societies existed in ecological and moral utopia before European arrival.

8. Criticism of Islam is inherently hateful, while criticism of Christianity is enlightened sophistication.

9. Masculinity itself is intrinsically dangerous.

10. Disagreement constitutes violence.

11. Emotional discomfort constitutes harm.

12. Silence is violence.

13. Objective truth is oppressive.

14. Biology is subordinate to ideology.

15. Women can possess penises, and questioning the proposition itself constitutes wrongdoing.

16. All disparities are evidence of discrimination.

17. “Lived experience” supersedes empirical evidence.

18. Accusations themselves constitute proof.

19. Intent no longer matters.

20. Censorship protects democracy.

21. Free speech is dangerous.

22. Meritocracy is inherently unjust.

23. Feelings authenticate truth.

24. The West is systemically racist while non-Western societies are somehow exempt from moral scrutiny.

25. “Misinformation” increasingly means disagreement with elite consensus.

26. Universities are engines of inquiry rather than ideological sorting mechanisms.

27. Emotional validation is morally superior to critical examination.

28. Borders are immoral in the West but liberatory elsewhere.

29. Nationalism in Europe or North America is dangerous, while nationalism elsewhere is an anti-colonial virtue.

30. Capitalism is uniquely exploitative while communist regimes merely “made mistakes.”

31. All social problems can be solved through administrative bureaucracy.

32. Diversity itself is evidence of institutional virtue regardless of institutional competence.

33. Anti-Semitism must endlessly be contextualized and excused while every other prejudice is treated as civilization-threatening.

34. Canada is a fundamentally genocidal nation despite being among the freest and most prosperous societies in human history.

35. The Kamloops residential school graves narrative required no evidence before national hysteria and international condemnation were unleashed.

36. “Decolonization” is a coherent governing philosophy rather than an elastic slogan stretched to cover wildly contradictory impulses.

37. Western history should primarily be understood as a catalogue of oppression rather than one of the greatest engines of liberty, prosperity, science, and human rights ever constructed.

38. The nuclear family is oppressive, but bureaucratic dependency is liberation.

39. Emotional sincerity outweighs factual accuracy.

40. Feelings are evidence.

None of these narratives survives prolonged scrutiny particularly well. But scrutiny itself has become socially offensive. And that is the real crisis. Not that falsehood exists. Falsehood has always existed. The crisis is that examination itself is increasingly treated as aggression.

The Enlightenment, for all its flaws and hypocrisies, rested upon several stubborn assumptions: that truth exists, that evidence matters, that contradictions matter, that objective reality exists independent of emotion, and that reason is humanity’s best instrument for approaching truth imperfectly but honestly.

But over the last half-century, large sections of academia, particularly in the humanities, have steadily dismantled those assumptions. Under the influence of postmodern thinkers such as Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida, truth itself became reframed not as discoverable reality but as an expression of power. Truth, we were told, is socially constructed. Objectivity is an illusion. Facts are merely narratives produced by systems of dominance.

And academia, in its arrogance, has increasingly convinced itself that it has killed the Judeo-Christian God. Through moral relativism, narrative absolutism, and the worship of subjective identity over objective truth, many within our intellectual class now behave as though they are dancing triumphantly upon God’s grave.

They believe the old moral architecture of the West has been dismantled forever. They believe that truth itself is infinitely malleable, that morality is merely performance, and that power alone determines meaning.

But they are wrong.

God is not dead.

And the terrifying instability now spreading through Western civilization is not evidence of liberation from transcendent truth, but evidence of what happens when a civilization attempts to sever itself from the moral foundations upon which it was built.

Politicians understand this instinctively. A politician no longer needs to solve difficult policy problems. He merely needs to curate emotional identities. Mark Carney does not need to answer for the collapse in productivity, the decline in per capita wealth, housing dysfunction, bureaucratic paralysis, or national stagnation. He merely needs to project the narrative of the calm paternal technocrat protecting Canada from the barbarian Trump.

Trump himself operates similarly through narratives of grievance, restoration, resentment, and national humiliation. This is not exclusively a Left-wing phenomenon. But it is unquestionably more deeply institutionalized on the modern Left because universities, bureaucracies, unions, activist organizations, media institutions, and much of the educational system now function primarily as mechanisms for narrative enforcement rather than as institutions of inquiry.

And beneath all this lies another uncomfortable truth modern society increasingly refuses to discuss openly: the feminization of public morality. This has nothing to do with dresses, mannerisms, or caricatures of femininity.

It refers instead to the elevation of emotional safety over inquiry, emotional validation over confrontation, consensus over truth, empathy over rigour, and feeling over examination. A feminized moral culture increasingly interprets disagreement itself as aggression. Thus, skepticism becomes cruelty. Questioning becomes harmful. Inquiry becomes violence. And institutions increasingly reward emotional conformity while punishing intellectual courage.

The irony, of course, is staggering. We live in the first civilization in human history with near-infinite access to information. Every historical claim, economic argument, statistical assertion, or political narrative can be investigated within minutes. The average citizen now possesses access to more information than the greatest libraries of antiquity. And yet perhaps no civilization has been less willing to examine evidence honestly.

Narratives are intellectual fast food. They are processed cognitive calories: easy, immediate and emotionally satisfying. Critical inquiry burns energy. Narrative consumption requires only appetite. And like processed food, narratives gradually destroy the organism consuming them while providing temporary pleasure and stimulation. A civilization raised on narratives develops the intellectual equivalent of diabetes.

I think there is value in writing what I have written above, although I increasingly suspect that the pursuit of ultimate meaning through reasoned argument alone may itself be futile. As the writer of Ecclesiastes put it, it may well be “a chasing after the wind.”

And the reason it will likely have little effect is not merely because of its lack of reach, although that is certainly true. I am not a major media figure. Nor is the reason simply that modern society increasingly cannot tolerate reading more than a few hundred words without drifting into distraction and exhaustion. We are, after all, a civilization now consuming thought in fragments, slogans, memes, emotional spasms, and algorithmically optimized outrage.

But that is not the real reason.

The real reason is that the dominant power structures in our society prefer narrative adoption because it is vastly easier to maintain power through narratives than through reason and the testing of ideas. Narrative management is simple. It is emotionally efficient. It is politically profitable. It is the fast foodization of thought itself.

Narratives are effortless.

And institutions built on ego, branding, bureaucratic self-preservation, and ideological conformity do not want populations trained to think critically. They want populations trained to consume emotionally satisfying narratives and then defend them tribally.

And so perhaps Ecclesiastes is right. Perhaps much of this is chasing after the wind.

And yet one thing has emerged from my own torturous two-and-a-half-year ordeal, with the torture still continuing through the inanities of institutions such as the Ontario Labour Relations Board that may very well conclude, in its Kafkaesque echo chamber of self-righteousness, that a union which stated plainly in writing, “We refuse to represent you,” nevertheless provided adequate representation.

Consider the internal contradiction embedded in that proposition.

A category error so absurd that it would once have embarrassed serious institutions.

Yet this is now presented as wisdom by our noble administrative order.

And once intention replaces conduct as the standard, reality itself becomes negotiable.

The emails saying “we refuse to represent you” become unfortunate misunderstandings. Eleven months of silence become “strategic consideration.” Abandonment becomes discretion. Ideological hostility becomes merely “communication difficulties.” The member pleading for representation becomes the problem because his existence threatens the narrative itself.

Pause for a moment and consider the moral inversion required here.

A professor saying “I stand with Israel” becomes radioactive.

A union activist allegedly glorifying Hitler becomes, at worst, an uncomfortable administrative inconvenience. The union refuses to terminate him.

And one suspects — indeed one already sees the outlines forming — that this too will be rationalized away by the labour apparatus. It will become context. Nuance. Complexity. An isolated matter. Perhaps irrelevant. Perhaps unfair to mention. Perhaps merely another “communication issue.”

And once institutions begin from the premise that certain actors are morally sanctified in advance, no amount of evidence can overcome the presumption. A Jewish member abandoned by his union becomes suspicious. A union activist allegedly praising Hitler becomes redeemable. The institution does not follow facts to conclusions; it begins with conclusions and edits the facts afterward to preserve them.

That is the true sickness here.

Not merely bias. Not merely cowardice. But the complete replacement of moral reasoning with ideological tribalism masquerading as justice.

For if a union can act vindictively, ideologically, discriminatorily — if a labour institution can knowingly permit non-representation while still calling it representation — then the mythology cracks. The comforting fable collapses. The public might begin to realize that institutions do not remain moral merely because they describe themselves as moral.

And so the system bends itself into intellectual pretzels to preserve the story.

The union tried.
The union meant well.
The union are the good guys.

Even when they explicitly abandon the member.

Even when they refuse to read his emails.

Even when they sided, functionally and ideologically, with the employer against the worker, they were legally obligated to defend.

And where does one go after that?

Where have I gone?

This piece is not meant to proselytize. I was raised in the Christian faith. I left it for nearly twenty-five years. I considered myself too rational, too sophisticated, too intellectually evolved for religion. But I have returned to it.

And at the end of the day, while I will stand ideologically beside my Jewish brothers and sisters against the madness consuming the West, it is ultimately my Christian faith to which I return.

That is now the bedrock beneath my life in a civilization increasingly corrupted by ego, branding, self-enrichment, institutional vanity, and collective delusion masquerading as enlightenment.

Perhaps I am chasing after the wind by writing this.

I know I will not catch the wind.

And I know now that my true foundation will not be found in the approval of institutions, in labour boards, universities, administrators, journalists, or ideological mobs. It will be found in faith, in truth that transcends branding and narrative, and in the stubborn belief that there remains something eternal beneath all this noise and hysteria.

“Vanity of vanities,” saith the Preacher, “all is vanity… and vexation of spirit.”
— Ecclesiastes 1:14

Or perhaps more plainly:

“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.” — Romans 1:22

And more ominously still:

“Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.” — Proverbs 16:18.

If you value this work, consider leaving a tip. It’s cheaper than therapy, less pious than public broadcasting, and the only censorship here is my bad taste. On second thought, it’s bad therapy.

Tip Jar

Fox News wrote a piece on me. Please see attached and feel free to share.

GO TO STORY (no paywall)

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

Global Affairs Desk — Special Administrative Briefing

PURPOSE

This memorandum outlines the operational philosophy governing Canada’s forward presence in Estonia.

As previously communicated, the mission’s function is threefold:

1. Contribute to NATO deterrence posture.

2. Demonstrate the integration of equity governance, climate accountability, and cultural complia…

Read more

Subscribe now

It begins, as these things often do, with a sentence that sounds intelligent until one thinks about it.

When Mark Carney tells us that we must “deal with the world as it is, not the world we want it to be,” he is plainly aiming for the tone of hard-earned realism.

It is the sort of phrase that lands well in a speech—measured, sensible, faintly world-weary…

Read more

Subscribe now

Carney senses grievance the way a shark senses blood in water. He understands symbolism more deeply than substance. He knows that in a country increasingly driven not by policy literacy but by branding, image, tribal identity, and emotional atmospherics, the politician who controls the narrative controls the country.

And Mark Carney may prove to be the most sophisticated practitioner of that politics Canada has ever seen.

Observe the extraordinary sleight of hand now underway.

Canada remains structurally, geographically, economically, and infrastructurally tied to the United States. Roughly three-quarters of Canadian trade flows south. Our pipelines, manufacturing supply chains, energy corridors, transportation systems, and industrial ecosystems were built over generations around continental integration with America.

This is not ideology. It is arithmetic.

The message is essentially this: Canada can “pivot” away from the United States toward alternative markets as though decades of structural integration can simply be replaced by rhetoric, aspiration, and press conferences.

It is fantasy economics sold as moral courage.

And now comes the newest fantasy whispered into elite Canadian discourse: deeper integration with Europe, even flirtations with the idea of Canada somehow “joining” Europe politically or economically in a far more formal sense.

The idea is almost comically detached from Canadian reality.

But the fantasy sells because modern politics increasingly operates through aesthetics and emotional association rather than hard structural thinking.

Subscribe now

Read more

Subscribe now

Read more

Read more