"Human Rights" Are a Threat to Free Speech

They are being weaponized for political gain.

 "Free speech is the whole thing, the whole ball game. Free speech is life itself." 

― Salman Rushdie, author.

Freedom of speech means freedom for those you despise and to express the most despicable views. It also means that the government cannot pick and choose which expressions to authorise and which to prevent. 

―  Alan Dershowitz

Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.

―  Martin Luther King, Jr.

In the last decade, there have been over 1,000 attempts to punish or “cancel” professors for their speech, resulting in nearly 200 firings. This figure is nearly twice the number of professors fired during the infamous Red Scare period of the 1950s, when about 100 professors were dismissed due to accusations of communist sympathies.

— Greg Lukianoff

Free speech at some Canadian universities and colleges has strangely met opposition from the Human Rights folks. Go figure. 

Moreover, parliamentarians are beating on the straw-filled scarecrow of freedom of speech. There is a lot of straw on the Parliamentarian floor.

Of course, all involved tell others and perhaps themselves that their intentions are on a pathway of an arc that leads toward an improved society, but intentions and outcomes are separate vehicles,  and such tinkering often makes things worse; the engine running rough soon belches black smoke. 

Human Rights courts and their gift of authority to Claimants should not be weaponised.

Such enthusiasm for human rights verges into a sanctifying feeling, leaving behind the old standard of hate speech being only incitement to violence. Such wise human rights souls suffer the same temptations as Eve: to eat the fruit of knowledge, to have the latest toy, a university or college human rights department and private human rights codes (often stolen from other universities).  

However, few realise that all universities and colleges are subject to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, which, although better than the rest,  is also a deeply troubled and flawed body. They are not set up to take respondent complaints; complaints take years, and the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) and various Ontario human rights departments have been criticised for this over the years with no improvement. The HRTO and the human rights headwaters set up to lead to ad hoc university tributaries are getting dryer,  not wetter.  

All these have tripped me up and knocked me on my face in my search for justice.

If a Humber College Human Rights Manager accuses you, you are not considered automatically guilty, but you might as well be. I was ripped out of a classroom, and the fetid stink of guilt hung in the air as I moved toward the parking lot.  

 I was banned from speaking to anyone. Of course, I looked guilty. The irony was that I was suspended and banished without even a Human Rights Claim. They waited a month to pull that out of their great Mad Hatter’s Top Hat. 

They said they heard something bad I had said on social, and since they didn’t want to be called racists or something phobe, I was, after thirteen years of teaching, thrown out with the same respect I give to the used guinea pig litter when I change it (less frequently than I ought).  

There is no process; they have broken all the timelines, and they have exacerbated the situation by allowing and even encouraging staff and faculty and complainants to repeat outright defamations, all gossip, vile accusations that I was a criminal, I assaulted a student, that I was chronically at the edge of termination  (my ratings and writings and “shout outs” were by far the strongest in the department, more positive shoutouts alone that the rest of the department combined).

Thank God for loyal students with more balls than faculty or staff - five witnesses reported staff member Vashti Bagot, the one who perpetuated these lies

Bagot ran around pulling aside students to accuse me of threatening a family at their house, a home— I have five direct witnesses of her persuasive efforts.  

I knew nothing about it and had never travelled to this mysterious home, but it brought her momentary attention, and my reputation was the cost. The university was well-informed, but they let it ride.  They seemed to enjoy seeing my reputation and legacy circle down the drain. 

I had criticized them for allowing widespread grading fraud; perhaps this was revenge.  

Freedom To Offend

Indeed, the university refused to stop the defamation. They seemed to enjoy it, and maybe the staff supervised it. The second problem with a human rights tribunal is that there are no rules of evidence. It’s called the balance of probabilities. You are done if the liar is better at lying than telling the truth.  

The third problem is that the accusations are so subjective; if I call Hamas Nazis (as I did and do), is this harassment against all Palestinian Arabs? Or did I just offend a savage who burned a family alive and called home to mummy on a stolen phone to brag of his deviltry? 

The university doesn’t even care if the post I wrote has been digitally manipulated and spread to thousands; there are no evidentiary standards. 

Indeed, when I complained that my accuser was an utter anti-semite who thought it was funny in class to run down Jews and publically made jokes about them being Satanic, people who operate skin banks - tropes that go back thousands of years - I  was accused of time travel or some such fabrication, even though they were on his public site; they suspected I had travelled from the present to the past before I knew the accuser and placed anti-Semitic ads on his posts.  Did I have space lasers, too? 

Then I was told I had to report any meetings and give emails associated with any contact with Jewish organisations; again, I was the great criminal; I was screamed at by public safety officers and threatened with arrest and a $10,000 fine for going to my office to get my late father’s will.  I had to mention calling the police to get it back.  

Why? I hurt some anti-semitie’s feelings. But I was now apparently not allowed to meet with Jews.  But Guelph-Humber isn’t anti-semitic.  Quack, quack, waddle, waddle, beak, beak. But not anti-semitic.  

But I do not kneel before tyrants. 

(Neither does Toby, but he will shake a paw with anyone.)

 Jewish feelings were, of course, put through the Jewish feeling extraction machine and thrown away.  Jews and Jewish sympathisers didn’t matter.  Other complaints?  

They refused to investigate those who might have evidence that clears the accused. It isn’t court, not even close. On the same day I was suspended, a month before the charges, a senior administrator was strutting around telling staff and faculty how I would be fired. The word was terminated.   It is a more savage verb.  

 I’m not allowed on campus, and the union is just waiting to spring into action (in their own words) when and if I’m sacked. The school refuses to investigate the vulgar defamation. 

Another typical problem at human rights uni tribunals is conflict of interest, which is also relevant to me. The Claimant against me is the same one who officially determines my punishment if there is one;  recently, they said it wouldn’t be her (but could be her direct subordinate, which is the same.)  Prosecutor and judge, but it’s just crazy me who sees that as an issue.  

My youngest Westie Malibu even thinks it’s a problem.  That’s maybe why she crapped on the floor when I brought her to University. 

She may have time travelled too, if I can, why can’t my beloved Westie? My Westie inferences have as much logic as their judgements. 

Calling an HRC  a kangaroo court is picking on kangaroos. 

Human rights are not only the rights of the protected classes; they are the rights of all Canadian citizens. Although the HRTO and the Humber and Guelph departments seem to forget this, human rights include a multitude of freedoms, including, but not limited to, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, and, above all, freedom of speech. 

I asked the writers of the pompous Guelph free speech doc, but they seem to have never read it.  No response.  

The University of Guelph and Humber College, two institutions which have subjected me to their ad hoc abuses of silly and illogical non-judicial process, are both institutions with poorly written freedom of speech mandates establishing protected classes “rights” where injured feelings of protected classes are carve-outs of freedom of speech. 

In Canada, we have not sunk to the depths of the Scottish National Party, which gives criminal records to dog owners based on their owner making a joke about their pug, who gives short-legged Hitler-type salutes.  But that is damning with faint praise.  

But still, we think that cancel culture doesn’t matter as long as it doesn’t affect us, human rights abuses don’t matter if they don’t affect us, and the ability of complainants to use human rights as a tool to attack their adversaries doesn’t matter if it doesn’t affect us personally.  

But cancel culture and human rights codes never troubled me either, until one day, November 27, 2023, when my university pounced on me with a ludicrous allegation (I was suspended for a month with no charges, based on an unknown social media post) to be followed up by a vitriolic rant of a human rights complaint that unfortunately emanated from my boss.  

My union was clueless about human rights and refused to meet. I could not hire a lawyer; the union was my sole legal representative, and I was in a tough situation.  The local union head made inferences that I may have committed a hate crime.  And he was the one on my side. 

I remember at Pioneer Camp when I was a kid in the 70s. Before they took safety seriously,  I was in a canoe on a trek during a gale.  I was probably 75 lbs, and they put the most horizontally challenged boy in the stern. We had little ability to fight the grand forces of nature, so we had to ditch on an island and cry out to God that no bears would come our way.  

There still are bears, there still is an enormous gale, and I am still the skinny kid in the bow who is unable, though paddling with all my might, to keep on course.  

It is all coming back.  But now the gale is an ill-conceived human rights policy, censorship, and arbitrary abuse of ill-gotten power.  

That bear that may maul me, this has already happened; the school has encouraged and tolerated gross defamations against me, pulled a man out of class, and, of course, all will assume the worst, but the bear has not killed me. I am fighting back and still have two paddles to defend me. 

The fat kid isn’t much use. 

But leaving the analogy behind, the amateurish efforts of both Humber, Guelph and the HRTO, not to mention hubristic parliamentarians, are the source of the gale. They have not cared about the human rights of all men and women and have virtue signalled about the rights of those deemed protected classes who are allowed to make grandiose claims. 

Our courts and, worse, HRTO university franchises have treated respondents as punching bags, guilty until proven innocent. They have allowed Claimants to have all their legal expenses paid and given them the freedom to defame, attack and maul those they despise, and their motives are not held to serious review. 

I have been thrust into the grinding wheels (sorry, new metaphor) of the Humber College Human Rights Manager—a person with an undergraduate degree, no legal training, and little experience in such matters. Throughout the ten months, she has sent me the Human Rights Complaint and has refused any discussion. That’s it. This is a modern institution; they think silence is somehow a victory. 

To be blunt, when I have no appeal mechanism or body,  silence and non-response are victories for the oppressor.  

My application shouldn’t have even gone to this manager. She had and has a conflict of interest in a past matter in which I disagreed thoroughly with a previous bizarro decision from her that included no references to the human rights code. 

Furthermore, though I was more of a University of Guelph hire that semester than a Humber College contracted one, and my accuser was a University of  Guelph hire, Humber decided to run it through Humber Human Rights Manager as the Claimant happened to be the Vice Provost of the University of Guelph-Humber and a Humber employee. 

You know, when they move courtroom locations because of bias, just reverse it, and that’s what we have here. 

The Claimant had the power, and she preferred to follow an illicit procedural route as it gave her more control.  

The investigation is flawed at so many layers; it is like a Matryoshka doll, except at the end of the openings, it is no cute infant doll but a small black heart of hubris.  

The illicit inclusion as the Claimant¹ was a tool to intimidate me and put her thumbs on the scale. The Humber Human Rights manager simply supplicated before her master and her paycheck. 

Her role should include not just protection for traditionally marginalised or vulnerable groups (e.g., based on race, gender, or religion) but also for so-called “ordinary people”—those who might not fit into any specific protected category.  

Somehow, this is forgotten.  

In theory, human rights aim to balance and protect everyone's interests equally. 

However, some systems, like Human Rights Tribunals, often focus on complaints from protected groups, potentially neglecting the broader rights of those accused. A system that tilts too far in favour of one side can unintentionally infringe upon the rights of others—like free speech, due process, or property rights of those who may not belong to a protected class.

In other words, human rights aren’t a zero-sum game, where one group’s protection must come at the cost of another’s rights. The ideal approach protects everyone, fostering fairness and accountability across the board. But that’s hard to pull off, and dipshits don’t do hard. 

Ah, the Human Rights Tribunal—where justice is fast, loose, and, naturally, taxpayer-funded. It skips pesky court formalities like rules of evidence, perfect for rent disputes but questionable when making life-altering decisions. 

The Tribunal, unburdened by contracts, takes on complex cases involving everyone from publishers to readers because why not? And what’s a little property seizure or speech restriction between strangers? The HRC is a free-for-all-all for the Complainant. 

Complainants? They’re living the dream—free legal aid, reimbursed expenses, and, if lucky, a fat cash prize for their hurt feelings. Respondents? Well, they get the privilege of self-funding their defence against claims that could rival criminal charges—without the right to recover costs if they win. 

Naturally, the Tribunal insists no lawyer is needed because who wouldn’t want to face a government-backed legal team solo?

And let’s not forget the Tribunal’s jurisdiction over shopping malls. Can’t win in one province? Try another! The Tribunal will gladly hear cases on which it has no business ruling, all while doling out fines that make actual punitive damages seem quaint. Of course, they claim it’s all “remedial” in nature—remedial in the sense that someone pays thousands for a stray comment or gets subjected to “re-education” camps. Who said Orwell was fiction?

Appeals? Forget it. Most Tribunal decisions are unappealable unless they cross the magical line of “patently unreasonable.” Feelings, not facts, rule the day here. As for legal logic? With remedies ranging from forced confessions to diversity training, it’s a wonder if anyone is left with the audacity to have an opinion.

In sum, the Tribunal offers fast-track injustice—with the bonus of bankrupting your ideological enemies.

Free speech is one of the most fiercely debated rights, and great thinkers have exhaustively discussed its role in democratic societies. In his seminal work On Liberty, John Stuart Mill emphasised that “the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that it is robbing the human race.” 

He argued that all opinions, even those considered false or harmful, contribute to the progression of human knowledge by allowing individuals to challenge their beliefs and refine their understanding of truth.

However, the gradual erosion of free speech under the banner of human rights law, particularly in Canada, threatens this cornerstone of liberty. Laws meant to protect individuals from discrimination or hate speech can inadvertently lead to censorship. The primary concern is that these laws overreach, stifling not just hate speech but also legitimate discourse and dissent. This tension between protecting individual dignity and preserving freedom of expression is a subject of intense debate.

I am not entirely objective in this matter, for I have -  because of one post in which I called those who supported Hamas Nazis and in which I responded to a true hate crime, the calling for the death of nine million Arab and Muslim Israelis. 

After being suspended for one month based on no charge, I received a human rights complaint full of libellous allegations of violence, translating my condemnation of Oct. 7 and anger at Hamas into an environment in which I provided a physically unsafe classroom because of my aggressive attitude toward the murder of 1200  - it was too extreme - a logical bridge made of bailer twine and old barn boards that nobody could cross. 

It was madness. 

This HRC would not have seen the light of day at the HRTO. But it was a wild, absurd jumble of defamation; it looked like he had taken the language out of the HRTO and backward-engineered his complaint, safety, harassment, and incitement. Perhaps he had used Chat GPT for word insertion, but Chat GPT would have been more civil. 

But because the Claimant was friends with the accuser, I was suspended without charge, and a defamation campaign was immediately launched. 

It was wrong on so many levels; I was writing someone outside the university; I was condemning a designated terrorist group with historical accuracy, and what happened?  

A human rights complaint can be like a demented carnival sideshow where you are allowed to take your friend or colleague and suddenly tie him or her (must not be chauvinistic when it comes to discussions of tying up individuals)  to a post and hurl the vilest insults and deprecations at him that need not have any rational source, accuse him of violence, threats against your safety, (please tell me that people aren’t speaking of “emotional safety.” may I never hear that phrase again, it is pure work annoyance); plus there is racism, Islamo flavour of the week victimology and allegations that the accused should not be amongst students.

After a 15-year career, is it because I am a physical beast, a safety risk? I am 5’9” and a bit, and the bit is probably not true. I am a 60-year-old out-of-shape man, so if he is not calling me a paedophile, he comes very close. Welcome to the Humber College Human Rights port of justice; no port, we are on the ocean, no tie-up stakes, and it’s a rocky beach that will rip the guts out of your hull. 

Complainants are given the right to be as vicious, dishonest and malevolent as their wicked hearts desire, but at taxpayer expense. 

But once again, confusing intentions and outcomes, we have granted Universities and Colleges the right to tie up and metaphorically bind anyone and then subject them to the vilest of hearsay, insults and deprecations that have no basis in rational evidence. 

They allow this abuse to be supervised and controlled by rank amateurs, persons with clear conflicts of interest, and old grudges; it is like a private fence, not the cow-holding variety, but the medieval one, except what is hurled is not fruit, vegetables, excrement and urine, but the verbal variants of such;  human rights departments in universities and colleges and even the HRTO whose mandate they are supposed to fall are scarcely better, they don’t vet the complaint, it is a violent assault, a quiet march to the stockades. 

If the loss of a career and vocation is death, they are a stockade with a hangman’s noose nearby. 

If you don’t come from a farming background and cow metaphors never work, if you are not a student of medieval history - then not a stockade; it is as if you are dropped into a maze where the walls constantly shift, the directions are written in disappearing ink, and the gatekeepers seem to delight in watching you stumble without offering any guidance.

Diogenes famously held a lamp, looking for an honest man, but I am still looking.  

Management hides behind lawyers; getting a union member from one of these two locals is like getting the laziest public defender in the world, the one who says to the innocent on trial, don’t worry if they find you guilty; we will appeal. 

And then that union member, like some lawyers I have known, is so skilled in their craft that they do not need information, context or facts; they do not need to show up for official meetings; they think the idea of a real meeting is absurd, a phone call equally ridiculous; they prefer email; email gives no context, it is the worst of communication, it captures no humanity, how many times did I write two-page emails full of relevant questions, violations of policies, future scenarios and three weeks later get back attitude and three lines that addressed about a tenth of what I said.  

Wait, if you are fired, we will grieve. The yawning union says we need to go back to bed.  

I told them there was no point in them coming to my latter meetings; they knew nothing about the case and never asked.

Yes, Diogenes would be looking for more fuel for his lamp; in the modern digital world where silence is the preferred reply, it is a no with plausible deniability built in; it allows one person to control the narrative, and it allows the lazy, ignorant and heartless to claim they communicated when all they did was communicate so sparingly that I finally told them they could wait to see if I was fired.

They had their freedom; I never met or talked to them, and it was only ten months and only my career. I am sure they didn’t have the time.  Does Walmart sell lamp oil? 

At its core, free speech is fundamental to democratic societies because it allows the exchange of ideas, fosters debate, and holds the powerful accountable. Without it, societies risk devolving into authoritarianism, where the state, rather than the people, dictates what can and cannot be said.

George Orwell’s 1984 is a timeless warning of the dangers of suppressing free expression. The novel paints a dystopian future where language is tightly controlled to limit thought and action, epitomising the idea that when speech is restricted, so is freedom.

Mill’s famous Harm Principle supports this argument. He contended that speech should only be curtailed when it directly causes harm to others, particularly in the form of violence. Any other type of speech should be allowed, however offensive or distasteful. “If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind,” Mill wrote. 

In other words, the value of free speech lies in its ability to challenge the majority and provide a platform for minority viewpoints. But no, the person with the BA in the Human Rights Office knows more than John Stuart Mill.  And some Peter Principle testing groups of assembled executives are wiser than Mr. Mill. 

Yes, in today’s world, there is a growing tendency to suppress speech that offends or hurts feelings, particularly when it concerns protected classes or marginalised groups. This has been seen particularly in Canadian universities, where the academic space, once a haven for vigorous intellectual debate, is now being sanitised under the guise of protecting emotional safety. In this climate, as you noted, students and faculty are often discouraged from engaging in discussions that may offend.

In my experience, being reprimanded for calling Hamas “Nazis” highlights the growing power of subjective interpretation in the legal system. The language used was historically accurate—Hamas has been accused of harbouring a genocidal agenda, targeting Israel and Jewish people—but because the comment offended someone, it was treated as hate speech. 

This example illustrates how human rights law, when overly broad, can be weaponised against free expression, even when the speech in question is a factual description of a terrorist organisation. This mirrors Mill’s observation that even truthful opinions can be suppressed if they offend the prevailing sensibilities.

The Canadian legal landscape provides several recent examples of this type of overreach. Bills like C-11, C-18, C-36, and the proposed Online Harms Legislation all promise to regulate speech in ways that claim to protect individuals from harm but, in reality, threaten free expression.

These laws are written in a way that is vague and open to interpretation, creating a chilling effect where individuals may choose to self-censor rather than risk legal repercussions for expressing an unpopular or controversial opinion.

Bill C-11: The Online Streaming Act

Bill C-11 was introduced to regulate the content of digital platforms like YouTube and Netflix to promote Canadian content. However, the bill also gives the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) the power to regulate user-generated content. This means personal opinions on social media could be subject to oversight, blurring the line between censorship and regulation. 

The vague language used in the bill has caused concern among free speech advocates, who argue that the government could misuse its authority to control online discourse.

When governments begin to regulate speech, the risk of censorship increases exponentially. 

Mill’s concern that suppressing even a single opinion robs the human race of potential truth is directly applicable here. What begins as a well-meaning attempt to control “hate speech” can rapidly expand to include any speech that offends or inconveniences those in power.

Bill C-18: The Online News Act

Bill C-18 forces tech giants like Google and Meta to compensate Canadian news outlets for sharing their content. While this might seem like a positive development for journalism, the concern lies in the government’s potential ability to influence which news outlets are promoted and which are sidelined. Free speech in the media is particularly crucial, as it checks governmental power and allows the public to access a variety of perspectives.

By controlling how news content is shared, the government could inadvertently prioritise certain viewpoints while silencing others, particularly those critical of government policy. This can lead to a homogenisation of thought, where only state-approved narratives can thrive.

Bill C-36: Expanding the Definition of Hate Speech

Bill C-36 takes the issue of hate speech to a new level by expanding the definition to include any speech that is offensive or hurtful, even if it does not incite violence. Under this bill, individuals can file complaints and sue others based on subjective interpretations of what constitutes hate speech. The bill’s language does not clearly define what qualifies as harmful, creating a slippery slope where individuals may be prosecuted not for inciting violence but for causing discomfort or offence.

This bill illustrates the dangers of conflating speech that causes harm with speech that causes emotional discomfort. Mill’s assertion that free speech should only be limited in cases where it causes direct harm to others is a useful guide here. Allowing complaints based on subjective feelings of offence opens the door to abuse and undermines the value of free expression in society.

The proposed Online Harms Legislation aims to combat online dangers like terrorism and child exploitation, but it also requires tech platforms to remove harmful content within 24 hours. The problem lies in the broad and undefined scope of what is harmful. This legislation could stifle legitimate debate, as tech companies may choose to err on the side of caution, removing content that may not actually be harmful but could potentially offend someone.  

This chilling effect leads to self-censorship, as individuals and platforms alike avoid expressing opinions that might be controversial. The result is a stifling of free speech, where only safe, non-controversial opinions can be expressed, leading to a less vibrant and diverse public discourse.

At the core of this bill is a pit of hubris. It may be different fruits, but they all have the same pit—a pit we know better, we are wiser, what has gone wrong in the past does not apply to us, and it is combined with a profound lack of self-awareness.

Never do they say themselves that as Trudeau admired those Chinese for getting things done, even though their revolution killed millions and they have concentration camps and Orwellian social credit scores, those Chinese get things done.  

At the centre of the dark fruit of censorship is again the pit of hubris, the pretension to wisdom, the arrogance that they know better; they disengage from the bad but will leave all the good fruit untouched.  But many have gone before them, and they all have failed.  

Lessons from History

The erosion of free speech is not a new phenomenon. The most famous example of state censorship comes from Nazi Germany, where universities were among the first institutions targeted. Book burnings and the suppression of dissenting ideas were common practices. By controlling speech, the Nazis were able to control thought and eliminate opposition. This historical parallel should serve as a stark warning to those who seek to limit speech today to protect feelings or social harmony.

The situation in Canada today, particularly in universities, bears unsettling similarities to the past. Universities, once bastions of free speech and intellectual debate, are now places where speech is carefully monitored and censored if it offends certain groups. 

Administrators, often under pressure to maintain an image of inclusivity, are quick to stifle any speech that challenges the prevailing norms. This undermines the very purpose of higher education, which is to foster critical thinking and allow for the free exchange of ideas.

Think of free speech as a septic system; it’s one of those things we think will last forever, but we generally let it be. I don’t know many homeowners not on a city system who regularly inspect their septic field.  But when at the backyard BBQ, someone says, it smells like shit, and it’s not your cooking, you know something is perhaps gone amiss.  

Right now, free speech in Canada is beginning to stink. 

As Mill and others have pointed out, society cannot progress without the freedom to express even controversial or offensive ideas. Human rights laws, while well-intentioned, must be carefully drafted to avoid curbing free expression. Bills like C-11, C-18, C-36, and the Online Harms Legislation, while ostensibly aimed at protecting people from harm, threaten to create an environment where individuals are forced to self-censor out of fear of legal or social repercussions.

The erosion of free speech in Canada is a concerning trend that must be resisted. Society must find a way to protect individuals from genuine harm without sacrificing the right to speak freely. 

As Orwell warned, once free speech is curtailed, it becomes exceedingly difficult to reclaim. 

It is time to protect this fundamental right before it slips further away under the guise of protecting emotional sensitivity.  College and Human Rights departments must be broken up, and mandatory and approved free speech positions must be written with clear enforcement actions.

I hope I am the last person in Ontario forced into this virtual stockade where my academic legacy can be destroyed and my reputation savaged. 

While firing is the likely outcome, the point is that nobody ever again should go into the Human Rights Stockade. 

However, for staying, I stood with Israel and Hamas are Nazis. They hurl abuse at me and threaten my livelihood. 

 The person in the stockade should be the VP, the AVP and the manager of Human Rights, the woman who arbitrarily suspended a white male on a weak, emotional and error-strewn claim while allowing and collaborating with a genuine unrepentant anti-semite who continues to force Jewish students at Sheridan, Guelph-Humber and TMU to stand before a man who publicly has declared his hatred for their people and who is shameless about his desire for their destruction and the destruction of their loved ones.

Why do we bring people into Canada who hate everything that our soldiers went to war to defend?  What fools we are. 

Due to inattentive and thoughtless university officials, a federal and provincial government more concerned with optics than debate and efficacy - and combine this with malicious university and college administrators who see human rights departments as a political tool and hubristic politicians who fear people having their feelings hurt more than they value free speech we start causing the foundation of Canada, our Canada, to crumble. 

I am just one lonely Substack writer who writes twelve-page pieces that are too long for our culture.  But let me be one of the first to ring the alarm.  The alarm was rung by Kathyrn Marshall, a top lawyer who writes for the National Post.  She is a partner at Levitt Sheikh and a woman with more knowledge of human rights codes than I, and I am sure others have brought it up. 

But we need citizens to say enough, not only lawyers and media celebrities but common folk like me.  We are too Canadian, we are too often silent, and we are too often selfish when we see no direct harm, but someone needs to speak up and stop this madness. For God’s sake, it’s not politeness, everyone, it’s being a coward, a pussy, a wuss, a timid mouse. 

Democracies are houses made of wood that need tending. They can’t be abandoned. The roof will fall in, the windows will be broken, and the house will crumble and decay.  We are treating free speech like that house, and if we continue, our democracy will slowly crumble.  

It cannot last forever with politicians whose primary motivation is positive optics and electability; the people must hold them accountable and speak up.  And these absurd, politically weaponised human rights at universities and colleges must be shut down or suspended till uniform rules can be applied.  But the minister in charge of universities doesn’t like to meddle; he never ran into human rights problems during his last job managing a Dairy Queen.  God help us.  

May God preserve free speech in Canada. May it be revived and never die. 

If you are having trouble falling asleep, keep reading.

1. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

[REDACTED], Respondent

-and-

[REDACTED] (Claimant) and [REDACTED],

Applicants

NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW

The Respondent, [REDACTED], seeks judicial review of the procedural handling of a Human Rights Complaint (HRC) filed against him by [REDACTED] of [REDACTED]. This application asserts that the process was procedurally unfair, dominated by a conflict of interest, and improperly influenced by [REDACTED], who used her authority to replace the original accuser, [REDACTED], for purposes of intimidation and procedural bias.

1. Relief Sought

The Respondent seeks the following relief from the court:

• A declaration that the process followed by the Claimant, [REDACTED], and [REDACTED] was procedurally unfair.

• An order quashing the Human Rights Complaint (HRC) filed by [REDACTED] against the Respondent, [REDACTED].

• A declaration that the conflict of interest and misuse of authority by [REDACTED] invalidates the complaint.

• An order directing the Claimant and [REDACTED] to provide documentation of communications between the Human Rights Manager, [REDACTED], and [REDACTED].

• Any further relief as deemed just by the court.

2. Grounds for the Application

This application is based on the following grounds:

• Procedural Unfairness

• Conflict of Interest

• Use of Authority for Intimidation

• Failure to Follow Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) Procedures

• Defamation and Harm to Reputation

3. Facts

• The Respondent, [REDACTED], is a professor at [REDACTED].

• On [REDACTED], the Respondent was suspended by [REDACTED], with no formal charges or clear explanation given for the suspension.

• During the suspension, the Respondent was subjected to defamatory statements by faculty and staff, including accusations of criminal behaviour and academic misconduct, for which no evidence was provided and to which none exists.

• The Respondent suffered significant harm, including the loss of teaching assignments, financial damage due to withheld pay and royalties, and psychological harm leading to hospitalisation for PTSD.

4. Legal Basis

a. Breach of Procedural Fairness and Natural Justice

b. Violation of the Ontario Human Rights Code

c. Abuse of Process

5. Conclusion

The Respondent’s actions have deprived the Respondent of his right to procedural fairness, a fair hearing, and protection from defamation. The Respondent respectfully seeks judicial review of the entire process and requests the court to quash the Human Rights Complaint as procedurally unsound.