IS THE UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH THE MODERN FACE OF INSTITUTIONALISED ANTI-SEMITISM? (CANCEL CULTURE PART III.)

Judge for yourself. From my perspective it sure seems like it. And I thought Canadians were supposed to be nice.

If you believe in the importance of free speech, subscribe to support uncensored, fearless writing—the more people who pay, the more time I can devote to this. Free speech matters. I am a university professor suspended because of a free speech issue, so I am not speaking from the bleachers. The button below takes you to that story.

Please subscribe to receive at least three pieces /essays per week with open comments. The cost is $5.75 per month, or about USD 4.

Everyone says, “Hey, it’s just a cup of coffee.” (With me, it's not per day but just one per month.) But if you’re like me, you go, “Hey, I only want so many cups of coffee!” I get it.

But I only ask that when you choose your coffee, please choose mine. Cheers

________________________________________________

In recent years, the University of Guelph, the Toronto-based University of Guelph-Humber (a marriage of Humber and Guelph where students get a Guelph degree and a Humber diploma), and Humber College have garnered a reputation for being the modern face of institutional anti-Semitism - the one that intermittently puts on a mask of loving everyone but not before clearing it first with their Muslim and pro-Palestinian allies.

These institutions are careful not to make a spectacle of themselves as they party and mingle with the open anti-semites.

These institutions turn a blind eye to the Hamas enthusiasts, the Houthi lovers, the union voices who wave their flags next to terrorist fanboys, fangirls and fanbluehairednonbinaries, the ones who mention greedy Jews, oops, we’ll let that go; wink, we didn’t hear it; their vision blurs when someone posts pictures of Jews with aquiline beaks and refer to Jews as “they.”

Today, it’s easy for institutions like the University of Guelph and Humber College to let antisemitism go. We are getting used to it. It’s like the whine of the cicadas, those insects that emerge every half-generation but are always there, just biding their time.

The protesters say it’s not about the Jews; we just care about the Palestinians. They hide in a humanitarian fog, a dry ice machine; these humanitarians have never shown concern for anyone else.

Remember, the selective human rights enthusiasts say, those Jews are not like us. They’re up to something: we’re not sure what, but we know it’s not good; they don’t belong.

They let the Jew-hating rants go; it is just noise to them; just please don’t let anyone call us racist, and dear God, don’t let us lose any revenue units; we mean students, and let’s not talk about those special grants that flow in from offshore.

They roll their eyes at those angry, trouble-making Jews and their supporters, all of us who refuse to know our place.

Such organisations have an implicit deal: we will let you Jews and your supporters be, but you must be meek, and if you are meek, perhaps we will let you be, but perhaps not; you Jews exist at our pleasure, you are outsiders and don’t forget it.

If anyone said the N-word or some horrid slave joke, such institutions would be up in arms, the indignity, fire him; we will not stand for this; it would be in the papers, the students and some human rights person otherwise never seen would compete in displays of outrage.

But Holocaust libel, a ‘Hitler wasn’t that bad’ comment; they will let that go; they are just Jews, right? We get it.

My accuser just posted a picture of a Jew with a Hitler moustache and accused him of killing four million Ukrainians, not a word. My accuser has five administrators who have signed in support of him.

I am just another annoying Jew lover who talks too much and doesn’t know his place.

It’s time for him to be gone, the VP says.

This alarming trend mirrors the broader Canadian societal drift away from a robust commitment to free speech, preferring selective free speech, where free expression is often curtailed under the guise of protecting feelings. Nowhere is this erosion more evident than in the emergence of concepts like “anti-Palestinian racism,” a term devoid of clear definition and brimming with dangerous subjectivity.

A Good Offence is the Best Defence

It is no surprise that Amira Elghawaby, Canada’s Special Representative on Combatting Islamophobia, has championed the concept of “anti-Palestinian racism.” It is a new gun in a lawfare arsenal, where when they can’t win the argument with reason, they try to win it with state-supported censorship and threats.

One must first acknowledge the flawed premise: there is no such thing as a “Palestinian race.”

Yet, this narrative has been weaponised, diverting attention from the daily violence and threats against Jews and Jewish supporters by pro-Palestinian activists, such as the rock thrown recently through the window at the Pride of Israel Synagogue, multiple shootings, the targeting of Jewish schools, not to mention pro-Palestinian thugs burning cars, rioting, breaking windows, illegally taking over public spaces, going to major malls and screaming obscenities and threatening shoppers, goosestepping around and doing Hitler salutes.

Irwin Cotler, former Minister of Justice and special envoy on preserving Holocaust remembrance and combatting antisemitism, has to have 24-hour/day RCMP protection due to death threats.

These incidents are not isolated but part of a growing wave of anti-Semitism that includes vandalism, assaults, and hateful rhetoric on the streets of Montreal, now considered the most anti-Semitic city in North America.

Jews are afraid that a new Kristallnacht is coming.

But you never know; Toronto might catch up quickly. Jewish schools and synagogues are being forced to hire private security to protect themselves. How many mosques have had to hire private security?

But people like Amira Elghawaby, the University of Guelph, Humber College and all those who signed a Human Rights Complaint against me will always cover themselves with token statements and claims of being against anti-semitism and deliberate violence directed toward Jews. Anti-Semitism is a condition of the human heart and mind; people often - in public anyway - don’t let it spread to their tongue.

But now they have a new tactic; they talk about “Anti-Palestinian Racism,” because if you give something a name, that means it exists, and what better tactic to avoid culpability for all their fellow traveller’s violence, antisemitism and vocal Jewish death wishes then to find a way to continue to be the aggressor but somehow play the victim?

Such Palestinian advocates have fully embraced the adage that the best defence is a good offence—and they play it masterfully.

The Persecution of Those Who Stand with Jews

I am not Jewish, but I am astonished by the relentless siege endured by Jewish communities. I have stood alongside Jewish supporters, in particular a peaceful group who meet Sundays at the corner of Bathurst and Sheppard, even though now masked demonstrators have invaded their space, hurling insults at those Jewish supporters who gather in a Jewish neighbourhood to peacefully support Israel and the right of Jews to live without persecution.

Have Jewish mobs attacked mosques? Do they gather in Muslim neighbourhoods to intimidate residents? Do they cover their faces so that cameras cannot pick them up when they commit crimes?

No, it is only the Palestinian supporters who often seem on the threshold of violence, and that necessitates a police presence. The police come on Sunday afternoons to protect one side: Jews and their supporters. This fact speaks volumes to the character of the people on both sides.

Despite this, the police often arrest Jews “for their safety” or simply for the crime of existing visibly as a Jew in a public space. Meanwhile, discretion seems to guide officers to more charitable actions toward pro-Palestinian protesters, such as recalling whether they preferred brown sugar or sweetener in their coffee during a coffee run for the pro-Palestinian agitators blocking traffic in a Jewish area.

This glaring double standard is further highlighted by violent incidents, such as the pro-Palestinian woman who attacked an 88-year-old Jewish man, leaving him injured—only narrowly avoiding further disaster - and a violent Palestinian supporting thug threatening to put Jews “six feet under” in another meeting of the pro-Palestinian goon squad at Toronto’s Eaton Centre.

Who decided that pro-Palestinian protesters would have a special exception? Was it worked out in secret by Mayor Olivia Chow and the Toronto Police? Was it the ‘As long as you don’t kill anyone, you’re good’ policy?

Of course, that’s an exaggeration, but if it was true, could you tell the difference?

Anti-Semitism at the University of Guelph

At the University of Guelph, the situation is little better. The administration’s actions—or lack thereof—demonstrate overt complicity in normalising anti-Semitism.

Senior administrators, including AVP George Bragues, Human Rights Manager Kathryn Edgett, VP Melanie Spence Ariemma, Business Department Head Jerry Chomyn, and others, have openly supported individuals who advocate for the extermination of Israel and trumpet ancient anti-Semitic tropes like accusing Jews of making clothing from Gentile skin.

I have these administrators’ signatures on a complaint against me that accuses me of being a danger to children (awful close to calling me a paedo), a racist, an Islamophobe, violent, and accusing me of assaulting a student within a class.

I called Hamas Nazis to a stranger who had called for the extermination of Israel.

But all these administrators, plus the main accuser and one deeply troubled student manipulated by the lecturer Ramadan, signed this human rights complaint form - actually it wasn’t a form; the Human Rights Manager threw something together and tried to pass it off as official.

All signatories knew they were endorsing libellous wild lies designed to wound, but they signed nevertheless. I don’t know why; perhaps their endorsement of his anti-Semitism, perhaps their moral weakness; after all, if they didn’t comply, someone might call them a racist! The humanity!

The University of Guelph hired investigators who continue to make these same accusations against me without any attempt to seek evidence because they know that evidence for non-events is difficult to find. Despite numerous requests, the institutions refused to issue any retraction or even ask staff and faculty to stop deliberately trying to destroy my reputation.

Fourteen years of loving teaching, staying late, and writing textbooks, always writing my test banks, giving my number out and getting calls in the evenings and on the weekends from desperate students looking for help, giving special attention to the quiet girl in a hijab who nobody wants to bring into their group; I epitomised the professor who wasn’t just reading PowerPoint and doing the minimum to get by.

But all of that was blown up by one man and his toxic administrator friends, the main accusor someone so consumed by hate and so confident the administration will always protect him that he publically and frequently called for the death of Jews and the end of Israel, a man with about 3500 anti-Israeli/Jewish posts since Oct. 7.

My teaching career is over; that is not just my opinion. It doesn’t matter if you are innocent; lies stick, and reputations are destroyed. We’ve all been told life isn’t fair; it is what it is.

I’ve never been so happy to be 60 and close to retirement, although my plan, like my father's, was always to teach until I was 69.

My only hope now is that I can stop this wretched crew from hurting others in the future and force institutional/personnel change to the point where anti-Semitic administration and staff will not intimidate Jewish/pro-Israeli staff and students and make them live in fear. I hope others will join me in this fight.

Here are some posts from Professor Ramadan, who is part of the official complaint against me. The administration gave them a thumbs-up—no biggie, they said.

I cannot post the video of students unfurling a Palestinian flag at the convocation, but I am happy to distribute the public anti-semitic posts of my accusers.

But as to the defamation (both slander and libel)?

What kind of people stand there and watch as someone’s reputation is torn to shreds and do nothing?

I have asked the Sherrard Kuzz investigators if I assaulted a student; where is your evidence? They insisted on rubbing my face in it. They refuse to comment. Of course, they know it’s nonsense; there was no seed of truth; it was a case of staff, administration and faculty deliberately collaborating to form defamation because they wanted to damage someone who supported Israel.

As to the investigator, it is against the Ontario Lawyer’s code of ethics to document falsehoods knowingly, but there is not much I can do. Despite no university mandate, one of the investigators threatened to write a report on me without allowing me an oral defence if I didn’t sign her non-confidentiality agreement.

The same investigator and her lawyer colleague repeatedly broke their word. They used threats and thuggery to get their way rather than following internal human rights policies, HRTO guidelines, collective agreements and legal standards of natural justice and due process. The promised particulars didn’t arrive, and no meeting transcript was provided, among numerous violations of school policy.

Accusers without standing (individuals recruited by complainants without connection to the university) were allowed, and promises to remove accusors' anonymity were broken. I guess they didn’t want her accusation against me that two human rights complaints against Ramadan were recrimination, and she didn’t want it known that she was demanding all my communications with Jewish organisations.

This is the nice University of Guelph with the wonderful vet school. You know, puppies and pigs.

As far as I know, the slander was started not by students but by staff and management, despite students being accused of gossip. Only students dared to confront the head of the business department. They burst into his office, asking how he could do this to the best professor in the school.

However, the investigators think they are clever. They will not interview anyone who started or spread the slander, so they have plausible deniability.

“We didn’t look at that; we are therefore not sure,” they can say.

External investigators have a horrible reputation. According to renowned employment lawyer Howard Levitt, writing in the National Post,

“Investigations in the workplace are the new firing squads. As soon as an employer announces an investigation of an employee, that employee is usually suspended.

That can amount to a constructive dismissal unless the employer has the right to suspend an employee baked into their employment agreement. Also, it is virtually guaranteed that the investigated employee will be terminated — often for cause — because the result is a foregone conclusion.”¹

External investigator gigs seem to be for lawyers willing to compromise legal ethics. Generally, their reports are seen as a collaborative effort between management and the investigator, just political cover for management so they might make the decisions they had intended to make before any investigation commenced.

In my situation, the university VP, AVP and human rights manager were not fools. They knew that waiting until my class was about to run before acting, with lazy union representatives unlikely to attend the suspension meeting, would create an ideal situation where they could inject slander into a closed institutional ecosystem and wait for the poison to spread.

A very dirty game.

The university then waited over nine months to let me offer an oral defence and meet with “non-partisan” investigators (the whole time, I was banned from campus and not allowed to defend myself from the rampaging slander administration had injected into the small university ecosystem) who were more interested in stopping the truth from leaking to the media and protecting their paymasters than trying to understand what happened.

I was supposed to give them all my private communications with Jewish organisations. Are they trying to be anti-semitic?

Of course, the investigators will follow the boss's instructions and write a management-friendly report. I can appeal this report, but to whom? The Claimant against me. Good luck.

Prosecution and judge—nice gig if you can get it. The unions had no problem with this. They were politically bonded with my accusers. Why would they object?

If you are faculty and represented by CUPE or OPSEU and suspended on anything related to free speech and Israel, you would be better off being unrepresented than having one of these two unions officially assigned to you. They hate Israel, and they are not shy about saying it.

It’s like playing on a hockey team with players who can’t figure out which goal they should aim for and who, after scoring three own goals, moan and cry the anthem of the ages, “I am a victim”, when delegated to the bench.

But it’s reality, and I am legally cursed with being represented by two unions that both hate Israel, unions that attend demonstrations and fly their OPSEU flag² next to Hamas, and CUPE, whose boss greeted the invasion of Israel with the cry of, “Let the uprising begin.”

CUPE are being sued for anti-semitism. CUPE head Fred Hahn hates Jews so much he cannot contain himself and still voices enthusiasm for anti-semitic memes, all the while knowing it could cost him his job.

These unions have no problem with the person who made the accusations against me having the authority to suspend, gag me, judge my appeal, and determine any punishment.

Although the VP is the Claimant with my co-accuser, she is also the judge of the two human rights complaints filed against my accusor. However, the “Human Rights” Manager dismissed them within minutes of receipt; it was hard not to see that one coming.

The universities have money, lawyers, and power, and I am just one of those who gets daily checks from Substack. That $1.83 deposit on Dec 11 isn’t doing much.

Meanwhile, those who dare to speak against this bias, such as Jewish and non-Jewish professors who confided in me that they supported me but feared losing their jobs - are silenced.

Jewish students are similarly marginalised. A young woman in my office a few weeks before I was turfed said she felt unsafe wearing her Maccabees Games track jacket on campus.

Perhaps the University of Guelph is currently working on a new elective.

They could bring in Amira Elghawaby and teach a course on why we need to create a new type of racism called anti-Palestinian racism. It would be one of those courses you fail if you don’t agree with the professor.

They could model it off the course Carlton lecturer and convicted murderer Hassan Diab teaches that should be renamed “Why I shouldn’t be extradited to France to face murder charges” - or, more likely, with a conviction, go directly to jail.

Amira could also recruit a few administrators; it’s good for administrators to teach so they maintain the common touch.

Students complain about textbook prices, but I checked. They could use the Protocols of Elders of Zion, which is copyright-free and a real bargain. The only issue is that the publisher does not include a test bank and PowerPoints, so the professor might have to put those together herself or himself.

Students would complain that they are forced to think when taking the test and can’t simply go to Coursehero (a cheating website) and find the answer key, as they do in all their other courses.

Students might come up with a new grievance: Criticocogitatiphobia, defined as the "The aversion to or fear of students engaging in critical thinking, preferring rote memorization, plagiarism, or reliance on AI-generated answers."

The only problem is not that the grievance wouldn’t be accepted, but that it is just too hard to pronounce, even though it has the very popular “phobia” ending.

Echoes of the Paris Teacher’s Tragedy

This institutional rot at the University of Guelph mirrors the dynamics that led to the tragic beheading of Samuel Paty in Paris.

In Paty’s case, a student’s father falsely claimed the teacher humiliated Muslim students by forcing them to view offensive cartoons—an entirely fabricated account that social media amplified into a frenzy.

Similarly, the University of Guelph allows baseless accusations to flourish, leaving its employees vulnerable to violence. Parents of students have gone to task on me, and strangely, they all phrase their complaints with the same language; though there has never been violence, they always talk about fear of violence. But I am sure that when strangers make the same complaint, it does not indicate collaboration.

I hope I don’t get my head chopped off.

But the University of Guelph and Humber are fueling the same environment that led to Paty’s murder. Tens of thousands online were being urged to call for my termination.

Stories of the racist professor (remember, the crime was calling a terrorist organisation that did have significant Nazi ties “Nazis”) raced through Twitter and Instagram.

While the administration disseminated lies, the public safety officer simultaneously threatened me with arrest for harassment when I asked the defamers to stop, one 30-word request, and she said she’d have cops at my door.

I have the letter and other threatening letters and forms on my ping-pong table. Table tennis and the pool table underneath haven’t been used much recently.

It only takes one unstable individual to turn this atmosphere of slander into a tragedy.

The University of Guelph is playing a dangerous game; they hope to cater to their radical student base and Palestinian supporters and hope the temperature stays at a high simmer and does not reach a Paty-level boil.

Goebbels’ Legacy in Modern Disguise

Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda minister, perfected the art of accusing opponents of the very crimes one’s party commits. His infamous strategies—scapegoating, dehumanisation, and media saturation—created psychological distance between perpetrators and their guilt. These tactics thrive today in the guise of concepts like “anti-Palestinian racism.”

The University of Guelph’s administration, along with its enablers in faculty and public safety, has created a culture in which shame and slander proliferate unchecked.

Even the Workers Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB), after extensive interviews with staff and faculty, agreed with my stated position: that the University of Guelph-Humber’s academic leadership had deliberately toxified university culture and that their harassment had led me to develop PTSD.

There was little compassion from the University of Guelph; they fought the WSIB. Guelph opposed medical treatment for an injury they caused, not exactly reaching for the moral high ground.

Institutional Anti-Semitism and Its Broader Implications

The actions of the University of Guelph and Humber College extend beyond negligence; they actively weaponise administrative resources against dissenters, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars fighting me already. I was not the first target to be lined up in the sights of the VP Spence-Ariemma, though she has only worked there a few years.

Canadian taxpayers fund these institutions, yet their executives and governance boards turn a blind eye to anti-Semitic vitriol and abuse.

The parallels to historical propaganda efforts are chilling—a systematic effort to silence and ostracise those who support Jewish communities or Israel.

Free Speech in Peril

Canada’s legal and cultural approach to free speech is in disarray. Hate speech laws, already expansive, now risk incorporating subjective concepts like “anti-Palestinian racism,” which threaten to redefine dissent as bigotry. It is the same situation as the accusations that 215 bodies were buried at the former Kamloops Residential School.

That story wasn’t true, or there was no evidence. Yet they fired teacher Jim McMurtry, PhD, for telling the truth. Truth is not a defence in ‘human rights’ if feelings are hurt.

Because its enablers in the Indigenous community, academia and government gave this story credence, 33 churches were burned down. This erosion of free expression undermines democracy itself and creates violence.

The aspirational goal is to have ‘anti Palestinian Racism’ enshrined in human rights law. It is classic lawfare, using the law to silence those who have well-founded criticism of the ideas of radicals like Wael Ramadan and Guelph-Humber VP Melanie Spence Ariemma. It empowers those who are already using violence and intimidation to attack Jews and intimidate supporters of Israel.

This is the latest effort to censor those who are opposed to Hamas and who would like Israel to exist.

_____________________________________________

“Anti-Palestinian racism is a form of anti-Arab racism that silences, excludes, erases, stereotypes, defames, or dehumanises Palestinians or their narratives. It takes various forms, including:

• Denying the Nakba and justifying violence against Palestinians;

• Failing to acknowledge Palestinians as an Indigenous people with a collective identity, belonging, and rights to occupied and historic Palestine;

• Erasing the human rights and equal dignity and worth of Palestinians;

• Excluding or pressuring others to exclude Palestinian perspectives, Palestinians, and their allies;

• Defaming Palestinians and their allies with slander, such as being inherently antisemitic, a terrorist threat/sympathiser, or opposed to democratic values.”

____________________________________________

This aggressive Goebbels-like ploy would criminalise truth; it would squelch healthy discussion on Palestinian issues and create fear and self-censorship.

1. “Denying the Nakba and justifying violence against Palestinians.”

• Claim: Criticising or denying the Nakba (the term Palestinians use for the displacement of Arabs during the creation of Israel in 1948) constitutes anti-Palestinian racism.

  • The historical debate about the Nakba often focuses on complex factors, including the war initiated by Arab states against Israel and the voluntary flight of some Arab populations.

  • A historian questioning the scale, causation, or implications of the Nakba could be accused of racism simply for presenting an alternative historical narrative. The Nakba is a tragedy because Jews moved into the neighbourhood, not because it resulted in widespread death. The partition in India left 1.2 million dead. But we barely hear of it.

  • Condemning violence committed by Palestinian groups, such as rocket attacks on civilians, could be conflated with “justifying violence” against Palestinians, even if the condemnation is factual and morally justified.

  • Historical analysis and criticism of militancy could become classified as hate speech, effectively shutting down meaningful debate.

---

2. “Failing to acknowledge Palestinians as an Indigenous people with a collective identity, belonging, and rights to occupied and historic Palestine”

• Claim: Not affirming Palestinians’ status as Indigenous people constitutes racism.

  • The term Indigenous is debated, particularly in regions like the Middle East, where countless groups, including Jews, Christians, and Arabs, have historical ties to the land.

  • If you point out that many Palestinian Arabs arrived in the 1920s, it could be a hate crime.

  • Jews themselves trace their lineage back thousands of years to the same territory, which complicates claims of exclusivity regarding indigeneity.

  • A scholar arguing that both Jews and Palestinians have competing historical claims could be accused of racism, even though such debates are fundamental to resolving the conflict.

  • Enforcing this claim would make it a hate crime to challenge one narrative of history, limiting intellectual freedom and critical discussion.

---

3. “Erasing the human rights and equal dignity and worth of Palestinians”

• Claim: Criticising Palestinian policies, leaders, or militant groups could be interpreted as denying the humanity of Palestinians. This statement is so flaccid it can be interpreted as any statement directed to a Palestinian that they don’t like.

  • Highlighting corruption in the Palestinian Authority or criticising Hamas for its militant activities does not deny Palestinians their humanity.

  • Advocacy for Israel’s right to self-defence, particularly against organisations like Hamas, could be framed as erasing Palestinian rights, even when such advocacy is factually and morally grounded.

  • This vague standard could turn any robust critique of Palestinian leadership, political systems, or militancy into a form of “racism.”

---

4. “Excluding or pressuring others to exclude Palestinian perspectives, Palestinians, and their allies”

• Claim: Failing to include Palestinian voices in discussions constitutes exclusion and racism.

  • Academic institutions and media platforms often prioritise perspectives based on their factual accuracy or scholarly merit. Excluding certain views isn’t inherently discriminatory. Truth is now not a defence.

  • Calling out anti-Semitic rhetoric in pro-Palestinian movements (e.g., slogans like “From the River to the Sea”) could be construed as silencing Palestinian voices, even though such rhetoric can be deeply offensive and dangerous to Jews.

  • This claim could prevent criticism of extremist views within pro-Palestinian movements and stifle constructive dialogue by framing it as exclusion.

---

5. “Defaming Palestinians and their allies with slander, such as being inherently antisemitic, a terrorist threat/sympathiser, or opposed to democratic values.”

• Claim: Labeling Palestinians or their allies as antisemitic or supportive of terrorism constitutes racism.

  • Documented evidence of anti-Semitism at pro-Palestinian protests (e.g., chants like “Hitler was right”) could become difficult to address without accusations of the objector being racist.

  • Identifying groups like Hamas as terrorist organisations, which are officially designated in many countries, could also be seen as slander under this definition. Even though Hamas grew out of the Muslim Brotherhood, and its founder Al-Banna was a documented Hitler fanatic, stating this truth (in my case) is deemed racist.

  • Highlighting instances where Palestinian governance (e.g., under Hamas or the Palestinian Authority) undermines democratic principles could be suppressed as discriminatory.

  • This would have a chilling effect, silencing valid criticism of political actors and their allies while enabling harmful ideologies to persist unchallenged. 

    It is censorship disguised as altruism.  It enshrines and protects lies and mythology and criminalizes free speech and facts. I would be convicted under this absurd and transparent piece of sophistry that has no place in a free society that believes in free speech.

---

Conclusion

Yes, by this definition, my calling Hamas Nazis would be enough to lock me up.

The way Canada is going, unless Poilievre rights the ship, is frightening. Maybe everyone should get all their controversial criticism of anyone out right away before we become like England and have cops showing up at the door because someone didn’t like the tone of a tweet.

If the definition of “anti-Palestinian racism” were codified into law or policy, it could severely restrict legitimate speech. Open criticism of political movements, historical analysis, or even advocacy for Israel’s security could be deemed a hate crime.

This risks creating a Kafkaesque environment where the pursuit of truth and justice is overshadowed by fear of reprisal. Such a framework not only stifles free discourse but also endangers the principles of democracy and intellectual freedom.

From management to unions to administration to human rights managers, I have never heard anyone mention “free speech” in an affirmative sense. The University of Guelph has a free speech policy, which I have written about on Substack.

However, the writers of this policy and the institution have weaponised silence for thirteen months, with occasional passive/aggressive threats from their legal or public safety bullies. They have refused to respond, to allow natural justice to flourish, to allow me a defence - in writing, in person and on the telephone—only silence.

Returning to an objective standard—such as defining hate speech as direct incitement to violence—remains crucial for ensuring that justice and truth prevail.

The University of Guelph’s descent into institutional anti-Semitism epitomises Canada’s broader failure to uphold free speech and combat hatred impartially. To address this, we must return to foundational principles: ensuring that speech is protected unless it incites direct violence.

Only then can we preserve a society where diverse voices coexist in meaningful dialogue, and the shadows of Goebbels’ tactics are finally dispelled. While I will use every legal option available and hope that major Jewish organisations have my back, I have little hope for my teaching career.

Already, I seem to be a persona non grata with other universities, and I can’t even get the University of Guelph Faculty Association or the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) to return a message.

I guess I am either too close with those Jews; I was warned to be silent, or I would become a pariah. I will not be silent. I will fight against the institutionalised anti-Semitism. Hopefully, not everyone will turn away and say that they will leave it alone because, right now, it is not their problem.

That is no way to build a society.

_______________________________________________________________________

If you believe in the importance of free speech, subscribe to support uncensored, fearless writing—the more people who pay, the more time I can devote to this. Free speech matters. I am a university professor suspended because of a free speech issue, so I am not speaking from the bleachers.

Please subscribe to receive at least three pieces /essays per week with open comments. The cost is $5.75 per month, or about USD 4.

All the best over the holidays.

Also, if you want to write to the University of Guelph and voice your opinions, the email address is provost@uoguelph.ca

That email is published online, so I’m not doxxing anyone. Certainly, though, my home address has been made freely available to inquiring students and staff.

However, since this Provost has not responded to me in thirteen months, I doubt they will respond to you.

1. https://financialpost.com/fp-work/howard-levitt-investigations-workplace-firing-squads

2. https://nationalpost.com/news/opseu-union-banner-anti-israel-protest