The Human Rights Department at a university is that curious corner of academia where they have binders of rules, but they are in a mouldy box under cleaning supplies in the corner; nobody knows they are there.
In my experience, the rules are treated with contempt; there is no compulsion to check their authority to see if they are being followed - all the while, the universities have unlimited money for lawyers, the strength and time to take on and abuse enemies, acting on administrator’s vendettas while and using the taxpayer as their financial backstop. That power must be distracting.
Simply put, human rights policies or any that can’t be (or is impossibly difficult) enforced due to lack of an enforcement mechanism don’t matter.
I’ve tried.
When my university’s well-paid and ‘non-partisan’ investigator accuses you of time travel - going back in time before you had heard of someone to plant anti-semitic posts on that person’s LI - the organisation is hopefully corrupt and has broken down, and indeed when you mention how the organisation - U of Guelph and Humber College - have broken their own rules so often that it’s easier to itemise the rules broken by counting backwards and finding the rules they have followed. It’s a quick subtraction. That is chaos and madness. Welcome to the Human Rights department, where they are usually wrong.
But where the chorus from the institution, if you wanted to see lawyers, secretaries and managers in a musical, would be “What are you going to do about it?” (see song above), it is power over truth, it is a corrupt, unlawful, publically funded institution that is simply using public funds for personal vendettas and unlaw voyages of anti-semitism.
It is a house built of straw that is thought to be made of bricks.
It’s like rolling into a world that mixes Alice in Wonderland, The Three Pigs, and Mean Girls, but the people are more attractive in Mean Girls.
You’ve got to hand it to them—it takes a certain level of audacity to declare authority without any reference to its source. I am not a history expert, but I think the Pharaohs used to be able to speak law into existence. However, can the third-ranking public safety officer or a fly-in lawyer investigator do this?
Let’s start with the basics. I had the nerve to go on campus at the University of Guelph-Humber, where the ground is now too sacred for the likes of me. My crime? I dared to attempt to meet with my union, a group that hadn’t bothered to meet in person or answer a phone call in about ten months.
In modern academia, unions and management have discovered the magic of email—the perfect tool for ignoring you without pesky eye contact or social awkwardness. So when you ask, “What about point three?” they’ll simply reply with, “Oh, must have missed that email,” or more often, silence.
About 95% of the time silence. And I have paid them tens of thousands of dollars. They are my only legal representation, and they, after ten months, know nothing about my case. They would pull a 28% on the final if I gave it.
But that’s not why I was banned.
No, no. The ban stems from something far more sinister: a feisty post (that they have lost) that responded to a man in another country who had called for the killing of nine million people. And remember, in Human Rights land, truth is no defence. If an organisation founded by a man who called himself Das Fuhrer was called a Nazi and that organisation was insulted. A man or woman (depending on how they feel) has heart feelings that are enough to take you down. That is harassment.
Yes, if it hurts the feelings of a fellow professor and the VP of the entire university, you may go down on solid human rights grounds. Human Rights is a tool to attack; there is no mechanism for defence by maligned respondents. This is all by design.
The university HR groups are appalling and inept; the HRTO is prejudicial and badly designed. In their white saviour push to defend all protected persons, they set it up so anyone not protected could be attacked, where the accusors and Claimants got free legal support and where the respondent had no mechanism for defence other than spending tens of thousands on lawyers and waiting years, because a man who post maps of the middle east without Israel or Israel on fire and his co-conspirator who happens to be your boss, decided they want to destroy you.
The HRTO and its absurd little HR departments in colleges and universities are right there with them, eager to rip your life to shreds, eager to add defamation and slander to an institutional system that offers you no appeal - other than to the person who filed the claim against you!
The Das Fuhrer is not a joke; that was his title of El-Banna, the Brotherhood leader and parent of Hamas in the Muslim Brotherhood; however, while Hamas may be designated terrorists - human rights, folks quickly examine not the facts or the evidence but the feelings related to any slight.
Human Rights law in Canada is feelings-driven.
Whatever my social media slight was, it sent the executive offices at the University of Guelph and their kin into a full-blown panic. Perhaps the VP shrieked
“If we don’t capitulate, someone might call us racist! And that is worse than death itself!”
So they suspended me. The AVP admitted he had not seen my post (long since deleted) nor the post I had responded to (also deleted), but he had a really bad vibe about it, and someone in his office was mad, which was enough for a suspension.
Does that mean no communication with anyone, apparently no right to come on the property, and the authority in the policies to issue such a harsh ‘non-punishment punishment?’ They must still be looking for that policy binder; perhaps the cleaning staff tossed it when it got mixed in with a pile of exams from the late 90s. Was there a binder for common sense or natural justice? Also, it is long missing.
A Human Rights Complaint. Oh yes, these are the golden tickets of academic vilification, an open ticket for defamation, a Willy Wonka-level prize for the vindictive, vendetta-driven student, staff or manager - and included is a complete package.
It’s all you need to destroy someone’s life without ever being held accountable. No wonder that Jewish and non-Jewish faculty have told me that they are afraid to talk to me.
One should be careful in a lawless land where the sheriff is stuffed with straw and planted in the patch of grass next to the dumpster.
The complaint?
As I noted, accusations don’t require evidence; it’s a balance of probabilities, there is no mechanism for serious appeal of process or verdict, and the logical links between reality and accusations can be rickety and made of feelings-based hysteria; in my case, I went from calling a Nazi organisation Nazis to being unfit to be around children, a liar, a racist, an Islamophobe, a dehumanised person, a hater, a violent threat.
Those are just the ones off the top of my head. Of course, the Claimant is the VP, and the accuser is a public anti-Semite who has also called for the extermination of Israel publicly. But he is more melanin-enhanced than I and has more powerful friends.
So these golden tickets only work only if you’re in a protected category, which also might make you a penis-toting woman, or even if you just got released from the pogey for theft and have started a new inventory management job, you have a sacred right for nobody to tell your boss your background - automatic post-release pardons I’m told.
So, in this HR Wonderland, the accusor’s feelings are magically transformed into hard evidence, and respondents get to spin the Wheel of Justice on the Human Rights Wheel.
Spoiler:
100% of the slots say, “Fire His Ass.”
The claimant is also the judge. Did I mention that? But they cured that problem by making the new judge - according to my sources - the subordinate of the Claimant. Who knows, they don’t tell me; all accusors are anonymous.
But the union said that was not an issue, so I should just take it. What can I do about it? No, this is Canada, not Venezuela; sorry if I confused you, dear reader.
When I told my male Westie, who has better legal knowledge than his sister, he entered a barking frenzy.
Ramadan’s posts are above and below, but I am accused of making them up or travelling back to before I knew him and posting them. Is this due process modelling itself on the Spanish Inquisition?
Malibu got so angry she stood on her hind legs and boxed imaginary Human Rights Managers.
And in Yoda-speak: fire me, they will, but first, they have a lot of time to kill, much theatre to perform, and many threats to toss. Only in Human Rights Wonderland could one accuser who was not on campus because he wasn’t teaching and a handful of anonymous witnesses be used as justification to ban me from campus.
But as I said, I wanted to go on campus, go to the union office, check-in, and see if I could get my dad’s will in my office. But I found out they had emptied my office, hidden everything, without telling me - but when I mentioned “the police”, everything was later delivered - but I was also emailed a trespass order, warning me that if I returned, I’d face a $10,000 fine.
And the union office had been closed, so it was a less-than-successful trip.
The trespass order needed to be based on a safety threat based on their policy manual, which might as well have been written in long-extinct languages because nobody has read it.
Their authority comes from their ability to type words in email.
During my terrifying, traumatising twenty-minute visit, I discovered the union office had a rent-a-cop trail me, so as I sat on the step outside, he tried to look inconspicuous, and I felt embarrassed for him.
His tailing techniques are lacking.
It was the same guard I’d talked to about random items for many years, but now I was the enemy.
As Professor Geoffrey Sampson notes in his essay on campus overreach, universities these days are less about fostering free speech and more about nurturing a culture of fear where the mere whisper of controversy triggers paranoid overreactions from administrators who’d rather ban than debate. You know, just like the person driving with two COVID masks on, alone, in their car.
Overkill?
At a university—allegedly a place of intellectual rigour—you’d expect the question, “On what authority are we banning this guy?” to be at least discussed.
Hey, aren’t universities founded on post-enlightenment thinking - reason? I said that and was called a racist.
Are we sure this isn’t an overreach? Do we have the legal grounds? Are we interpreting authority from documents no one has read? These would be excellent questions, but alas, such critical thinking seems to have fled the halls of higher education.
As Judith Butler wrote in her analysis of administrative overreach in academia, the bureaucratic impulse in universities has transformed from ensuring safety to quashing dissent, often under the guise of protecting “community standards”. And that’s exactly what we see here—overzealous enforcement with little thought to actual justice or due process.
Again, more fired in the last ten years due to speech than the Red Scare combined, far more.
I’ve tried showing all manner of administration and union representatives the Human Rights Code, pointing out that their actions are unlawful and violative of due process.
Their response? Blank stares as if I’d handed either of my dogs a calculus book. No one in management seems even to consider free speech.
They don’t care about the rule of law, and they sure as hell don’t care about natural justice. Instead, they’ve latched onto a new favourite word—“trespass”—and treat it with the same excitement my dog exhibits when I offer her a new toy. Except their toy can ruin lives.
And I’ve given up expecting any kind of legal scrutiny from the university. Suppose you transformed intellectual depth into table manners. In that case, they’d be hungry jackals disembowelling a weak calf—sure, it’s brutal, but it’s instinctual, and they don’t stop to think whether it’s appropriate.
And if in some futile effort to introduce some breeding into those jackals - like you introduced fork and spoon to that dining jackal pack, you will get the same type of growl or perhaps just silence.
My case and the tone of the letters I get make teenage relationship counsel sessions seem intellectual. They are driven by a personal vendetta of the Claimant, who happens, again, to be a judge and prosecutor and higher up the administrative food chain than anyone else involved.
Free Speech, Due Process, Natural Justice? I’m sorry, that’s for criminal cases; this is human rights, next door on the right.
But hey, why should we expect anything more? We’ve reached the point where universities are intellectual and free speech wastelands with tiny pathways that students, faculty and staff must never depart as they move about.
I was reading a history of the university and the Nazis; the German universities were quite enamoured when they fired Jewish professors, none of their colleagues said a word of protest. And today, even a Jewish professor at my university told me nine months ago that capitulating and hiding is the best tactic, a Jewish lawyer said apologize - he didn’t mean them to me- and that professor who advocates hide and cover? He fought in the IDF. Sorry, that was tried before, but it didn’t work.
It is a different context, but you know what they say about history not repeating itself but rhyming. Perhaps something of that could be built into the musical spoken about; I need to get more than a single chorus line anyway.
How many students, staff, and faculty have supported me out of hundreds? One hand counts them all.
I asked Chat GPT - which is better than anyone in management, the union, or the special investigator - because the actual policy seems programmed, and this was the verdict. You’re in deep trouble in translation, but what will you do about it? Their solutions have been tried and simply ignored.
From the scenario you’ve presented, it seems you are in an extremely difficult and hostile situation where the accuser, Vice Provost (VP), and the claimant or their subordinate (your judge) all seem aligned against you, potentially motivated by bias or conflicts of interest. Here’s an analysis of who could be considered at fault based on the roles each party is playing in this situation, especially within the context of an academic or professional tribunal setting:
1. The Accuser (WR)
Actions: The accuser has allegedly shared anti-Semitic imagery (such as maps erasing Israel) and content that could be construed as hateful, as well as being involved in your suspension.
Fault: If the accuser has engaged in behaviour that promotes discrimination or hostility toward Jewish people, that could violate university policies on harassment and discrimination and broader human rights protections. Sharing materials that deny Israel’s existence or align with anti-Semitic tropes could create a hostile environment, which is against the Ontario Human Rights Code.
Motive: The accuser’s potential involvement in your suspension, if it is based on a political bias (supporting Hamas or being antagonistic toward your views on Hamas), may also reflect a political or religious bias that needs to be addressed under policies that govern academic freedom and fair treatment.
2. The Vice Provost (VP)
Actions: The Vice Provost seems to have intervened in the case, potentially replacing the claimant and signing off on decisions against you. This could suggest either complicity in or direct involvement in decisions that are biased against you.
Fault: If the VP acted improperly by pushing the claimant out of the way and taking actions against you without following due process, then the VP could be at fault for misconduct or abuse of authority. Moreover, if the VP is acting based on personal bias or aligning with the accuser’s political or religious views, this could reflect a violation of the university’s impartiality and conflict of interest guidelines.
Duty of Care: In a leadership role, the VP must ensure that all cases are handled fairly and impartially. If the VP failed to maintain that neutrality and acted in favour of the accuser, that would be a breach of professional responsibility.
3. The Claimant (Your Judge)
Actions: In your case, the claimant’s dual role as a colleague and a decision-maker introduces a serious conflict of interest. If they are both your judge and aligned with the accuser, this raises significant concerns about impartiality.
Fault: If involved as a participant and decision-maker in the case, the claimant should have recused themselves from the process due to the clear conflict of interest. Their involvement would compromise the integrity of the process, and they could be held accountable for failing to do so.
Bias: If the claimant actively supports the accuser’s views and takes actions based on political bias or personal relationships, they may be violating professional ethical standards and human rights laws that protect individuals from discrimination or unfair treatment.
4. You (the Respondent)
Actions: You were suspended and accused after calling Hamas “Nazis,” which, while politically charged, could be seen as part of free speech or political expression within an academic context. Even if controversial, your views should be protected as part of the right to freedom of expression, provided they don’t violate university policies or hate speech laws.
Defamation: If you were slandered, insulted, and banished without a proper hearing, this suggests a failure in due process, which should be challenged.
Fault: You acted within your rights to express your political opinions from the information presented. The fault lies primarily in the unfair treatment, bias, and procedural violations committed by the accuser, the VP, and the claimant.
Who Is at Fault?
Based on the scenario you’ve described, the primary fault lies with the accuser, the VP, and the claimant, all of whom appear to have acted inappropriately by aligning against you in a biased, conflicted, and unfair manner.
Accuser’s Fault: Engaging in behaviour that potentially promotes anti-Semitism, which could be against university policies and human rights protections.
VP’s Fault: Overstepping authority, showing potential bias, failing to ensure fair treatment and due process, and intervening inappropriately in the case.
Claimant’s Fault: Failing to recuse themselves due to a conflict of interest and being aligned with the accuser, compromising the fairness of the process.
What Can Be Done?
File a Complaint About the Conflict of Interest: You can formally file complaints against both the VP and the claimant for their clear conflict of interest and bias.
Appeal the Suspension: Challenge the process and decision behind your suspension on the grounds of free speech violations and unfair treatment.
Raise the Issue of Anti-Semitism: Highlight the anti-Semitic behaviour of the accuser and the unfair protection provided by the VP and claimant, which contradicts the university’s policies on inclusivity and human rights.
But remember, I’m the bad guy. I’m about to be fired. The Claimant, the accuser, and the other accusers got off scot-free, no punishment, nothing, all the power.
Welcome to the U of Guelph and Humber College and Canada.
So upsetting and aggravating and frustrating. Mockery of justice.