One Professor in North America Fired For Condemning Hamas - Will We Let This Stand?

All profs suspended for (usually) criminal actions, vandalism, etc, against pro-Jewish organisations have been returned to work. The University of Guelph and Humber need to be outed. Please restack.

I am, to my knowledge, the first—and still the only—professor in North America fired for stating that I stood with Israel and that Hamas are Nazis. I was not dismissed for misconduct or any substantiated wrongdoing. My teaching and publication record were excellent, and this was never denied.

I was terminated on the basis of complaints brought by overt, public antisemites—individuals with thousands of documented, grotesque, Jew-hating social media posts, many of them longstanding, explicit, and openly available. The powerful Muslim Students’ Association was also reportedly demanding my ouster.

(Example of one of thousands of posts by my accuser)

My accuser’s record of hatred was not disputed. It was simply ignored.

I was suspended without charges. I was banished from campus. I was placed under a gag order. A prolonged defamation campaign was launched to destroy my reputation through fabricated allegations, including insinuations of criminal behaviour. These lies circulated for nearly two years. When they were eventually forced to admit privately that the allegations were entirely invented by management, faculty and staff, they nevertheless refused to correct the public record or halt the damage. The destruction was not collateral. It was the objective.

My reputation has been eviscerated deliberately. This was not politics; this was evil, and we should not be uncomfortable with the word when it applies.

Crucially, the departments most aggressively driving this process were, ironically, the Human Rights offices themselves. The Human Rights departments at Humber College and the University of Guelph were not neutral arbiters seeking fairness or truth. They were central engines of escalation: enforcing gag orders, legitimising false allegations, ignoring exculpatory evidence, and converting ideological grievance into institutional punishment. The very offices charged with protecting rights became the instruments through which those rights were stripped away.

The individual who filed the Human Rights complaint against me was neither a student, a colleague, nor a complainant with standing under the Human Rights Code. It was the Vice-Provost of the University of Guelph-Humber, Melanie Spence-Ariemma, the senior academic administrator, functionally equivalent to a university president.

To file a Human Rights complaint, one must have standing. She did not. This was never disputed. What mattered was not legality but authority. She was the boss. Everything beneath her was, in practice and in fact, at her command. The Human Rights manager, while not a direct report on paper, was within her administrative chain and subject to her authority. Independence was illusory.

She later participated in the decision to terminate me. In effect, she acted simultaneously as complainant, as overseer of the investigative machinery, and as the final decision-maker. Judge, jury, executioner.

No one meaningfully denied this. The termination letter was signed by a subordinate, as though a change of pen transformed the substance of power. It did not. Authority does not evaporate when signatures are delegated.

The central fact is not that due process was defective. It is because due process never existed. From the first day of my suspension, staff and faculty were openly telling students that they had been informed the outcome was predetermined—that any “process” would be performative, that I had “offended Muslims” by condemning Hamas, and that termination was inevitable.

I never mentioned Muslims. I never made a religious claim. I described Hamas accurately.

(Welcome to convocation at Guelph-Humber)

There were no particulars. No witnesses were disclosed. No evidence was produced. No opportunity to respond was provided. No adjudicative meeting occurred. No appeal was read. What followed was not a judicial process but a theatrical simulation designed to legitimise a decision already taken.

This was not a malfunctioning system. It was a system functioning exactly as designed: authority replacing law, power replacing process, and prejudice replacing judgment.

It was not procedural unfairness. It was the absence of procedure altogether.

What occurred was summary punishment carried out through bureaucratic means and justified after the fact with paperwork. The rest was theatre.

My union, OPSEU 562, despite taking $15,000 in dues from me, sided with management. Their President said that calling Hamas Nazis is a ‘hate crime’, and they, illegally, said that, because of their public hatred of Israel (confirmed in writing), they refused to represent me.

With the union being my only legal representative, I could not replace them with a lawyer; I was left alone to battle two universities, a college, a union, and their lawyers and millions.

When I brought forward extensive documentation concerning Professor Wael Ramadan and Shupack—including thousands of social media posts that were not merely anti-Semitic but crossed into hate propaganda—I was ignored.

I submitted this material knowing that Professor Ramadan had, to my knowledge, been investigated by police in connection with his public statements. This professor was the primary accuser, working closely with the Human Rights department and Guelph-Humber Vice Provost Melanie Spence-Ariemma, and Assistant VP George Bragues, to end my career.

Two human rights complaints brought against Ramadan by Jewish students, and one against another openly anti-Semitic professor, were dismissed almost immediately by the same so-called “human rights” department.

There was no meaningful inquiry.

These are publicly funded institutions, all of them. Taxpayer dollars are funding Jew hate. The Doug Ford provincial government and MPPs Nolan Quinn and Stephen Lecce refuse to intervene or even respond.

When I attempted—calmly and directly—to ask staff and faculty to stop repeating demonstrable falsehoods about me, the response was not dialogue or correction. Instead, they contacted Public Safety. Humber College’s Public Safety then threatened me, hinting at violence from their police friends, threatening unnamed fines and lawfare, and telling me I was not even allowed to publicly condemn their vicious actions.

I was not accused of a crime. I was not charged with anything. I was threatened for attempting to defend myself against lies.

I was subjected to repeated threats—threats against me, against my livelihood, and threats that extended to my family.

Do you understand how it feels when your beloved daughter sobs before you about the cruelty of these institutions? Fathers, do you understand my rage?

Lawyer after lawyer has threatened me, driven by the cruelty of legal firms Lerners LLP and Sherrard Kuzz in London and Toronto, respectively - both comfortably and lucratively ensconced in the pockets of their multi-million-dollar benefactors at the University of Guelph and Humber College.

The WSIB has stepped in, and their investigation found that OPSEU 532, the University of Guelph and Humber College have harassed and abused me and my family and me to such an extent that they approved a claim of culpable damages.

The shock that reverberates through my family has not faded with time; it has sharpened. It is not merely the shock of loss or injustice, but of bureaucratic cruelty—of discovering how coldly it can be administered, how easily it can be justified, and how completely it can be disowned by those who inflict it. After fifteen years of exemplary service with stellar reviews, weekends spent helping students, lights switched off last, my car last in a parking lot—I was met not with inquiry, hesitation, or even procedural caution, but with immediate hostility.

They chose Hamas over Israel!

A vicious administration, aided by an even more vicious human-rights department, moved against me from day one. Not one of them had met me. Not one of them asked how such allegations could possibly be true. Not one of them answered a single question.

For more than two years, I have been denied even the appearance of a defence. No hearing worthy of the word. No confrontation with evidence. No particulars. All witnesses are anonymous. Kafka indeed. No opportunity to answer accusations that were whispered, laundered, and weaponised behind closed doors.

This is not justice delayed; it is justice deliberately withheld. The cruelty lies not only in the outcome, but in the method—a slow, administrative asphyxiation in which reputation is destroyed, livelihood erased, and silence enforced as policy.

And the cowardice runs all the way to the top.

Even the President of the University of Guelph, Van Acker—armed with institutional power, legal resources, and public authority—never addressed me directly. Instead, as I experienced it, pressure was conveyed indirectly, through a visiting rabbi, threatening me and proclaiming my job lost four months before his false ‘judicial process’ ground to a stop with my termination.

These people are not brave. They are cowards. They worship at the altar of self-preservation.

They shelter behind processes, committees, consultants, and studied non-responsiveness.

They know—because they must know—that I would stand openly before their lawyers, their enforcers, and their purchased authority and answer every charge. They possess all the money, all the institutional power, every procedural advantage imaginable. And yet they recoil from daylight.

Like all bullies, they are moral cowards. Their fear is not of me, but of exposure—of being forced, as individuals, to account for actions buried beneath policy language, compliance jargon, and administrative fog.

With all their resources, all their sanctimony, all their lectures about justice and values, they cannot bring themselves to face one man and defend what they have done.

That is bureaucratic cruelty in its purest form: power without accountability, punishment without courage, and silence masquerading as virtue.

Medical reports document that the conduct of all three institutions caused me a trauma-based, PTSD-like injury. The University and the College ignored this entirely: my appeals went unanswered, and I was terminated while on medical leave.

On paper, of course, there are rules against this. In practice, there is no enforcement mechanism that does not require hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees. Rights exist, but only for those who can afford to litigate them to exhaustion.

Canada likes to imagine itself as a nation governed by the rule of law. The reality is less flattering. What echoes most consistently through our courts and institutions is not justice, but power. Might makes right—and the paperwork follows afterwards.

People need to know that if they give their business to either of these two institutions or law firms, they are funding Jew hatred.

I am sixty-one years old. My career has effectively ended. I have been financially devastated. My professional reputation—built over decades—has been deliberately and maliciously ruined.

I regret nothing.

Throughout all of this, Canada’s mainstream media has shown almost no interest whatsoever. A professor is fired for supporting Israel, opposing Hamas, and is subjected to defamation, intimidation, and coercion, and the silence has been nearly total.

That silence is not accidental. It is structural. Roughly 50 percent of journalists’ salaries in Canada are paid directly or indirectly by the federal government and by funds funnelled through Google. 100% of the CBC is government-funded.

This applies across the board: the Globe and Mail, the National Post, the Toronto Star, the CBC, and Global News. Journalists know exactly where their paycheques come from. They know which institutions fund them. And they know which political sensitivities must not be crossed.

They also know this: the government is afraid of losing the Muslim vote. Supporting Israel does not put journalists—or their employers—in the good graces of their political benefactors.

Defending Jews does not advance careers.

Challenging antisemitism when it intersects with electoral politics is professionally dangerous.

Everyone involved understands this and acts accordingly. Pierre Pollievere knew this, yet he stood; the man has integrity. Carney endorsed a Palestinian state when Hamas was in power, when they were killing Jews and killing their own people who dared question their authority.

The same logic governs the universities. These are publicly funded institutions operating in a political economy they understand perfectly well. The Muslim Student Association is extremely powerful on these campuses. There are far more Muslim students than Jewish students.

Administrators know precisely where their tuition dollars come from, just as the Ontario government knows precisely where its votes come from.

Supporting Jews may be the right thing to do, but it is not viewed as politically beneficial. It carries a cost without a reward.

I cannot afford to battle a multi-million-dollar institutional machine that has already spent well over a million dollars—almost certainly more—defending its actions against me. I do not have access to compliant media. I do not have institutional backing. I do not have the resources to match that power. The only tool I have left is the truth.

Even that tool has been resisted. The mainstream press has declined to engage seriously. Major Jewish organisations—many of which maintain careful, intricate relationships with provincial and federal governments—have offered little beyond symbolic concern. Substantial support has been absent.

So this is what remains. This record. This account. This insistence on factual truth in the face of coordinated denial.

Anyone who attends, donates to, or materially supports the University of Guelph, the University of Guelph-Humber, or Humber College should understand what these institutions have demonstrated through their actions. They have shown that antisemitism will be excused, enabled, and protected—often under the banner of human rights—while those who challenge it will be silenced and destroyed.

That this can happen in a modern Canadian academic system and be met with indifference is a stark sign of our times. It reveals a political, media, and academic establishment more concerned with funding streams, tuition revenue, vote counts, and ideological conformity than with decency, courage, or doing what is right.

Please understand this clearly: this Substack post is, with very few exceptions, the only media exposure I will receive. This is all I have left. And I am placing it on the record.

If anyone reading this is interested in helping or wants to support me in some small way, I ask only that you consider subscribing to my Substack. It will never replace a professor’s salary. It will never replace even the wages of a part-time McDonald’s worker. But every little bit helps.

Right now, the same administrators and the same human rights departments at the University of Guelph, Guelph-Humber, and Humber College—the very offices that styled themselves as moral arbiters—who fired me for saying I stood with Israel remain firmly in power. There has been no reckoning, no correction, no embarrassment—only institutional silence.

The only disinfectant for open, bureaucratic anti-Jewish hostility is exposure. Not process. Not committees.

Sunlight.

In Canada, there are only a handful of small, non-government outlets willing to touch stories like this, and they have done what they can. Beyond that, there is no safety net, no ombudsman, no principled press cavalry riding to the rescue.

I am exhausted. But I am not finished.

I am asking for support because the remaining avenues are narrow and unforgiving. The Labour Board rejects roughly 95%-99% of duty-of-fair-representation complaints. My union is represented by lawyers paid for with my own dues. I am prohibited from having a lawyer at mediation. This is what passes for justice in Canada.

Outside that process, my only realistic option is a Superior Court action for defamation, economic loss, and emotional harm. The case is complicated, but it is strong. The problem is not merit. The problem is access. My only viable path would be a contingency lawyer, and the odds of finding one shrink by the day as limitation periods close.

Hiring counsel outright to confront a multi-million-dollar institution that has already spent well over a million dollars attempting to destroy me would place my entire retirement at risk. That is not courage. It is recklessness. I have already lost approximately $1.8 million in future earnings, pension accruals, benefits, and intellectual-property income.

Humber College has even refused to return my intellectual property stored on its servers—an act that speaks volumes about the institutional culture now on display. I will not gamble my family’s financial security to fight an organisation that has demonstrated nothing but contempt.

They are too rich.

I am still standing. I still have fight left. But I cannot do this alone.

If there is justice left in this country, it will not come cheaply—and it will not come quietly.

When confronted with evidence—documentary, contemporaneous, and devastating—they did not respond with explanation or correction. They responded with intimidation.

They threatened financial penalties far beyond my capacity to pay. They invoked the prospect of jail. They boasted openly of their power, stating in substance that the law was irrelevant to them, that they could ruin my life, take my home, and harm my family if they chose to do so.

They object to being described as thugs, but the term is not metaphorical. A thug is one who uses coercion, threat, and abuse of power in place of reason, law, or accountability. By definition, that is precisely what occurred.

When asked clear, appropriate, and documented questions, they did not answer. They threatened. They obfuscated. They lied repeatedly. They treated judicial fairness and due process not as obligations, but as inconveniences to be bypassed. Mandatory adjudicative meetings were cancelled without explanation. Appeals were returned unread. Basic procedural safeguards—explicitly set out in the collective agreement for the sole purpose of preventing precisely this kind of abuse—were simply ignored.

This was not an administrative error. It was institutional contempt for process.

And when those safeguards should have been enforced, the union that existed to protect them instead aligned itself shamelessly with management. OPSEU 562 did not merely fail to represent me; it repudiated representation entirely. Its president, Milos Vasic, made clear that his personal prejudices were sufficient grounds to destroy my career and that his statutory duties as a union leader were beside the point. He openly aligned himself with management, doing so in writing. That is not negligence. It is bad faith.

The system offers no internal remedy for this kind of corruption. Outside of litigation costing hundreds of thousands—indeed millions—of dollars, there is no enforcement mechanism available to an individual professor. No single person on an academic salary can meaningfully pursue such avenues without risking total financial annihilation. The architecture is designed to exhaust, intimidate, and silence.

When institutions cancel processes, unions abandon their duties, and administrators respond to evidence with threats rather than answers, what remains is not law. It is power.

And when power behaves this way, the only disinfectant left is exposure.

Public outrage is not a luxury in such circumstances. It is the last remaining form of accountability. Silence, by contrast, is not neutrality. It is consent.

This is why the record matters. This is why naming names matters. This is why refusing to soften language matters.

Because when institutions refuse to answer, threaten instead of explain, and abuse rather than adjudicate, they forfeit any claim to moral authority.

And they should be treated accordingly.

My fight is almost certainly lost—not because the facts are weak, but because lies, once laundered through institutions, acquire a perverse permanence. Thousands of people at the University of Guelph-Humber now believe I am a criminal, not because I am one, but because they were told so. They were told so deliberately.

Management at the University of Guelph and Humber College understood that character assassination is cheaper, faster, and far more effective than evidence. Destroy the man, and the paperwork becomes a formality. Once the lie is planted, the institution merely tends the soil.

When I attempted—calmly and directly—to stop these management-driven falsehoods from spreading, the response was not correction, dialogue, or restraint. It was intimidation. I was threatened with criminal charges—specifically criminal harassment—by way of their “police contacts,” for the act of asking that demonstrable lies about me cease. This was not an idle suggestion or overheated rhetoric. It was formal, written, and explicit. I have the letter. Anyone who doubts this may read it.

This is how institutions now enforce silence: not by proving guilt, but by threatening consequences so disproportionate that resistance becomes irrational. The message was unmistakable—we have the power, the law will follow us, and your life can be ruined further if you persist.

There is no realistic legal remedy left that does not exact an intolerable cost. Superior Court is beyond my means. The Human Rights Tribunal drags on for years, and I will not spend what remains of my life suspended in procedural purgatory, waiting for a ruling that arrives long after the damage is complete.

The Labour Board, meanwhile, functions less as an instrument of justice than as a Potemkin village—erected to give the appearance of fairness while reliably insulating union executives from consequence.

This is because our courts and our institutions no longer believe in morality—in right and wrong. Those are dismissed as antiquated notions. Unsophisticated. Unprofessional. What they believe in instead is procedure. And procedure, severed from moral judgment, is a fickle and dangerous ally. It does not ask whether something is just. It asks only whether the correct boxes were ticked, whether the ritual was observed.

As Christopher Hitchens repeatedly warned, this is the danger of capricious law: a system that cloaks injustice in legality, congratulates itself on compliance, and mistakes process for principle. When procedure becomes the highest value, it inevitably serves power rather than truth. It is infinitely flexible upward and merciless downward.

Such a society is always a dangerous one for Jews.

Jewish civilisation is uniquely grounded in the idea that law is inseparable from morality—that legality without justice is corruption, and that right and wrong are not optional accessories to procedure but its very foundation.

A system that treats ethics as naïve and replaces moral judgment with bureaucratic ritual will always find Jews inconvenient. Jews ask awkward questions. Jews insist that rules mean something. Jews remember when the law becomes a performance rather than a safeguard. History leaves no ambiguity on this point.

The ritual is now familiar. The union does nothing—or almost nothing. Perhaps an email. Perhaps silence decorated with platitudes. And then, when challenged, the system intones: adjudication was available; therefore, justice was done. I have seen cases where a union sent a single email over six months, provided no advocacy, no defence, no representation whatsoever—and the Labour Board solemnly ruled that this constituted “good faith.” Member be damned. Career destroyed. Reputation shredded. Only unions are allowed in writing to be “incompetent.” The Labour Board says they are not professional organisations, so competence is a demand too weighty.

The institution congratulates itself for having procedures, mistaking their existence for justice.

This is not an accident. It is designed.

Which leaves only one venue: the court of public opinion.

That court is imperfect, noisy, and often crude—but it has one advantage institutions cannot tolerate. It is not owned. Institutions can outspend individuals. They can delay them. They can bury them in the process. What they cannot defeat is sustained, collective refusal to look away.

But silence is collaboration.

If we cannot tolerate even the mild inconvenience of sharing a documented account of institutional antisemitism, defamation, and intimidation—if we cannot be bothered to amplify a voice that has already paid the full price—then we should not feign surprise as our institutions decay further.

Injustice survives not because it persuades, but because it is permitted.

A few isolated voices crying into the wilderness will change nothing. History is unambiguous on this point. Injustice endures when people decide that speaking is too awkward, too political, too impolite.

And that decision—made often enough, by enough people—is how societies lose their moral bearings without ever noticing the moment they did.

Please restack.

Or share it.

Or say, plainly and publicly: enough.

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

Freedom to Offend is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.