Six Reasons Why Anti-Palestinian Racism Mandates are a Threat to Free Speech, Jewish Communities, and Global Stability
But it's anti racism, doesn't that mean it's good?
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 and get at least three pieces /essays per week with open comments. It’s $6 per month and less than USD 4. I know everyone says hey, it’s just a cup of coffee (with me, 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!”
But I only ask that when you choose your coffee, please choose mine. Cheers.
In our modern age, where critical thinking skills, reading and appreciation of context are in decline, many will intuitively support a call for Anti-Palestinian Racism (APR) mandates. They will interpret them like they would support rules banning driving at 50 kph through residential streets.
Speeding is bad and can hurt people, and racism is bad and can hurt people, so the case is closed, right? If you are against such mandates, it means that you support racism, right?
No, it’s not that simple; the speed of a vehicle - unless we allow your Lexus to identify as only travelling at 30 kph when it’s going 60 - is an agreed-upon empirical measure.
Anti-Palestinian Racism is anything but clear.
The road to hell is famously paved with good intentions, so even if such mandates are ostensibly designed to promote tolerance and protect what is subjectively deemed a marginalized group, it is not the key issue.
What matters is the mandate’s effect.
These mandates risk undermining the freedoms they claim to defend. In their zeal to suppress what is often mislabeled as "Islamophobia," these initiatives paradoxically stifle free speech, harm Jewish communities, and embolden extremist groups.
The repercussions would extend far beyond the confines of campuses or government policies, threatening the delicate balance of democratic societies worldwide.
1. The Erosion of Free Speech
One of the most immediate dangers of anti-Palestinian racism mandates is their chilling effect on free speech. I am suspended now for almost fourteen months from my professorship for the crime of calling Hamas Nazis.
Note: The same bad-faith actors brought the same complaint to another university where I teach. Without a meeting at the other public university, it was assumed that my post (which involved digital manipulation) was considered free speech.
The Claim against me accuses me of “many lies” and making “a deliberate racist effort to dehumanize and to incite hate against Palestinians.” I am accused of inciting violence and creating a culture of fear.
Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels in a 1934 speech at the Nuremberg Rally, stated: "The cleverest trick used in propaganda against Germany during the war was to accuse Germany of what our enemies themselves were doing."
This tactic, known as "accusation in a mirror," involves projecting one's misdeeds onto opponents to deflect blame and sow confusion. Historically, such methods have been employed to justify aggressive actions and manipulate public perception.
By categorizing legitimate criticism of Palestinian leadership, Islamic extremism, or broader geopolitical issues as "racism," these mandates create an environment of fear and self-censorship. The also create a breeding ground for anti-semitism.
As the late Christopher Hitchens famously said, "The only freedom that counts is the freedom to disagree." Without this freedom, intellectual inquiry and public discourse are reduced to hollow exercises in conformity.
In democratic societies, the ability to critique political ideologies, governments, and cultural practices is sacrosanct. Labelling dissent as "racist" not only silences critics but also undermines the principle of accountability.
As Professor Alan Dershowitz has argued, "When you start labelling political disagreement as bigotry, you pave the way for tyranny." This is particularly dangerous when the label is applied indiscriminately, as it often is in the context of anti-Palestinian racism mandates.
2. The Harm to Jewish Communities
Paradoxically, policies ostensibly aimed at combating racism can have profoundly negative consequences for Jewish communities. Anti-Palestinian racism mandates often paint a simplistic, binary picture of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where Palestinians are perpetual victims and Israelis—and, by extension, Jews—are perpetual oppressors. This narrative fuels anti-Semitic tropes, conflating Jewish identity with the actions of the Israeli government.
The late British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher once observed, "Watch your thoughts, for they will become actions. Watch your actions, for they will become habits."
When the false narrative of Jewish culpability becomes entrenched in educational institutions and public policy, it inevitably seeps into societal attitudes and behaviours.
Jewish students on campuses have already reported a significant rise in harassment, with organizations like the Anti-Defamation League documenting increasing incidents of anti-Semitic rhetoric disguised as anti-Zionism.
Moreover, these mandates erode the solidarity between Jewish and non-Jewish communities in combating genuine racism and extremism. By monopolizing the discourse on oppression and framing it through a narrow, ideologically driven lens, anti-Palestinian racism mandates marginalize Jewish voices and trivialize their historical and contemporary struggles.
3. Empowering Extremist Groups
Perhaps the most alarming consequence of anti-Palestinian racism mandates is their unintended empowerment of extremist groups. By delegitimizing critical scrutiny of organizations like Hamas or the Houthis, these policies provide cover for their activities. Extremist groups thrive in environments where dissent is stifled and critical voices are silenced.
As former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warned, "Free societies that are not vigilant in defending their freedoms can become breeding grounds for tyranny."
Hamas, for instance, has long exploited narratives of victimhood to justify acts of terror against Israeli civilians. By labelling criticism of such actions as "racist," anti-Palestinian racism mandates inadvertently legitimize extremist rhetoric and strategies. This not only emboldens these groups but also undermines efforts to foster genuine dialogue and reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians.
4. The Danger of Ideological Uniformity
The enforcement of anti-Palestinian racism mandates represents a broader trend toward ideological uniformity in democratic societies. This uniformity stifles diversity of thought, which is the cornerstone of innovation and progress.
Former U.S. President Obama once noted, "The strongest democracies flourish from frequent and lively debate." Policies that suppress dissent—even in the name of tolerance—weaken democracy's fabric.
Furthermore, the binary framing of anti-Palestinian racism mandates overlooks the complexity of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It reduces a multifaceted geopolitical issue to a simplistic moral dichotomy, ignoring the agency of Palestinian leaders and the diverse perspectives within Palestinian society—this reductive approach disservice all parties involved, perpetuating division rather than fostering understanding.
5. Can easily be weaponized through Human Rights Tribunals at Universities/Colleges
APR mandates can lead to allegations being weaponized against professors, students, or administrators who legitimately criticize Palestinian leadership, Islamic extremism, or broader geopolitical issues. Under overly broad interpretations of these mandates, such criticism can be mischaracterized as racism.
A professor discussing Hamas’ role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may face accusations of fostering an anti-Palestinian environment, regardless of whether their commentary is based on academic research or facts.
As noted above, my calling Hamas Nazis, though their roots in the Muslim Brotherhood and the Brotherhood’s affection for the Nazis is well established - led to me being accused and, at this point, having my career destroyed1 because an accuser said my statement, which ironically nobody has a copy of, and cannot be found, is taken far more seriously by the University than my accuser’s posts. See his Dec. 7, 2024 post below. I have hundreds like this.
Those who call it a double standard are wrong. There is a single standard: You can say or post what the Human Rights Manager, Investigator or Management agree with, but you can’t say or post what they disagree with.
In my case, the fact that the accusor called Hamas “noble warriors” and supports the Houthis and Hezbollah while calling for the elimination of Israel is not deemed worrisome2. It is not that my accuser received a lesser penalty than me; the complaints were not even directed to the same management office that suspended me so harshly in November of 2023. There was no possibility of any punishment. It presented a similar likelihood of getting a haircut at the butcher shop.
APR mandates can be exploited to advance false or exaggerated claims against individuals. For example, a minor disagreement or debate could be escalated to a formal complaint under the guise of combating racism.
In my case, I recently discovered that, in the cause of Palestinian rights, the initial accuser is coincidentally the same student who complained to the department chair about three years ago because they were miffed about a grade that was below their entitled pretensions.
This student nursed this grudge for years, and my situation presented the means for revenge. I found this out by happenstance, but the refusal to disclose any names or details (lawyers call them “particulars”) made it impossible to pinpoint the conflict of interest.
Of course, when the Human Rights Manager and the hired investigator refused to release the names of the students or persons involved and the time, date and other context, it made it impossible for me to provide an adequate defence.
Accusations by anonymous accusers, especially without specific details like names, dates, and context, undermine the principles of natural justice and make it impossible to mount a defence.
This is universally acknowledged outside of CUPE and OPSEU offices.
Why do such actions by human rights tribunals or hired investigators impede the ability to form a defence and thus eliminate the opportunity for justice (any adjudication that does not allow a defence is unlawful and tyrannical)?
Lack of Specificity Denies Fair Hearing
Natural justice demands that the accused be informed of the allegations against them with sufficient detail to understand and respond effectively.
When details like the accuser’s identity, the time, and the specific context of the alleged misconduct are omitted:
The accused cannot verify the credibility of the accuser.
Providing an alibi or identifying witnesses who might refute the claims becomes impossible.
The accused is left defending against vague or hypothetical scenarios, which is inherently unfair.
No Opportunity for Cross-Examination
Cross-examination is a fundamental component of fairness. It allows the accused to challenge the accuser’s credibility and the truth of their allegations.
There is no way to test the accuser’s motives, biases, or reliability.
The accused cannot ask clarifying questions or address inconsistencies in the accuser's statements.
Inability to Provide a Contextual Defense
Without details of the alleged incident (e.g., time, location, or nature of the act), the accused cannot:
Recall their whereabouts or actions at the time of the supposed event.
Identify potential exculpatory evidence (e.g., emails, schedules, witness testimonies).
Defending against a "blank accusation" effectively denies the right to defence. One of my accusations was that “I talked to two girls” (exactly as written). Good luck refuting that. I didn’t know talking to girls was a human rights crime.
Presumption of Guilt
In these cases, institutions often proceed with investigations or disciplinary actions based on the complaint alone, which:
Shifts the burden of proof onto the accused, violating the principle of "innocent until proven guilty."
Forces the accused to prove a negative, which is logically and practically impossible when details are withheld.
Risk of Malicious Allegations
Anonymous complaints allow individuals to lodge malicious or frivolous accusations without accountability.
The accused has no recourse to challenge the motives behind the complaint, further compounding the injustice. I discovered that the original accuser was motivated by unhappiness with grades, but I discovered it too late, and I do not believe this will be noted.
Such practices violate natural justice by denying the accused the right to know, respond to, and challenge the allegations effectively. They shift the process from fairness and truth-seeking to presumption and secrecy, making a legitimate defence practically impossible.
This undermines trust in the institution's processes and chills academic freedom and fairness in the workplace.
Complainants may use the mandates to settle personal vendettas or discredit their opponents, knowing that the university's tribunal system often prioritizes protecting its image over due process.
University and college tribunals often lack formal courts' impartiality and procedural safeguards. Mandates can encourage decision-makers to side with complainants to avoid accusations of institutional bias or racism, even when the evidence is insufficient.
6. Negative Precedents for Broader Free Speech
Expansion to Other Contexts:
If APR mandates are allowed to set a precedent, similar policies could be enacted to shield other ideologies or political groups from criticism, further eroding free speech protections across institutions.
Under an expanding array of anti-racism mandates, a student group advocating for free speech could be targeted for expressing offensive views.
A Call to Action
To counter the dangers of anti-Palestinian racism mandates, we must reclaim the principles of free speech, critical inquiry, and mutual respect. This begins with challenging the false narratives that underpin these policies and advocating for a more nuanced, balanced approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Political leaders, educators, and citizens must recognize that true tolerance requires the courage to confront uncomfortable truths.
Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir said, "We will only have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us."
While her words may be controversial, they underscore the importance of addressing the root causes of conflict rather than succumbing to superficial solutions.
Fostering an environment that values free speech and critical thinking can empower individuals to engage thoughtfully and constructively with complex issues. This is the only way to build a resilient society against extremism, respect diversity, and be committed to justice.
Conclusion
Anti-Palestinian racism mandates are not merely misguided—they are dangerous to Canadian freedoms.
Additional problems arise when they are adjudicated in university and college human rights forums. As noted above, these courts/tribunals/individuals are often amateurs and have their own procedural biases.
By stifling free speech, harming Jewish communities, and enabling extremist groups, these policies undermine the very values they claim to uphold. In the face of this growing threat, we must remain vigilant in defending democracy, freedom, and critical inquiry.
As we navigate the challenges of a rapidly changing world, let us remember Benjamin Franklin's wisdom: "Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech."
The stakes are too high to remain silent. It is not merely the problem of Jews.
I am not a Jew.
This is the problem for all citizens of a free society.
_______________________________
I am 60 years old. On the day of my suspension (without receipt of charges for another month), staff initiated a defamation campaign that had nothing to do with Israel or Palestine. The campaign propagated through the school to the point that, in a month, it was accepted wisdom. Despite being given screenshots and eager witnesses to support me that there was a campaign against me - slander and libel- the university did not respond to requests that they speak to the staff and faculty (not to mention students) who were spreading it. This reputational damage is significant, and despite two quality masters, 15 years of post-secondary teaching and about 15 years of strong industry experience, I have never had any response to sessional teaching inquiries since. I have been told that I am toxic. I hate being compared to my mother-in-law’s cooking. That is a joke; the borsch is delicious.
Analysis of Relative Seriousness of Charges:
Finlayson vs. X
1. Summary of Allegations Against Paul Finlayson
Source of Allegations: Human Rights Complaint (HRC) and Statement of Allegations (SOA).
Primary Allegations:
Racist and Islamophobic remarks in a LinkedIn post.
Threatening and harassing students and their families.
Creating an unsafe learning environment.
Inciting fear and hostility among students and faculty.
Evaluation of Allegations:
LinkedIn Post: The post condemned Hamas and expressed support for Israel, labelling Hamas as "Nazis." While potentially inflammatory, the content reflects personal political beliefs rather than targeted discrimination.
Seriousness Rating: 3/10 (Personal opinion expressed publicly, no evidence of direct harm).
Threatening and Harassing Students: Allegations include contacting a student’s brother, repeated questioning, and threatening legal action. The SOA and HRC lack specific corroborative evidence or witness testimony directly linking these threats to actionable misconduct. The event described didn’t happen.
Seriousness Rating: 0/10 (Unsubstantiated claims without clear evidence. Retracted).
Unsafe Environment Allegations: The claims that Finlayson created an unsafe environment appear to stem from discomfort with the LinkedIn post. However, no concrete evidence supports that Finlayson acted violently or endangered others.
Seriousness Rating: 2/10 (Discomfort does not equate to physical or psychological harm).
Incitement Allegations: Assertions that the post incited fear or hostility are speculative and lack documented incidents of harm resulting from the post.
Seriousness Rating: 1/10 (Speculative and unproven).
Overall Rating for Finlayson Allegations: 1.5/10
(The allegations lack credible evidence, focus largely on interpretation of speech, and do not involve acts of violence or explicit threats.)
2. Summary of Allegations Against X
Source of Allegations: Human Rights Complaint filed by Paul Finlayson and others.
Primary Allegations:
Promoting anti-Semitic rhetoric and violence against Jewish people through social media.
Endorsing terrorist organisations such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and ISIS.
Fostering a hostile and unsafe environment for Jewish students and faculty.
Spreading misinformation and inflammatory content.
Evaluation of Allegations:
Anti-Semitic Rhetoric: Documented instances of Ramadan sharing content on social media that aligns with anti-Semitic tropes, such as equating Jews with Nazis, celebrating terrorist acts, and supporting groups committed to the destruction of Israel.
Seriousness Rating: 9/10 (Promotes hate speech and discrimination against a specific ethnic/religious group).
Support for Terrorist Organizations: Posts endorsing Hamas and Hezbollah, designated terrorist organisations by Canada, and celebrating acts of violence.
Seriousness Rating: 10/10 (Endorsement of terrorism represents a severe threat to public safety and institutional values).
Hostile Environment Allegations: The documented fear among Jewish students and faculty due to X’s rhetoric is credible and supported by external organisations, such as Jewish advocacy groups.
Seriousness Rating: 8/10 (Credible evidence of fostering hostility and fear).
Misinformation and Inflammatory Content: The sharing of false narratives, such as accusations of Jews orchestrating their deaths during the October 7 events, fuels division and perpetuates harmful stereotypes.
Seriousness Rating: 9/10 (Perpetuates hate through disinformation).
Overall Rating for X Allegations: 9/10
(The allegations are substantiated with evidence and involve serious issues such as hate speech, incitement, and support for violence.)
Comparison of Allegation
Finlayson Allegations: The charges against Finlayson are minor, speculative, and largely interpretative. They lack evidentiary support and focus on speech rather than actions.
X Allegations: The charges against X are severe, well-documented, and involve hate speech, endorsement of violence, and a significant impact on the safety and well-being of the Jewish community.
Final Ratings:
Paul Finlayson: 1.5/10
X: 9/10
Recommendation: Prioritize the investigation of allegations against X due to the severity and substantiation of the claims. The charges against Finlayson appear disproportionate and require reevaluation in light of procedural fairness and free speech protections.
APR is just another step towards Dhimmitude, a state that our current government seems much too eager to embrace.
APR is another manipulative step toward creating disension and taking away free speech in a civil fair arena. Our current Government seems to be intentional in promoting division and conflict within Canada in the same way it promotes conflict indirectly against the Jewish population.