The Cowardice of Shadows: Why the Anonymous Accusers Fear the Light

On the digital inquisitors who libel Israel, slander Jews, and hide behind VPNs and false virtue. Come to Toronto and debate me, cowards.

Nov 07, 2025

Note: So much for only two essays a week, but they have drawn my ire, or ‘pissed me off’ -like any normal person would have said it.

Link to their letter

A rebuttal

First of all, I have the balls to sign what I write.

I do not hide behind digital walls.

I do not libel strangers I have never met and then scuttle off into the ether.

You, the self-appointed moral police of “Reverse Canary Mission,” claim to be registered in Iceland — a nation better known for volcanoes, sagas, and fermented shark than for cowardly clerics of the keyboard.

But anyone with a passing familiarity with WHOIS can see through your Nordic cosplay. You’re not huddled under the Northern Lights; you’re sweating under the LED glare of a Florida condo, crouched behind a VPN and a fake Reykjavík registry, your courage vanishing faster than a puffin in hunting season.

You’ve never eaten a single Icelandic dish in your life — I doubt you could find hákarl on a map, let alone stomach it. No, you’re the kind of moral tourist who pretends to be Scandinavian while never venturing north of a Disney cruise terminal. The only cod you’ve ever met was deep-fried.

You are not Vikings of virtue but mall cops of morality, patrolling cyberspace with the intellectual authority of a Reddit moderator and the bravery of a man yelling “fascist!” from behind his Wi-Fi router.

Why? Because you lack the courage of your convictions. Because you know you are wrong.

You are pathetic little mice who scurry in the dark, squeaking moral slogans you barely understand.

Why not come to Toronto, Ontario, and debate me in daylight? Bring your slogans, your memes, your trembling outrage — I’ll bring facts and a microphone. I’ll even buy the coffee. But whiskey would go down easier, but I doubt you could handle it.

And yes, I will find who you really are. You have not libelled an idea; you have libelled a man, and you will answer for it.

I would also like to know what role your organisation played in my termination, and who your affiliates are at the University of Guelph and their unions.

Your arguments are shallow, trite, the droppings of uneducated fanatics who mistake venom for virtue. But it is your cowardice — your timidity, your anonymous squeaking from behind firewalls — that reveals you for what you are. If you ever faced a real debate, you would wet yourself before the first question.

You libel strangers as a sport? Then you are not merely wrong; you are bankrupt — morally and intellectually. Did you attend the University of Guelph? Are you in management? Your character has a familiarity.

“Reverse Canary Mission”? Spare me. You are not only malicious but unoriginal. By that standard, I might as well register reverseevil.org and file my Substack under it.

And while we’re here — no, I am not responsible for apartheid, genocide, or your car’s problems. Don’t buy a Chrysler. You are welcome.

I. The Anatomy of Cowardice

Two nights ago, I spent nearly six hours at Sunnybrook Hospital, where the registrar politely translated “you look like hell” into the clinical “stress-related trauma injury.” You may call it PTSD, or one of its less reputable cousins; the taxonomy is less important than the cause.

After two years of institutional harassment, defamation, and bureaucratic cowardice — the University of Guelph-Humber, the University of Guelph, and Humber College jointly immolating public money to avoid a single honest conversation — I awoke to find myself accused of grander villainies still: that I am “complicit in apartheid” and a “denier of genocide.”

This was not an aside buried in the footnotes of some digital midden. No — it was the headline, the title, the very first thing one sees upon typing my name into Google. The algorithm does not wait for context or truth; it rewards outrage. There it stands, bold and accusatory, the moral equivalent of a drive-by shooting — a phrase engineered to assassinate reputation before evidence can intervene.

It is libel as theatre, cowardice dressed up as courage, the defamation equivalent of graffiti sprayed in the night. And, in the fine tradition of our age, the perpetrators remain unseen — cowards in the dark, hurling accusations of darkness.

Permit me one clarification before we proceed:

I am not responsible for apartheid, genocide, or anyone’s flat tire.

What I am responsible for is signing my name to what I believe.

My accusers do not share this habit. They lob eggs at doors and sprint into the dark.

II. Definitions, Since We’re Allegedly Doing Morality

Complicity is not a feeling; it is participation in a crime with knowledge and intent. One cannot be “complicit” in a metaphor, a mood, or a slogan.

Apartheid (“apartness” in Afrikaans) was a system of statutory racial domination created by South Africa’s National Party in 1948. It forbade interracial marriage, segregated beaches, hospitals, schools, buses and benches, assigned residence by race, stripped the Black majority of citizenship and political rights, and enforced the system with police power and passes. In international law, the crime of apartheid means inhuman acts committed in the context of an institutionalised regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group, with the intent of maintaining that regime (Rome Statute, art. 7(2)(h)).

That is the benchmark. Hold it in your head and try to apply it to Israel without wincing.

III. What Israel Is — and Is Not

Inside Israel’s recognised borders, Arab citizens vote, run parties, serve in the Knesset, sit on the Supreme Court, head hospital departments, and serve as ambassadors and senior officers. Mixed universities, workplaces, and neighbourhoods exist as part of ordinary life, not Potemkin villages.

Discrimination exists — as it does everywhere humans are involved — but there is no race-based franchise, no race-based citizenship, no statutory segregation of public spaces. Whatever else you accuse Israel of, accuse it accurately. Apartheid, in law and history, is a racial theocracy under bureaucratic management. Israel is not that.

The territories are a different legal category. The West Bank is a tragic arm-wrestle of competing sovereignties and interim arrangements (Areas A/B/C; PA civil authority in parts; Israeli security control in others). Hamas rules Gaza — a jihadist theocracy whose charter calls for the annihilation of Jews. To confuse this with apartheid is to confuse war, occupation, and security doctrine with racial theology, and to vandalise the very word that described Black South Africa’s long night.

Nelson Mandela, who knew the difference, supported Palestinian self-determination while recognising Israel’s right to exist. He did not call it apartheid.

The modern sloganeers do so to summon moral thunder they did not make, imitating the voice of God with the acoustics of a drum circle.

IV. The “Genocide” Charge — What the Law Actually Says

The Genocide Convention defines genocide as specific acts (killing; serious bodily or mental harm; inflicting life-conditions calculated to bring about destruction; preventing births; transferring children) committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such. Two things matter: act and intent.

Intent is not a vibe; it is a mental element that must be proved to a high threshold. (See the Convention text and the ICJ’s jurisprudence on dolus specialis.)

The ICJ’s provisional-measures order in South Africa v. Israel did not find Israel guilty of genocide; it found that certain Palestinian rights were plausibly at risk and therefore ordered urgent measures while the case proceeds. “Plausibility” is a low, precautionary bar designed to preserve rights in flux; it is not a merits finding or conviction. Converting provisional measures into a guilty verdict is either ignorance or lawfare.

If you wish to accuse a state of genocide, bring evidence of intent — not Instagram. The Rome Statute and the Convention both require it; casualty spreadsheets do not substitute for mens rea, especially where the enemy embeds fighters, weapons, and command nodes in apartments, schools, mosques and hospitals.

V. “Complicity” in a Non-Crime

If apartheid is the wrong charge and genocide remains unproven (and unadjudicated), then the accusation that I am complicit in either is a category error weaponised into defamation. Complicity presupposes a crime. Remove the crime, and the accessory charge evaporates in a puff of moral theatre.

What did I “do”? I signed a letter — Scholars for Truth — objecting to the promiscuous use of “genocide” as a political cudgel, pointing out the difference between plausible and proven, and insisting that law not be pulverised into hashtags. That is not denial; it is literacy.

And for the University of Guelph, is signing this the real reason I was fired?

VI. The “Settler-Colonial Apartheid Ethnostate” Word-Salad

“Settler colonialism” implies a metropole sending colonists to a foreign possession. Jews did not arrive in Israel with a British mother-country in tow; they returned to an ancestral homeland attested by archaeology, scripture, Roman records, and continuous presence. If Jews are “settlers” in Jerusalem and Hebron, then no people are indigenous anywhere.

“Ethnostate”? Israel’s Basic Laws define a Jewish and democratic state — the former a guarantee after millennia of stateless persecution; the latter an everyday fact of multilingual parliaments, hostile newspapers, independent courts, and Arab political parties that campaign, loudly, against the government. If you dislike the phrase “Jewish state,” propose a safer haven for Jews than the one place they have ever run. (I will wait.)

Roughly 20 % of Israel’s citizens are Arab—about 2 million people out of a total population of just over 9 million (Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, 2023).

These citizens—mostly Muslim, with smaller Christian and Druze minorities—possess full voting rights, representation in the Knesset, access to the Supreme Court, and participation in public life that is unmatched anywhere else in the Middle East.

Arab Israelis serve as doctors, professors, diplomats, police officers, and even Supreme Court justices (for example, Justice Salim Joubran served on the Israeli Supreme Court from 2003 to 2017).

Arabic retains special legal status as a language of the state under Israel’s Basic Law: Nation-State of the Jewish People (2018), which explicitly mandates “the right to preserve culture, heritage, language, and identity.”

By contrast, in surrounding states—from Lebanon to Egypt to Jordan and the Gulf monarchies—ethnic and religious minorities face varying restrictions on speech, assembly, property ownership, and political participation.

No other Arab population in the region enjoys the same combination of constitutional rights, judicial independence, and electoral representation as Arab citizens of Israel.

As for apartheid, international criminal law requires systematic racial domination. In Israel, Arabs are citizens with rights; in parts of the territories, Jews may not live, if you must use the word, at least point it in the right direction. (Definition: Rome Statute art. 7(2)(h).)

VII. “You Dehumanise Palestinian Resistance”

No. I humanise Palestinians by insisting they deserve leaders better than Hamas — an organisation that (1) declares annihilation of Jews as doctrine, (2) hides behind civilians as a method, and (3) invests international aid in tunnels, rockets, and indoctrination. To recognise that Hamas turns apartment blocks into firebases is not “blaming the oppressed”; it is acknowledging a textbook perfidy that endangers the very people on whose behalf activists preen.

Civilian death is a moral stain even when legally unintended. But the laws of war do not require a democracy to volunteer for suicide. Proportionality is not body-count symmetry; it is the relationship between anticipated military advantage and expected collateral harm. Pretending otherwise is the refuge of people who never have to make the decisions they denounce.

You seem very sensitive about Hamas being accused of beheading babies. And I have heard some of you argue that actually heads were blown off with shotgun blasts, and not a blade - but that is not reaching for the moral high ground, is it?

Yet — two innocent children - the Bibas boys, and may we never forget - were murdered by Hamas in captivity. Following the identification process by the Israeli National Institute of Forensic Medicine in collaboration with the Israel Police, it was confirmed that Ariel and Kfir Bibas had likely been strangled.

According to the forensic evidence, it can be confirmed that baby Kfir Bibas, just 10 months old, and his older brother Ariel, aged 4, were both brutally murdered by terrorists while being held hostage in Gaza in November 2023.

Contrary to Hamas’s claims, Ariel and Kfir were not killed in an air strike. Ariel and Kfir Bibas were murdered in cold blood by terrorists.

The two young boys were not shot; the terrorists, with their bare hands, murdered them. Afterwards, they committed horrific acts to cover up these atrocities. This assessment is based on forensic findings and intelligence that support these conclusions.

C’mon reversecanarymission.org, these Hamas guys are your boyz!

VIII. “Weaponising Antisemitism”

This is the cleverest libel of all: accuse Jews of “weaponising antisemitism,” thereby immunising yourself from the charge while continuing the practice.

Criticism of Israel is not antisemitism; calling for the abolition of the world’s only Jewish state while singularising it as uniquely illegitimate is. The dodge is familiar: We’re not against Jews, just Zionists. In the long history of Jew-hatred, this is not a novelty but a rebranding — the conversion of an ancient loathing into a geopolitics seminar.

When I point this out, I am told I am silencing debate. On the contrary, I invite it. Sign your name. Bring your sources. Stop hiding behind anonymous websites and shifting domiciles like ideological shell companies. If your case is so strong, why the mask?

IX. A Hausdorff Aside

As Natasha Hausdorff put it in an Oxford Union debate title that distilled her thesis: “There is no genocide, no apartheid, no occupation — there is a war Israel did not start.” The point is legal as much as moral: calling everything genocide or apartheid empties those crimes of meaning and turns law into theatre.

X. The Bureaucracy of Cowardice (University Edition)

You will forgive a personal note.

Your anonymous post did not fall from the sky; it belongs to a network. What happened to me at the University of Guelph-Humber — gag orders, police-flavoured threats, a human-rights office run as a political cudgel, and an “investigation” that declined to interview the respondent seriously (she met once and accused me of time travel, going back in time and planting anti semitic bile on her beloved Professor Wael Ramadan’s LinkedIN) and only engaged in smirking attacks— was not an accident.

I cannot do time travel, and I have trouble making PDFs.

Indeed, hundreds of thousands in public funds were spent to ensure no one had to say out loud what the university was doing.

Not one of these mercenary accusers met me in a room, debated, or answered a single email in good faith. They libelled, they laundered, they lawyered up — and then they fled into the same moral fog where my present accusers live.

(My lawyer? I have two Westies.)

Your style and the University of Guelph are identical: indict by slogan, convict by committee, and dare the target to prove a negative. When pressed, they disappear.

XI. What Real Apartheid Looked Like — And Why the Comparison Is Obscene

Real apartheid was total: the Group Areas Act, the Population Registration Act, and the Bantu Education Act. It consigned people to Bantustans, stripped them of the franchise, criminalised intimacy, criminalised movement, and criminalised ambition. To paste the same label onto a country where Arab citizens vote, litigate, publish, demonstrate, and sit in the highest courts is to desecrate South Africa’s history while smearing Israel’s reality. It is not advocacy; it is theft of memory.

XII. The “Plausibility” Gambit — What the ICJ Did and Did Not Do

Since my censors adore international bodies when convenient, here is what the ICJ actually did. It ordered Israel to take steps to prevent acts that could fall within the Genocide Convention. At the same time, litigation continues, because some Palestinian rights were plausible — a precautionary standard, not a verdict. Converting provisional measures into certainty is performance, not jurisprudence.

The ICC may investigate alleged crimes by any actor — Hamas, Israel, or others. Good. Investigate; bring evidence; try cases. I will accept whatever can be proved by rules of evidence rather than by petitions and performative outrage. What I will not accept is trial by hashtag.

XIII. On “Erasure” and History

I am told I “erase the Nakba.” On the contrary, I find it difficult to erase something so endlessly inflated. It has become less a historical event than a kind of moral currency, printed and reprinted until no one recalls its original value.

And how odd that those with such capacious compassion can find no tears for the 900,000 Jews—some with roots older than Islam itself—who were hounded, dispossessed, or slaughtered from Morocco to Baghdad and driven into the arms of the very state now accused of their theft.

No, I insist upon complexity, that most hated of virtues in the age of slogans.

Two people with legitimate claims collided amid the wreckage of empires and the return of refugees. The ensuing tragedies were not celestial edicts but human choices—some chosen, some imposed, and some cynically engineered by neighbours who rejected the two-state partition of 1947 in favour of another genocide that, for once, failed.

To demand that Jews alone must renounce sovereignty as the entry fee for anyone else’s dignity is not humanism—it is an antique prejudice draped in postcolonial robes.

And note this bitter irony: the only genuine, measurable progress toward peace in our time—the Abraham Accords, in which Arab states normalised with Israel without the veto of rejectionists—was treated as heresy by the professional “solidarity” industry. Cooperation, after all, is bad for business when your real trade is grievance.

XIV. The Psychology of Anonymity

Why the mask? Because even my accusers know — in the quiet pantry of conscience — that their syllogisms are made of cardboard. They masquerade as dissidents, but they are the chorus of the age, singing whatever the NGOs print this week. There is nothing brave about shouting “apartheid” in the faculty lounge and or screaming “F*** Zionists” in the hallways of the University of Guelph-Humber. Nor is bravery unfurling Palestinian flags at convocation for the University of Guelph.

At least the person there stood by the flag and did not hide like you.

There is nothing radical about defaming a Jew with the majority at your back.

You accuse; I answer. You hide; I sign. You chant; I argue. Only one of us behaves like a citizen.

XV. A Note on Courage (and Why I Won’t Take the Money)

The University of Guelph will soon, in effect, attempt to purchase silence—a ritual now so common in this dreary little dominion that it scarcely raises an eyebrow. They will call it an arbitration hearing, but it will amount to the same sordid transaction: hush money disguised as justice, a payout meant to bury the record and bleach the stain of their own misconduct.

Let me be painfully clear: I am not for sale. I am not “settling.” I am not accepting a dime to buy my own gag. No sum can restore a reputation they deliberately despoiled, nor detoxify a process they poisoned with cowardice and deceit.

I will not be quiet for cash.

I will not pretend that cowardice is conscience or that slogans are judgments. You have accused; now defend your accusation. If you argue, make it. If you have evidence, present it. If not, remove my name from your anonymous digital pillory and learn—if your trembling hands can still hold a dictionary—the difference between an opinion and a lie.

And should your fellow travellers at the University of Guelph, in their usual bureaucratic cunning, try to enforce this farce without my consent, I shall be vocal—loudly, relentlessly, publicly vocal.

For silence, after all, is the only commodity they can afford, and I intend to make it prohibitively expensive.

I am not done yet. I have outlasted investigations, committees, slanders, and lies. They can keep their money, their mediators, and their moral rot.

I will keep my voice—and that, I assure you, will cost more than you can imagine.

Coda: On Non-Things

You cannot be complicit in a thing that does not exist. Israel is not an apartheid state by any workable definition in law or history; the charge of “genocide” remains unproven in any court empowered to decide it; and the word “complicity” does not float free of crimes like a helium balloon of indignation.

What does exist is a very old habit with very new fonts: turn the Jew into the problem, then make a virtue of hating him.

I have the indecency to disagree — and to sign my name. That, in the moral climate of our day, is apparently unforgivable. So be it. If the only sin left is courage, I’ll commit it daily.

May God bless Israel; may God bless the Jewish people. May Providence continue to shield this small but indomitable nation — hemmed in by hostile and decrepit regimes that abuse their own citizens and cloak their failures in the convenient scapegoat of Israel.

The God of Abraham, the God of David — the same God who raised psalms from grief and found strength in the ruins — may He continue to watch over these people and this soil. And may this goy, too, one day set foot upon that blessed ground.

As for the calumny you have flung like so much gutter confetti: sign me up again. I would sign that letter tomorrow. You appear to be well-versed in my record — yes, I was dismissed only months ago — but no amount of administrative fury, no sum of legalist theatre, will purchase my silence. You have not broken me; I am not alone; I will not be cowed.

So come to Toronto, cowards. Bring your anonymous screeds, your proxy tribunals, your VPNed certitudes. Bring whatever rancid courage you have left. I will meet you in daylight, with facts, with history, and with a voice that refuses to be monetised into acquiescence.

Bring it on.

Notes & sources (selected)

Crime of apartheid definition (Rome Statute art. 7(2)(h)).
ICJ provisional measures in South Africa v. Israel — “plausible rights” standard; not a merits finding.
Hausdorff (Oxford Union): “There is no genocide, no apartheid, no occupation — there is a war Israel did not start.” (Debate title encapsulating her thesis).