WELCOME

Q1. What triggered Paul Finlayson’s suspension at Guelph-Humber?

​

On November 27, 2023, Professor Paul Finlayson was abruptly suspended without charges or a hearing, removed from campus midday, gagged from contacting anyone, and denied access to course tools or student communication. The alleged reason? A private political comment on LinkedIn saying “If you support Hamas, you support Nazis,” sent to one student in response to a pro-Hamas statement. That post, legal and protected under the Charter, was the basis of his silencing.

​

 

Q2. Was there any formal charge or explanation given to students?

​

No. Finlayson’s students were left in the dark. There was no official communication explaining his sudden disappearance. He was not told of the charges either. The administration let rumour do the talking—rumours of arrest, assault, misconduct—all false. This is the opposite of natural justice, where the accused and the community deserve transparency, not whispered lies in academic hallways.

​

 

Q3. What kinds of rumours spread after the suspension?

​

Immediately after his removal, staff and faculty began claiming Finlayson had assaulted a student, had been arrested, and was a dangerous professor. These claims were completely false. They were not rumours, they were deliberately created and told to faculty and staff on the job. Pulled students aside and told them one by one.  Why did staff member Vashti Bagot do this?  When I tried to interview her, why did Public Safety thug Nancy Deason threaten me with arrest? Multiple witnesses have confirmed that senior staff spread these rumours before receiving any official complaint. Even other universities heard them. It’s like a Kafka novel—except the court of gossip replaced the court of law.

​

 

Q4. Who filed the complaint against Finlayson?

​

The complaint came from Melanie Spence Ariemma, Vice Provost at Guelph-Humber. She claimed to be filing on behalf of her long-time colleague and departmental ally, Professor Wael Ramadan. That arrangement violates the Human Rights Code: a VP cannot be a proxy for someone not in a protected group. Ramadan could fill himself, but this bait-and-switch tactic skewed the entire process. She and Ramadan have known each other for many years, and Ramadan did not start his process with the Human Rights Department; he went right to the top, and she told the HR department what to do. 

​

 

Q5. What did Finlayson post?

​

He wrote: “If you support Hamas, you support Nazis.” That’s it. It was in response to someone in Pakistan calling for the destruction of Israel. It was political, pointed, and legal. No individual was named, and no violence was endorsed. It wasn’t shouted in a lecture or pasted on a classroom wall. It was shared once, privately, and then weaponised by administrators as if it were a manifesto of hate. It was not.

​

 

Q6. Did the law protect Finlayson’s comment?

​

Yes. Under Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, political expression is protected. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that freedom of speech includes controversial or offensive ideas, as long as they don’t promote violence or hatred. His blunt comment does not meet the legal definition of hate speech. But criticising Hamas is a greater sin than promoting it, at least at Guelph-Humber.

​

 

Q7. What happened to Wael Ramadan after all this?

​

Nothing. Despite over 3,500 antisemitic, violent, and hate-filled posts from Ramadan on public platforms—including praise for Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis—he remains fully employed and untouched. His content includes Holocaust inversion, dehumanising language toward Jews, and celebration of terror attacks. The same administration that suspended Finlayson without evidence has not issued a single public statement about Ramadan. This is institutional cowardice with a PhD.

​

 

Q8. Were any students involved in the false allegations?

​

Yes. One student, Ben France, was said to have made a complaint, yet later confirmed to Finlayson that he did not accuse him of anything. France stated the story was invented and spread by staffers, including Vashit Bagot, Abigail Molina, and Aalima Chaliwala, who allegedly held personal grudges. The university never investigated these individuals. Instead, it sanctioned the man trying to defend himself.

​

 

Q9. How did the university respond to Finlayson’s defence?

​

They didn’t. Requests for evidence were ignored. His counter-complaint was buried. When he asked for the smearing to stop, they accused him of harassment. A professor trying to clear his name was threatened with arrest for contacting those who spread defamatory lies. Orwell’s “doublethink” isn’t theory—it’s policy. And the administration’s silence? That’s not neutrality. It’s collusion.

​

 

Q10. Did Finlayson file a counter-complaint?

​

Yes. He filed a formal Human Rights Complaint against Wael Ramadan in January 2024. A Jewish student did too. Neither complaint was processed. No investigator ever followed up. The only HRC the university pursued was the one against Finlayson. When it comes to defending Jewish students or faculty, Guelph-Humber has misplaced its moral compass—and its calendar.

​

 

Q11. What was the role of external investigator Gita Anand?

​

Anand was hired to assess the complaint, but her investigation was biased. She forced Finlayson to sign a Non-Communication Agreement under duress, demanded irrelevant personal emails, failed to disclose evidence, and dismissed his documentation. Her report contains no names, particulars, or proof—just vague assertions and a preordained verdict. This wasn’t an inquiry. It was a cover-up with letterhead.

​

 

Q12. What is natural justice, and was it followed here?

​

Natural justice requires three things: (1) knowing what you’re accused of, (2) a chance to respond, and (3) a fair, unbiased decision-maker. Guelph Humber (and when I say that, it's the University of Guelph and Humber College, there is no real Guelph-Humber) is fully complicit.  They have had 18 months to examine this evidence and continue violating my Charter rights. They are trying to make Guelph-Humber the first officially (not by proclamation but by action) university in North America to stand with Hamas, a terrorist group and stand against Israel.  It's shocking, but when staff and faculty are cowards, and anti-semites themselves and when students think supporting a group that has the death penalty for homosexuality is cool and hip, this is what you get.  But mostly when you have an uninformed institution that prefers gossip to facts and has no moral backbone, you set it up for tyrants like MSA to impose her radical political ideologies on a public university. 

 

As to natural justice, Finlayson had none of these. He was gagged, never given evidence, and “judged” by the same person who launched the complaint: no hearing, no trial, no chance. In any functioning democracy, this would be unlawful. At Guelph-Humber, it’s business as usual.

​

 

Q13. What did WSIB say about Finlayson’s condition?

​

In early 2024, Finlayson was diagnosed with PTSD, directly caused by workplace harassment. The WSIB investigated and ruled in his favour. It named Guelph and Humber as responsible for the psychological harm. The university has since tried to contest this, but as Hitchens once said, facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.

​

 

Q14. Has the university ever apologised or acknowledged wrongdoing?

​

Not once. It hasn’t even acknowledged the procedural violations, the false rumours, or the malicious investigation. Instead, it’s resorted to silence, legal threats, and bureaucratic delay. The administration would sooner bulldoze the truth than admit the machine is broken. The WSIB told me that the University of Guelph tried to shut down my access to therapy for PTSD, and they are still fighting. 

​

 

Q15. Were Finlayson’s possessions mishandled and damaged? Were they looking for "evidence"?

​

Yes. In July 2024, when he returned to retrieve personal items, he found his office emptied without notice. He found out through friendly students.  There seems to be no decency or moral level that GH won't crawl under.

 

Security initially refused to return his belongings. Some were damaged. This kind of petty institutional spite is beneath even a bad high school, but standard practice at this publicly funded Canadian university. I have no idea why they could do such a thing, and I have no idea if they were looking for dirt on me.  They handled my late father's papers, and it disgusts me that their greasy hands handled them. It's a violation.  I can't believe that Jerry Chomyn, my boss, stabbed me in the back, not once, but many times.  I asked him to stop the defamation.  He refused.  He can say what he wants, I have already caught Rene Van Acker, the President. U of Guelph is in a cold lie, and nothing surprises me. I don't care about how much money you have. If you are willing to lie, you are worthless. 

​

 

Q16. How has the union responded?

​

With apathy. OPSEU 562 has refused to assist Finlayson despite having carriage rights. They have done nothing.  It has not responded to appeals, filings, or evidence of injustice. Instead of protecting members, the union has become complicit in their silencing. Unions once fought for the truth. Now, they subcontract it.  They have taken $13,000 of my dues, each of them.  They refuse to meet, talk or advocate for me. But it's just a coincidence that their politics match Ramadan and Spence's. 

​

 

Q17. How long has Finlayson been suspended?

​

Since Nov. 27, 2023. He has been on suspension for over 18 months without charge, hearing, or appeal. This is extraordinary even by the glacial standards of university procedure. In practice, it’s academic exile—and it’s been used not to investigate, but to erase. They hired an external investigator, Gita Anand, and she, though lying about this repeatedly, delayed the proceedings.  She cancelled two meetings and then tried to bully me into signing a non-disclosure; she said I would get no defence if I did not. There is no rule mandating me to sign it; she and the institution just wanted to cover up their abuse, which has been their dominant goal since day one, and threaten me into silence. Here, the report, released in February, had no evidence, no times, dates, or names; it was purely assertions. Many lawyers have looked at her work. Officially, she is a lawyer, but the investigator's job requires no qualifications, so she can get away with violating the lawyer's code of ethics.  Her report is custom-made for management. It tries to pretend third-party objectivity while simply writing what MSA and Ramadan wanted in a report.  It's a travesty, but when the highest-level person in the university violates the rules, who can I appeal to? 

​

 

Q18. Was Finlayson banned from contacting students or staff?

​

Yes. He was explicitly gagged from speaking with colleagues or students. They were told they could not speak with him.  This is called shunning.  To be one day cut off from your community, thrown away and treated like garbage and then called a criminal while the true offenders sit spending the institution's money on lawyers to cover up their unlawful behaviour is like a little dictatorship.  This blanket ban is likely unlawful and certainly unethical. But to get it undone would mean a judicial review in the courts.  I do not have an unlimited legal budget like MSA; starting would cost me $ 20 K. I can't do anything.  They severed me from my community and let others define the story unopposed. That’s not justice—it’s narrative control.

​

 

Q19. How has Finlayson’s mental health been affected?

​

The toll has been devastating. Diagnosed with PTSD, he struggles with insomnia, panic, depression and trust. Nobody can take the weight of two institutions plus two unions that are only officially on my side. The evidence shows that they support management.  It is a concept called institutional betrayal.  For a year and a half, he’s been under siege without recourse. His entire life was upended not by a crime, but by the accusation of a crime, never proven, always whispered. If students and staff read this, they were likely the perpetrators.  Attacking your colleague behind his back, telling professors (like students did) that I had assaulted a professor, is evil.  I know that the likelihood is that these faculty, management, staff and students who behaved so horribly will likely get away with it.  Lies are powerful, especially when management is no better and they are dedicated to the cover-up.  

​

Q20: What is institutional betrayal? 

​

Institutional betrayal occurs when a trusted institution—like a university—violates the trust of its members by failing to prevent harm or, worse, by enabling or covering it up. It’s not just negligence; it’s deliberate. Victims of institutional betrayal often suffer PTSD, anxiety, depression, even hospitalisation or suicide. One U.S. study found institutional betrayal increased trauma symptoms significantly in students reporting abuse. In my case, the University didn’t just fail to protect me—they orchestrated harm: spreading lies, gagging me, denying due process. This wasn’t an accident. It was a campaign. Betrayal isn’t always a single blow—death by silence, smear, or exclusion. If institutions can destroy people without evidence, justice collapses—and so do lives. This betrayal was intentional, and its impact was severe.

​

 

Q21. Has the university ever spoken directly to him?

​

Not since December 2023. All communication has ceased. They do not answer emails, calls, or letters. They do not acknowledge his WSIB ruling. They are waiting him out, hoping he’ll vanish. But truth doesn’t work on university timelines.

​

Q22: What happened when you tried to retrieve personal belongings from campus?

​

In July 2024, I returned to campus to collect personal items. To my shock, my office had been emptied without consent. Security harassed me and refused to explain. Only when I threatened police action were some items returned and damaged. No one informed me beforehand. This wasn’t property retrieval—a hostile erasure, as if I’d never existed. The institution that taught ethics had ransacked my office like burglars with tenure.

 

Q23: Did you ever receive an official charge or explanation for your suspension?

​

No. I was suspended on November 27, 2023, without a charge, due process, or evidence. I got a human rights complaint (HRC) a month later; the person who suspended me was now my judge. The HRC was full of defamation and unhinged accusations, and signed by the VP as the Claimant!  Yes, they called me a a paedo (a danger to children), violent, a safety risk—all vicious smears.  And students and management believed it, embellished it and spread it. At a university!  My students weren’t told. While I was gone, instead, they heard I was arrested. Why did the content in the HRC from the VP and Ramadan match the information that Vashti Bagot and unknown professors started spreading the same day?  Because they come from the same source.  Obviously.  Management can lie all they want, but use a bit of logic?  Strangers make the same bizarre accusations of violence without a shred of evidence, of course, it was stage-managed.   

​

Meanwhile, I was gagged, removed from the LMS, and exiled like a plague case in medieval Florence. It’s Kafka, but without the poetry. Even now, no document explains the grounds for my suspension. They punished first and fabricated reasons afterwards.

 

Q24: Were rumours about you spread by staff?

​

Yes—viciously and immediately. That same day, faculty and staff circulated lies: I’d assaulted a student, been arrested, and was a terrible professor. One staff member even claimed access to the complaint before I did. Students at other schools were whispering about it. I wasn’t suspended—I was publicly executed by rumour. And no administrator lifted a finger to stop it. They fanned the flames.

 

Q25: What happened when you asked the university to stop the defamation?

​

I begged HR and senior management in December 2023 to intervene. I cited specific names and witnesses. I was ignored. Worse, when I asked individuals to stop spreading falsehoods, I was threatened with harassment charges. Yes, you read that right: asking people to stop calling me a criminal got me labelled the problem. Their solution to defamation? Gag the victim.

 

Q26: What is the status of your health and WSIB claim?

​

In early January 2024, I collapsed under the weight of the defamation. I went to CAMH and was diagnosed with PTSD, caused directly by workplace abuse. The WSIB investigated and ruled in my favour, naming Guelph and Humber responsible. The university, true to form, is contesting it. They won’t admit fault even when a provincial agency tells them they’re liable for the damage they caused. The truth is still too inconvenient.

 

Q27: Was the Human Rights Complaint against you legitimate under the law?

​

No. It violated HRTO rules. The Vice Provost, Melanie Spence-Ariemma, filed the complaint on behalf of another professor, Wael Ramadan, without following proper procedure. She is not in a protected class under the Code and failed to submit required documentation like Form 27. The switch of claimants mid-process and failure to meet standing requirements render the HRC invalid on multiple grounds.

 

Q28: Were there threats made against you for trying to respond to defamation?

​

Yes. When I privately asked staff member Vashti Bagot to stop spreading defamatory rumours, I was threatened with arrest by Humber’s Public Safety office. One senior official warned I could be fined $10,000. This isn’t just overreach—it’s Orwellian. The institution used “safety” to silence me, while letting actual threats and hate speech roam free on their own staff’s social media feeds.

 

Q29: Did you try to file your own Human Rights Complaint?

​

Yes. In January 2024, I filed a complaint against Professor Wael Ramadan. So did a Jewish student. Both were ignored or dismissed without proper review. The external investigator, Gita Anand, demanded to see my private correspondence with Jewish advocacy groups, despite my not being Jewish. That’s not an investigation; that’s an inquisition. Ramadan’s history of antisemitism didn’t matter. My defence was treated like a criminal confession.

 

Q30: Was your investigation fair or independent?

​

Not. Investigator Gita Anand, hired by the university’s lawyers, demanded I sign a Non-Communication Agreement or forfeit my defence. She later claimed I had “no evidence”—after refusing to read my submissions or interview witnesses. Anand submitted the final report to my accuser, not me. It was biased, opaque, and designed to justify a predetermined verdict. This was not an investigation. It was a scripted farce in legal robes.

 

Q31: Is the Vice Provost both your accuser and judge?

​

Yes. The same person who filed the complaint—Vice Provost Spence-Ariemma—oversees the appeal process and decides discipline. This is a textbook breach of natural justice. Imagine a courtroom where the prosecutor also writes the verdict. It defies every principle of fairness, neutrality, and transparency. The university has become a closed loop of accusation and punishment.

 

Q32: Have you received any institutional response since?

​

Not a word. Since December 2023, the administration has gone radio silent. Emails ignored. Letters unanswered. It’s as if I were a ghost—or an inconvenient truth to be buried. Their silence isn’t passive; it’s weaponised. They hope that without contact, I’ll give up, fade out, or break down. But I won’t.

 

Q33: Were you threatened with termination before the investigation concluded?

​

Yes. In March 2025, University of Guelph President Rene Van Acker told a Rabbi, “Finlayson should start looking for a new job.” This was before the final report was even released. The message was clear: the process was a formality. My fate was decided behind closed doors, evidence be damned.

 

Q34: Was there a coordinated defamation campaign?

​

Yes, and we’ve documented it. A Bayesian probability analysis shows a 95% likelihood that VP Spence-Ariemma was the source. The defamatory rumours—assault, arrest, endangering children—originated before the formal complaint was filed, and only she had access. Multiple witnesses, matching timelines, and verbatim repetition of complaint language prove coordination. This wasn’t gossip—it was institutional sabotage.

 

Q35: Did the university ever acknowledge wrongdoing?

​

Never. Despite WSIB’s finding of harm, documented procedural violations, and overwhelming evidence of bias, the university has not issued a single apology, correction, or clarification. Instead, they doubled down. That’s not administration—it’s autocracy.

 

Q36: What happened with the union?

​

The OPSEU 562 and CUPE 3913 unions have been complicit through silence and inaction. Despite individual carriage rights and formal grievances, they refused meetings, ignored filings, and colluded with management to limit my defences. OPSEU went so far as to declare I was “not entitled to support.” In a world turned upside-down, my union became my executioner’s valet.

 

Q37: What about Ramadan’s conduct? Was it reviewed?

​

No. Despite more than 4,000 inflammatory posts since October 2023—including glorification of terrorist groups, Holocaust inversion, and outright antisemitic slurs—Ramadan has faced no discipline. Three complaints were filed. All were dismissed. This double standard is so egregious that it borders on satire. One man is punished for defending Israel; another is rewarded for inciting hate. The investigator, someone with no special knowledge of human rights, but paid for and representing management, with the "non-partisan" tag being laughable, dismissed my human rights complaints against Ramadan because she said it was retribution.  It was comic.  It wasn't retribution, and it was because I was protecting the Jewish students from a man who wanted them dead.  I guess Sherrard Kuzz's Anand is a mind reader.  Intent doesn't matter in an HRC.  The report was laughable and amateurish, yet lawyers representing the university, like Danielle Douak from Lerners, are either incredibly dishonest or stupid, as they, without information, act like the report has any merit.  It's the lies like this, the bold and naked lies from lawyers and management, people who should have some dignity and morals, that make me feel so powerless.  They have so much money, and they set the rules. I have never been listened to, which has been short of a couple of hours.  Their case against me is horrible, trash, but they will win because staff, faculty and students are weak and cowardly, and because within the university, I have no means of appeal.  I don't lie, but I am shocked how many people with letters after their names do.  The other irony is that if they didn't instantly let him off the case, the case against Ramadan is airtight.  But the guilty go free, and the innocent are punished.  Why? Because management hates Jews and Jewish supporters? And faculty and students are fine with that. I will post it on this site.  You can draw your conclusions. If you think it's fine, we have laws in Canada, and your opinion doesn't matter.  

 

Q38: Was your original post altered?

​

Yes. The so-called “forensic copy” shown in the investigation was a JPEG screenshot, likely doctored. I never received the original, and LinkedIn deletes posts after 30 days. Multiple expert reviews suggest the post was edited to look more inflammatory. But even the worst version was protected political speech. Meanwhile, Ramadan’s verified posts included criminal hate propaganda and remain unchallenged.

 

Q39: How has this affected your life?

​

Profoundly. I suffer from PTSD, confirmed by CAMH and WSIB. I’ve lost reputation, income, and community. Strangers support me more than colleagues ever did. Job prospects are grim. I now live in a state of siege, fighting multiple fronts of defamation, legal obstruction, and institutional cowardice. But I refuse to disappear. Silence is the weapon they want me to wield against myself. I decline. Everyone at GH assumes I have been fired.  The damage is done.  I don't care if I take them to superior court and win millions; the damage these last years have taken years off my life.  I thought I had friends at GH, but I was abandoned, and worse, they heard lies and believed them.  

 

Q40: Are there plans for legal action?

​

Yes. Civil litigation is pending. A Charter Section 15 challenge for unequal treatment is in motion. Complaints have been or will be filed with the Human Rights Tribunal, the RCMP (for hate crimes), the Law Society of Ontario (for lawyer misconduct), and media outlets. This is not vengeance. It’s a demand for accountability from institutions that claim to stand for justice. I believe 100% that lawyers Anand and Douak should be debarred and that MSA, Barages, Chomyn, and Kathryn Edgett should be immediately suspended and terminated.  But when you control an institution and there is no higher authority, and when both Humber and Guelph have no decency, no sense of natural justice, and no desire for the truth, when their only goal is to avoid negative media, protect themselves and sweep everything under the carpet, it's hopeless.  Sadly, neither institution's senior management nor boards are driven by right or wrong; optics and student retention drive them. 

 

Q41: What do you want students to do?

​

Don’t be passive. Don’t say, “It’s not my problem.” That’s how injustice survives. You don’t have to like me. But if you believe in free speech, fairness, and the right to be heard, stand up. Ask questions. Demand answers. Visit FreedomToOffend.com. Submit what you know. This isn’t just about me. It’s about what kind of institution you want to inherit—and whether you’re willing to defend it when no one else will. Stop being ruled by fear.  Don't believe me because I say it, use logic and reason.  But I don't care if you hate Israel, this isn't about that.  I think you are misinformed, but if you think that anti-Semitism and procedural abuse are fine if the people doing it are on your team, that you don't have a broken moral compass, you don't have morals at all.  

​

Q42:  What is institutional betrayal, and how has it affected you? 

​

Institutional betrayal occurs when a trusted institution—like a university—violates the trust of its members by failing to prevent harm or, worse, by enabling or covering it up. It’s not just negligence; it’s deliberate. Victims of institutional betrayal often suffer PTSD, anxiety, depression, even hospitalisation or suicide. One U.S. study found institutional betrayal increased trauma symptoms significantly in students reporting abuse. In my case, the University didn’t just fail to protect me—they orchestrated harm: spreading lies, gagging me, denying due process. This wasn’t an accident. It was a campaign. Betrayal isn’t always a single blow—death by silence, smear, or exclusion. If institutions can destroy people without evidence, justice collapses—and so do lives. This betrayal was intentional, and its impact was severe.

​

Q43 - Some have told you that this is Canada's Dreyfus moment and that you are at the centre of it? 

​

Many are asking whether this is Canada’s Dreyfus moment—and they’re not wrong to wonder. The Dreyfus Affair, which shook France in the 1890s, involved the wrongful conviction of Captain Alfred Dreyfus, a Jewish officer falsely accused of treason. He was convicted without evidence, denied a fair trial, publicly shamed, and imprisoned on Devil’s Island. Why? Because of antisemitism and institutional cowardice.

 

In my case, I was suspended from the University of Guelph-Humber for a single private comment defending Israel. I was accused without evidence, denied due process, gagged, defamed, and cut off entirely from my students, colleagues, and reputation. Meanwhile, the real source of hate—another professor with over 3,000 antisemitic and pro-terrorist posts—has been protected, praised and embraced by, of all people, the human rights department; those who are supposed to defend human rights are the ones most destroying mine!  And the VP? A woman I have never met who has gone to war against me? Not one has ever sat down across from me and spoken to me like a human, just pure hate and condemnation. 

 

Like Dreyfus, I have been treated as guilty without a fair hearing. And like Dreyfus, the truth is being buried to preserve institutional power. Students should know this: if evidence and fairness no longer matter, any of you could be next. A society that punishes speech and rewards bigotry is on a dangerous path. Canada now faces a choice: protect freedom and truth, or repeat the darkest pages of its history. This is a Dreyfus moment. The question is: who will speak out?

​

Q44: But haven’t you been paid? Isn’t that great—getting paid for not working?

 

Ah, the old refrain—“Must be nice to get paid for doing nothing.” It would be, if it were true.

 

Here’s the truth: every semester since my suspension, my pay was withheld until I fought—sometimes through lawyers, other times through provincial agencies. If I hadn’t threatened action, I would have received nothing. They’ve made it as hard as possible, hoping I’d give up. And my income has decreased—fewer courses, reduced stipends, cancelled royalties. My drug benefits, which I need because of the stress-induced PTSD this university caused, were repeatedly denied. Imagine standing at the pharmacy counter, sick and exhausted, only to be told your coverage “doesn’t exist this month.” Not once. Many times. For medication required by the abuse they inflicted.

 

Why do they do this? Because cruelty is the point. That remains with me: the cruelty, the cruelty of Gita Anand, and the cruelty of Danielle Douak (both school lawyers). They know what they are doing is wrong, but they continue.  I just think that sometimes people present well on the surface but underneath they are monsters.

 

So what if they get away with it? Of course, they will; they have money and power, and the system is set up to protect them.  But do they have a conscience? Because somewhere deep in Human Resources, they’ve heard malicious gossip so twisted that even the devil might blush. I’m not told what was said. I’ve never been allowed to respond. But when a lie—like “he assaulted someone”—passes through five people, by the end I’m probably Satan with a faculty ID.

 

And don’t tell me this “isn’t disciplinary.” If it walks like punishment, isolates like punishment, and destroys like punishment—it is punishment.

 

This has been the worst time of my life. I’ve spent nights awake, days fighting to breathe, watching my daughter cry from fear and stress. And what exactly did I do to deserve this? Why do people like Abigail Molina, Ben France, Melanie Spence Ariemma, Vashti Bagot, and Nancy Deason work so hard to ruin someone they barely know? I have done nothing to them—except tell the truth. The funniest thing is that the parents of Ben France, after all the damage this kid, whom I never did one unkind thing to, are offended that her son's name is mentioned.  350K people can be encouraged to call me racist and scum, I can be intentionally besmirged all over the university and the offenders not only get away with it, but they take offence that their name is publically associated with it, even though the evidence is clear.  The hypocrisy is earth-shaking 

 

They don’t just want me gone. They want me destroyed. And they want to do it in silence. I have returned to my Christian faith, which I left many years ago, and I'm not the Christian of the year, but this is what it says: 

“It is mine to avenge; I will repay. In due time their foot will slip; their day of disaster is near and their doom rushes upon them.”

— Deuteronomy 32:35 (NIV).  I don't care if nobody reads this site, or tells me what defamatory information they heard, I do not think that I will receive justice.  But I believe that I must have faith in a just God who is greater than all the foolishness of Guelph-Humber and even Canada, and that he understands.  As I write here in my Substack.   

Canada doesn't have a justice system, we have a legal

system.  In this case I am weak, while I am not poor, I am 

poor compared to the universities, and as I said before, when the outside courts cost $30K plus the trauma and stress of going up against multiple lawyers from an organisation with no dedication to truth and fairness  I will do the best I can.  Hopefully one day this is all in the rear view mirror.  But to those who know they have done wrong and maybe now fear being exposed, they probably will get away with it.  Money and power will defeat justice. 

​

Q45: What does the line ‘Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me, mean—and what is the lie in your case?” Why do you mention this so much? 

 

That line comes from the Russian dissident Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, who endured years in Stalin’s gulags. Of course, I have not suffered like him.  But it’s a declaration of moral resistance: that even if a lie dominates every institution, every courtroom, every newspaper, you do not have to help it. You can refuse to repeat it. You can say no.

 

In my case, the lie has many heads. The biggest is antisemitism—dressed up as “anti-Zionism,” “academic freedom,” or “free speech,” but unmistakably aimed at dehumanising Jews. Wael Ramadan’s posts call Jews devil-worshippers and celebrate terrorist groups. And yet he is untouched.

 

But there are other lies that I have assaulted someone, that I was arrested. That I’m dangerous. That I’m racist. These rumours were fabricated—never investigated, never confronted, just whispered into inboxes and corridors until they became gospel.

 

The university knows these are lies. They’ve seen the evidence. But it serves them to pretend otherwise. They hope I will play along, apologise for things I didn’t do, stay quiet, and accept disgrace. I won’t. I am not perfect. But I will not help evil win by pretending it is good.

 

The lie may triumph. But not through me.

​

​

​

​

​

​