2

[CAUTION TO READERS: There is a lot of important research and information in this document. However, Elise (now Elisa?) Hategan’s account of her Heritage Front days is highly unreliable according to people who were involved. — Paul Fromm]
Unmasking Canada’s Hate Industry
BY:
Caryma Sa’d & Elisa Hategan
© Copyright 2023 by Caryma Sa’d and Elisa Hategan – All rights reserved.
3
In the midst of winter, I found there was, within me, an invincible summer.
Albert Camus
4
Contents
Prologue ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 6
Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 7
Diagolon is Not a Violent Extremist Group ………………………………………………………… 8
Caryma’s Story ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 10
Jeremy’s Story……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 12
Jeremy’s Sacrifice …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 12
A Podcasting Journey ………………………………………………………………………………………. 13
The Smear Campaign Begins …………………………………………………………………………… 14
Enter Diagolon………………………………………………………………………………………………… 15
Freedom Convoy …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 18
Public Order Emergency Commission…………………………………………………………….. 20
The Prosecution of Jeremy MacKenzie …………………………………………………………… 22
From Hero to Terrorist …………………………………………………………………………………… 24
The FOIPOP and What We Discovered ……………………………………………………………. 27
Inconsistencies and Speculations …………………………………………………………………….. 28
Elisa’s Story ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 31
Taking Down the Heritage Front…………………………………………………………………….. 31
Behind the Scenes at ARC Collective ………………………………………………………………. 32
The Canadian Anti-Hate Network is Born ………………………………………………………. 35
The “Dark Arts” behind Anti-Hate …………………………………………………………………. 36
The Business of Hate ………………………………………………………………………………………. 40
Bias on Their Sleeves ………………………………………………………………………………………… 45
Proximity to State Power …………………………………………………………………………………… 45
Civilian Undercover Operations…………………………………………………………………………… 46
The Spy Who Got Left Out in the Cold ………………………………………………………….. 47
Top Shocking FOIPOP Revelations …………………………………………………………………… 53
Information-Sharing with Five Eyes………………………………………………………………… 53
Copy-and-Paste Policing: The 15-Minute Report…………………………………………….. 57
The Mendicino Scandal……………………………………………………………………………………. 58
Overreliance on Media by Law Enforcement ………………………………………………….. 61
5
A Filtered Version of Truth …………………………………………………………………………….. 62
Who Gave CAHN the Right? …………………………………………………………………………….. 68
Cowardice …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 70
The Courage to Have Second Thoughts ………………………………………………………….. 73
The Courage to Speak ……………………………………………………………………………………… 74
An Unholy Alliance …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 76
The Social Colosseum ……………………………………………………………………………………… 79
Our Stories Merge ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 81
Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 85
6
Prologue
A public safety minister makes false and alarmist comments in a press conference;
when pressed for details, he directs media to law enforcement, who scramble to
produce evidence where there is none. An officer is tasked to produce a key briefing
for top officials to help government decision-making, in only fifteen minutes.
Intelligence Analysts taking cues from anonymous Twitter trolls involved in criminal
harassment. Citizens’ personal information is eagerly shared with international spy
agencies, even as internal reports circulate acknowledging there is no evidence of
terrorist activity.
An entire country’s intelligence departments relying on a single source—a source
that banks on the questionable judgement calls of inexperienced, ideologically-
motivated activists cosplaying online as Nazis and Russian models to gather data and
donations. A source that cloaks its researchers in anonymity and refuses to disclose
their credentials, conflicts of interest, or track record, even as they are widely quoted
in the media as subject matter experts.
Welcome to Canada.
7
Introduction
This story is a horror, tragedy, and farce, rolled into one.
Its ending as yet unwritten.
The only thing we can control is whether to tell the truth. And we do.
Democratic countries distinguish themselves from totalitarian dictatorships through
the process of fair elections and by putting the power in the hands of the people.
But what if a democratic government wants to stack the deck in their favour? They
can’t cart people off into the night, imprison them without cause, execute them at
dawn. That would violate human rights by any standard. And it wouldn’t look good
for a leader who prides himself on being a nice guy.
The layer of insulation that buffers democratic governments from accusations of
authoritarian rule is the pretense of deferral to experts, think tanks, consultants and
academics who can provide perfunctory recommendations to rubber-stamp what
the government plans to do in the first place. Oftentimes, the expertise is paid for
by government money through military defence contracts, public safety and
emergency funds, and other sources.
If the public resists any proposed policy or legislation, the state can magnanimously
defer to the vast knowledge of experts who all concur in unison that, unless the bill
passes, “harm” will occur. Danger. Terrorism. Destruction. The loss of your way of
life as you know it. And if you still do not comply, stronger measures may become
required. Those who resist are vilified through state-sponsored broadcast media and
social media smear campaigns—these tactics serve the dual purpose of securing the
public’s acceptance, or at least acquiescence, and making examples out of dissenters
in order to frighten critics into silence.
Democratic countries gain the public’s compliance with buy-ins and manufactured
consent, rather than bullets. A more evolved and civil approach, to be sure. But one
that carries its own risks. What happens when you run out of villains to justify an
escalation to emergency measures? When you want to spook the public into
acquiescence, but your well of horrors has run dry?
You make them up.
This is the story of what can go wrong when such a strategy spirals out of control,
and all levels of government and media are complicit in ruining innocent lives.
8
Diagolon is Not a Violent Extremist Group
“Does not pose a criminal or national security threat.”
▪ Royal Canadian Mounted Police
“The channels are REMVE + Conspiracy theorist in nature but not
accelerationist and you’re right no incitement of violence. Some of the
usernames have racist references/photos in them but no criminality.”
▪ Kristen Little to Ashley Chen, July 14, 2021, subject “Diagolon”
“Based on the source material and evidence I have personally viewed, we would
have a hard time refuting the contents thereof despite how “Diagolon” is being
portrayed in the media and the House of Commons. Just another example of why
our direction to investigators is to be evidence focused and not caught up in
the hype of the media surrounding this matter.”
▪ Simon Pillay, Inspector, OIC Ops1, Federal Policing National Security,
February 2022
“We generally agree with the Key Assessments, 1) DIAGOLON is led by
MACKENZIE, 2) based on current information, DIAGOLON does not meet
dictionary definitions of a group.”
• Matthew Desjardins, March 16, 2022
“I’ve looped in Insp. Simon Pillay and A.Insp J-S Grenier who are the project
Team OICs to assist with any discussions your NZ LO may wish to have on
Diagolon. We do not consider it a right wing militia group at this time
however assessment is ongoing as I understand it.”
• Eliane Caron, Director of Ops Team 2, Federal Policing National Security
(FNPS), April 8, 2022
9
“Based on available open source information, IMCIT assesses that DIAGOLON
is an ideological community which meets the majority, but not all, of the CSIS
parameters used to define a group. […] Although DIAGOLON is based on a set of
satirical ideas, the community does not appear to have any coherent ideological
purpose, objective, or cause. […] It appears that DIAGOLON as a distinct entity
does not pose a criminal or national security threat at this time.”
▪ Submitted by: Ideologically Motivated Criminal Intelligence Team /
Approved by: A/Director General, Federal Policing National Intelligence”,
May 19, 2022
“Based on available open source information it is exceedingly difficult to ascertain
the extent to which Diagolon is a distinct group, with common ideology, a political
agenda, and the cohesion necessary to advance such an agenda.
The Canadian Anti-Hate Network (CAHN) is cited as the main authority
on the group by all mainstream media outlets; due to the fact that all
information traces back to one source, triangulation and the verification of
facts is almost impossible at the current time.
Based on the information that is publicly available, it is difficult to
understand how CAHN can confidently assert that Diagolon is an
‘accelerationist movement that believes a revolution is inevitable and
necessary to collapse the current government system’… Due to a lack of
substantive open source material, operational information would be needed to
supplement the profile.
▪ RCMP “Diagolon Profile” 2022
10
Caryma’s Story
From an early age, my parents nurtured in me a sense of curiosity. They encouraged
me to ask questions. I spent a lot of time immersed in books and learning. The first
revelation given to the Prophet Muhammad was a command from Angel Gabriel to
“Read!” That origin story always stuck with me, even as my personal religiosity has
waxed and waned over the years.
My father was a charismatic imam (religious leader) in the community, whose duruus
(lessons) were spirited and sometimes subversive in nature. He was a natural
storyteller with a wicked sense of humour. He instilled the importance of striving
for excellence: “This country will chew you up and spit you out, if you let it. You
must be the best and have courage.”
This is me trying.
Mom was born Catholic and grew up in Jhansi, India. Dad lived in a Palestinian
refugee camp until his family resettled in Jordan. He decided to pursue his studies in
India, which is where they met– by his telling, he shoehorned himself into a date
that was already in progress. I guess he won out.
Mom immigrated to Canada as a twenty-year-old orphan with almost no money. My
father followed her across the ocean. They were married in 1974. My mom converted
to Islam. They had my sisters in Toronto and moved to Mississauga as a young
family. I was a near-fatal surprise over a decade later. I have been running on my
own schedule ever since.
Identity was always a touchy subject in our household. My parents came from two
different cultures and moved to a third culture. I belonged everywhere and nowhere
at once.
I learned the word “terrorist” at around eight
years of age. Police came knocking at our door
to speak with my father. Apparently, someone
threatened to blow up the nearby Tim Horton’s
and signed the letter using his name. He was
framed for words he never uttered. The
situation was resolved after brief questioning,
and the police left on good terms after
concluding my dad did not pose any threat. This
was before the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
11
A few weeks after the 9/11 attacks, I was walking from the bus stop after school
when a stranger yelled at me to “Go home!” I confusedly retorted, “I am going
home”, not realizing that I was being singled out as un-Canadian for my hijab or
skin colour. That naïveté was sadly short-lived.
The next two decades were rough for Muslims. Islam was widely treated as a
monolith, despite the wide variety of denominations, languages, and cultures across
the globe. Unfair expectations were placed on individual Muslims to apologize or
account for other people’s criminal behaviour. Muslims were consistently targeted
for surveillance, particularly at airports. Moral panic over misconceptions about
Sharia led to proposals such as the Barbaric Cultural Practices Hotline. There were
hate-motivated mass murders against Muslims, or anyone mistaken as Muslim. A
“Muslim Ban” was upheld in the United States, prohibiting travel and refugee
resettlement from predominantly Muslim countries. Western democracies banned
hijabs, niqabs, and minarets. The list goes on.
Underlying all this was the erosion of civil liberties, and the development of a brutal
state apparatus inimical to human rights.
It is no coincidence that another Muslim lawyer and I were predisposed to see
Jeremy MacKenzie’s situation through the lens of public hysteria and state
overreach. Or that Elisa and I recognized a smear campaign carried out by some of
the same perpetrators who maligned her. Our paths intersect in unexpected ways.
Recently, I lamented the state of journalism: “Journalists are not supposed to be
stenographers. Why aren’t they asking questions? They are not doing real journalism
like they used to.” It was pointed out that I was longing for fearless and honest
reporting that was always the exception, never the rule. It was false nostalgia– the
fact is, mainstream media has lied to us about big things for my entire living memory.
Hasty, thoughtless articles—sometimes the result of erroneous information fed to
gullible journalists by intelligence agents – have started wars and provided distorted
justification for hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of (mostly brown) deaths
around the world. There has been no acknowledgment, accountability, let alone
apology, for leading us into bloody battlefields for no discernible reason. And despite
tacit awareness of atrocities, authorities never said, “We lied, and repeated the lies,
and this caused people to die.”
Is it any wonder a combat veteran deployed to Afghanistan might distrust the
government, the media, and especially the two seemingly working together?
12
Jeremy’s Story
In the early 2000s, seventeen-year-old Old Stock Canadian Jeremy MacKenzie joined
the army. He was an infantry non-commissioned officer and did a stint with the elite
Canadian Special Operations Forces Command. He was deployed to combat in
Afghanistan, trained soldiers in Jamaica, did exchange programs with US Marines,
and was stationed in Germany and the United Arab Emirates. He retired as Master
Corporal after fourteen and a half years, decorated with a sacrifice medal (Canadian
Purple Heart), a general campaign star from the Afghanistan war, and a Canadian
Forces decoration for over twelve years of service with an unblemished record.
From a young age, Jeremy was fascinated by military history and culture. He was
drawn to understand the human condition in extreme circumstances. He felt
compelled to test his mettle.
He also felt weak. He was soft, small, sheltered. A tiny kid who got bullied a lot, but
was determined to prove people wrong. Jeremy had a vision in his mind of the man
he wanted to be, and knew that could not happen if he stayed in small-town Nova
Scotia. And so, he set off in search of his future self.
Jeremy’s Sacrifice
On September 11, 2001, Jeremy was a sophomore with a morning period spare. He
watched the second tower come down live on television from the comfort of his
home. That night at dinner he remembers his mom musing about a draft, “Thank
god you’re too young to go, and your father is too old.” She was only half right.
Jeremy spent his early adult years fighting in Afghanistan to protect poppy fields and
oil wells. He witnessed or was party to a range of extreme violence, killings, war
crimes, and other horrors at twenty years old.
For many Canadians, the war in Afghanistan was barely more than an abstract
thought, at best, even at the height of media frenzy. Unlike the Second World War,
there was no collective sacrifice or solidarity. Losses were borne by resident Afghans
and the diaspora, as well as NATO soldiers and their families: opposite sides of the
same tragic coin.
27 men were killed on Jeremy’s deployment, with seven of them being close friends.
He has lost count of how many suicides, but knows it is at minimum fifteen or
twenty.
13
Jeremy is legally deaf in his left ear from an
incoming rocket-propelled grenade, an anti-armour
weapon meant to destroy tanks and personnel
carriers. An RPG-7, specifically. He had half a
second to hit the deck and was saved by an olive
tree that took the brunt of the explosion.
In July 2007, Jeremy and his fireteam spent hours
administering first aid to wounded Taliban and
Afghan security forces after an engagement. One of
the injured was roughly thirteen years old. The boy’s
legs had been shattered and blasted apart like used
firecrackers. His left foot rested under his own head in a twisted, mangled, bloody
mess.There were splintered bones everywhere, and the burned flesh looked like slabs
of cooked meat. (It took Jeremy a while before he could eat roast beef again.)
The boy had deep wounds in his abdomen and chest, but the gashes seemed to be
cauterized shut – likely by the blast of a NATO soldier’s 25 mm gun. The translator
said the boy was begging to be fixed; nothing could be done.
Jeremy sat helplessly with this child and watched him die slowly and painfully under
the hot sun, waiting for a helicopter that came too late. He has wondered about the
boy’s name, and whether his parents knew where he was or what had happened to
him. He wondered if they would ever know, or whether they were dead, too.
This is only one of Jeremy’s many traumatic experiences.
And for what? The war in Afghanistan was based on pretenses and lies. Canada’s
abrupt and messy withdrawal saw citizens and allies left behind to die. As much as
Jeremy blamed the Taliban, he also blamed his own government.
A Podcasting Journey
Jeremy is charismatic, with a knack for hyperbole, dark humour, and silly voices. He
started experimenting with podcasting and vignettes in 2016.
From the outset, Jeremy was interested in examining conspiracy theories. He started
with a deep dive into 9/11. Fighting in Afghanistan profoundly impacted Jeremy’s
worldview. He became disillusioned by politicians and mainstream media beating
the drums of war under the guise of freedom and democracy. The corruption and
absurdity was almost too much to bear – he wondered, what else are we being lied
to about? And so, he set off in search of truth and laughter.
14
His first livestream had a modest seventeen viewers. That gradually increased to
hundreds of thousands of downloads per episode. He went from sporadic streaming
to regularly scheduled shows. Over time, he started paying for graphics and overlays,
and upgraded his equipment. He placed emphasis on engagement, developing inside
jokes with his audience and building rapport by reacting to comments. What started
as a side hobby evolved into a full-time gig. He covers a range of topics, including
politics and current events. He is highly critical of the Canadian Armed Forces, and
speaks candidly about his experience in combat and the treatment of veterans. One
of his most-watched videos is a scathing critique of the RCMP response to the
Portapique mass shooting; his take was largely validated three years later by the Mass
Casualty Commission.
There is a method to the madness. An individual episode is meant to be taken in its
entirety. Each performance consists of roughly three parts and is meant to end on a
positive note. Despite tackling heated or bleak subjects in a high intensity stream of
consciousness format, Jeremy strives to portray hopeful messaging. He is keenly
aware of high suicide rates among veterans, and wants his viewers to leave
entertained and reassured. The softness of this approach is sometimes camouflaged
by the bluntness of military culture.
He jokes that listeners need to be fucked up to truly appreciate his work.
The Smear Campaign Begins
In February 2020, Jeremy protested a lecture featuring Omar Khadr. He considered
it a travesty for Dalhousie University to promote an enemy combatant in any
circumstance. The ferry he took to Halifax was named after Christopher Stannix, his
former roommate who was killed in Afghanistan. Freelance videographer Peter
MacIsaac was covering the event. Jeremy provided a passionate two-minute
soundbite:
I have to be here to say this because many of the people in my platoon
who were killed by Omar Khadr’s little club aren’t here to say that
anymore. They’re all dead… So I guess I’m the bad guy now. If that’s
how it’s gonna be, then that’s how it’s gonna be.
That video garnered over five million views on YouTube.
Gavin McInnes saw the clip and reached out for an interview. McInnes is the co-
founder of Vice Media, former Rebel Media correspondent, and Proud Boys
founder (listed as a “terrorist entity” in Canada). He was the only media figure willing
to talk. Jeremy seized the opportunity to share his message with a wider audience.
15
Within a few days, an account with the username Yellow Vests Canada Exposed
published a detailed ARC Collective blog post titled Jeremy Mackenzie: Nova Scotia-
Based Extremist YouTuber Spreads Hate. He was described as having extreme views,
including that he “regularly espouses antisemitic conspiracies, parrots Holocaust
denial lines, and disparages Jews and Muslims.” There were multiple references and
comparisons to “accelerationists.” There was no clear evidence backing up these
claims, just leaps and innuendos. The hit piece included over a dozen short, undated
clips from various livestreams; it seemed he had been on someone’s radar for a while,
even though his YouTube channel had under a thousand followers at the time. He
was stunned.
Little did he know, the worst was yet to come.
Enter Diagolon
Stemming from Jeremy’s vivid imagination, Diagolon is a fictional country in a
parallel universe based on a geographical divide he observed as far as the political
response to COVID-19.
Again, there was a method to the madness.
The Diagolon flag (a white diagonal line
against a black background) worked as a
branding mechanism. It allowed members of
the fanbase to identify one another with the
display of stickers and other merchandise.
And the concept took on a life of its own as
fans collaborated to develop a rich and absurd
lore: the head of state is an evil, cocaine-
addicted, time-traveling goat named King
Phillip; the nation is at war with the fictional
country of Circulon; there is a militant force
of bees bred to terrorize Diagolon’s enemies, and one bee (Jeffrey) died in a
kamikaze mission when he was swallowed by Doug Ford during a press conference.
Satirical political commentary allows Jeremy to cope with civilian life through self-
expression and connecting with other veterans. Humour is a way to work through
heavy emotions. An outlet not unlike Kurt Cobain writing songs about suicide, or
Francisco Goya painting scenes of brutal violence.
Case in point: Diagolon permits capital punishment, and Jeremy turned hypothetical
executions into a game show. There’s “Dumpster Toss” which involves being tossed
from a tall building into a dumpster; “Torn Apart by Wolves,” where the target is
sent off on an ice floe with hungry wolves; and “Gun or Rope,” which gives the
16
audience a choice between a firing squad or the gallows. A bit gruesome, but
“Probation or Public Apology” does not quite have the same gut punch effect.
Jeremy does callbacks to old episodes but moves quickly from one joke to the next.
The game show phase was short-lived. On the internet, out-of-context “Gun or
Rope” sound bites last forever; they are used as evidence that violence is a core
element to Diagolon.
Throughout 2021, Jeremy attended a few regional meet-and-greets with his fans
across Canada. In his words, “It struck me… a lot of people feel very isolated and
depressed. A lot of them expressed to me how much this meant for them to feel as
though they had some kind of connection and kinship with other people that felt
the same way as they did about the future and shared their fears and concerns.” This
revelation led to the “Find Your Friends” campaign, intended to give people an
opportunity to have face-to-face interactions and detox from screen time. This
networking and community building initiative is the closest Diagolon has come to
being a real thing.
Lacking membership, hierarchy, rank system, code of conduct, uniforms, or
ideological cohesion, Diagolon is a podcast fan club, not a militia. Even the RCMP
experts struggled with defining Diagolon: In an email dated March 9, 2022, with the
subject line “Rejigging of my paper”, Kandi Piamonte asks Andrew Warden whether
there is any specific quantifier or qualifier to define a terrorist “group.”
Even if Diagolon could be considered a “group,” there was never any prospect of
violent insurrection to establish its borders. That would require overthrowing two
provinces and defeating the United States in a land battle– they could no sooner
colonize the moon or drain the ocean.
Jeremy thought it was self-evident that the whole thing was a joke.
But not everyone shares his sense of humour. The Canadian Anti-Hate Network
(CAHN) misconstrued Diagolon to place it in a false, nefarious light as a “far-right
separatist”, “anti-government”, “neo-fascist”, and “militant accelerationist group.”
In the absence of evidence, CAHN relied heavily on negative association and
innuendo. The constant repetition of misleading or false information produces the
illusory truth effect; repeat a lie often enough and people will believe it.
CAHN described Diagolon as wanting to establish a white ethnostate, although this
idea was never articulated in hundreds of hours of livestreams. Jeremy’s fanbase was
called “militia-like”—at some point the qualifier was dropped, then added back. In
fact, there is no evidence of an organized group of armed civilians outside of
CAHN’s imagination. An affinity for gun culture (which appeals generally to
military-inclined people) cannot be conflated with the definition of militia. It may
17
warrant law enforcement keeping an eye on things, but essential to consider context
and intent when assessing risk.
The more CAHN vilified a stubborn and defiant Jeremy, the more he doubled down
with sarcasm. The joke became people not getting the joke, in a meta way.
Community members began referring to themselves as “bigots,” intending to dilute
the sting of a word carelessly misapplied. This was interpreted as an admission of
intolerance. In November 2021, Jeremy circulated a group photo taken at a family
barbeque gathering in Viscount, Saskatchewan. The ominous image depicted
masked men with hunting rifles and the Diagolon flag. This was interpreted as proof
of a weapons training camp.
The media started echoing CAHN’s far-fetched conclusions, despite unequivocal
statements from Jeremy about his satirical intent. Poe’s Law, a prominent adage in
internet culture, posits that parodies or sarcastic portrayals of extreme perspectives
may be misconstrued as genuine expressions of those beliefs. This principle can be
manipulated by individuals who genuinely hold extreme views, using it as a shield
when confronted with substantial criticism, and claiming that their statements were
merely satirical in nature. When in doubt, consider the evidence, or lack thereof.
There was a degree of separation or less between CAHN and every news article
about Diagolon. CAHN’s “Elizabeth Simons” was the primary spokesperson,
making a range of speculative and unsourced claims about Jeremy and his fanbase.
Jeremy corresponded by Twitter direct message with CAHN Board member Kurt
Phillips in the hopes of clearing up misconceptions about his podcast. The
conversations were casual in nature, touching on surface level things like beer
preferences. Jeremy tried conveying that CAHN’s approach isolates people who are
already in precarious situations, and oftentimes severs any remaining connections to
regular society. This only pushes people further into dangerous echo chambers. It
becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. CAHN either manufactures hate by inventing it,
or by driving vulnerable people down that path. Rarely, if ever, do they stumble upon
actual Nazis.
Hysteria about Diagolon reached fever pitch during the Freedom Convoy,
particularly after a homemade patch was spotted on a tactical vest purportedly seized
in relation to an attempted murder plot in Coutts, Alberta.
Jeremy had never been to Coutts, nor was he in communication with any of the
accused leading up to their arrest. He was nonetheless repeatedly connected to the
weapons cache by media outlets citing CAHN. Documents obtained from the
RCMP reveal heavy reliance on open source intelligence, including news articles.
Government officials took their cues from both the media and law enforcement.
18
And the media reported on statements from law enforcement and government
officials.
A veritable circle jerk.
Under oath at the Public Order Emergency Commission, Jeremy provided the
following analysis:
It’s my opinion that the foundation work by the Canadian Anti-Hate
Network as pertains to targeting me as a previously government-funded
— has enjoyed a fair amount of government funding, to target and smear
people that they, you know, consider perhaps politically inconvenient or
people they just want to shut up, they regularly engage in defamatory
statements… out-of-context statements, they’ll take a clip here, a
sentence there and stitch it together and make it appear as something
that it is not…
From there, some media outlets, legacy media outlets, lazily—
unfortunately, it appears—took it at face value, copy/paste, print the
story then which is consumed by police officers, which again,
unfortunately, rather than doing any digging themselves or investigating
or asking me a single question, take these things at face value and
compile these reports and up the network it goes until it lands on the
desk of the public safety minister or you know, perhaps even the prime
minister’s office, where they’re faced with these scenarios that have no
basis in reality. I consider this entire situation entirely avoidable. This—
none of this needed to happen, and it’s absurd, and I consider the single
most embarrassing and grotesque intelligence failure in national history.
For his part, Jeremy made numerous overtures to speak with law enforcement and
try to shed light on the community everyone seemed so concerned about. Nobody
ever took him up on the offer.
Freedom Convoy
Jeremy learned about the Freedom Convoy through social media hype. He saw aerial
drone footage of trucks driving from Western Canada, and concluded this would be
a big deal. Plus, he considered it an opportunity to get together with friends and
escape the monotony of lockdowns. He encouraged his followers to be on their best
behaviour, mindful the Diagolon fan base would be under a microscope.
19
Jeremy knew that he would be talking about the
convoy on his show regardless and decided to
attend in person. He drove back and forth from
Nova Scotia twice. The distance was not daunting
because he made the twelve-hour drive to
Petawawa dozens of times while in the military.
He mostly stayed on a goat farm outside the city.
(King Phillip predated the goat farm. The location
was a fluke.) It felt like a multi-week house party,
until the Emergencies Act was invoked. From that
point onward, Jeremy stayed out of the Red Zone
and watched the news like everyone else.
There was no doubt that Jeremy was flagged. He remembers seeing reconnaissance
posts on the rural road outside Ottawa. They were parked for hours, even days at a
time. One night, the farm dogs were barking uncontrollably. Jeremy figured there
were probably cops surveilling the building. In the morning, sure enough, he found
foot traffic in the snow, and empty coffee cups and cigarette butts. Jeremy knew that
everything he said was being watched, but worried that only sarcasm was taken at
face value and earnest statements disregarded as red herrings. He was not paranoid,
but rather genuinely concerned for his safety. The escalations were scary– in his
mind, the intense focus on his podcast by police should not have happened in any
sane or rational world, so it was not a leap to imagine physical danger.
From law enforcement’s perspective, they were following a militia and perhaps
assumed Jeremy was a mastermind trying to throw them off and cover his tracks to
conceal the secret Nazis and weapons caches. From his perspective, “I’m literally a
guy in sweatpants with a laptop— are you surrounding the property with guns? What
are you doing?”
True to form, Jeremy did not make things easy for himself. He sarcastically captioned
videos “Canadian Nazi Takeover of Ottawa”, “Urgent: Statement from Neo-Nazi
Militia Commander”, and “Bury Me with My Boots On.” He also wrote a formal
letter titled “Diagolon’s List of Demands to the Canadian Senate” while the
Emergencies Act was in force, with a view towards explaining that he is not a security
threat. When Alex Vriend was arrested and released he posted, “Diagolon will not
forgive this! You’ve gone too far now, pigs!”
One night, Jeremy and a few others were in a basement, laying on the floor in
sleeping bags. Evan Balgord and Bernie Farber appeared on television singling out
Diagolon as a potential source of violence, and the Fifth Estate was set to release an
episode with a segment on Diagolon that week. The media attention had ramped up
20
and nobody knew what to do. It was like a boy’s sleepover, with Jeremy and his
friends scheming over candy bars in the dark.
Here is the plan they almost executed: There were two other guys approximately the
same size and build as Jeremy and Derek Harrison. They planned to switch clothes
and cell phones, send their body doubles into the crowd, and position themselves
across the street with walkie talkies to see what happened. The cops would realize
what happened too late and declare, “Oh damn! The switcheroo!”
In the end, Jeremy and Derek decided not to go downtown.
Jeremy laughingly imagines the fallout if they had gone ahead with it: “Marco
Mendicino might have appeared on television describing Diagolon as ‘masters of
disguise’ and ‘stealth experts.’” He recalls eating cereal on a milkcrate dumbfounded
the morning the Minister of Public Safety declared that “Several individuals at Coutts
have strong ties to a far-right extreme organization with leaders who are in Ottawa.”
As much as Jeremy may not be a fan of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, he believes
the Emergencies Act was an institutional failure. The role of law enforcement
agencies and the Minister of Public Safety is to identify and triage national security
threats and inform the Prime Minister accordingly so he can make proper decisions.
If Trudeau is fed bad intelligence (such as portraying Diagolon as a militia that poses
a genuine threat to public safety), what is he supposed to do? Indeed, the responsible
course of action is to be prepared and look foolish if nothing happens, rather than
do nothing and risk people being hurt.
Jeremy finds it terrifying that law enforcement cannot discern comedy or trolling
from terrorism. It is either blatant incompetence, or an attempt to crush political
dissent.
Either way, the ones watching the gate cannot be trusted.
Public Order Emergency Commission
Jeremy was summoned to the Public Order Emergency Commission. The penalty
for refusing to appear was only a $400 fine, but Jeremy was eager to share his
perspective.
His lawyer, Sherif Foda, made an application to Commissioner Paul Rouleau
requesting an order to testify in camera, meaning without media coverage or access.
The rationale was that Jeremy would likely be facing jury trials in the near future,
and there was a risk of tainting public opinion. Several parties with standing objected
to the application, claiming (among other things) that media coverage was important
and necessary in the public interest.
21
The application to testify in private chambers was
denied, but Jeremy decided to participate
regardless. He defied everyone’s low
expectations, appearing dapper and clean-shaven
despite his drab setting. He was the only witness
who testified from jail; this did not impact his
ability to speak cogently. He was thoughtful and
eloquent in his testimony, and unshaken in cross-
examination. At the end, Commissioner Rouleau
wished him luck with his upcoming trials.
Jeremy’s testimony painted a picture of an
ordinary person caught up in extraordinary
circumstances with no playbook. Although he
was not a convoy organizer, he recognized that
his platform could be used constructively. He
implored his followers:
“If there’s a speed limit on walking for some
reason, then you will walk slower than that.
Don’t even litter. Don’t spit. Don’t even throw a
snowball. Don’t give anyone any excuse to point
at you and say, ‘Look what you’ve done. Look
what you’ve incited,’ or created or fomented, and so on because that [would
undermine] the entire purpose of… everything everyone was trying to achieve.”
Much of his testimony focused on the alleged connection between himself and the
Coutts weapons cache based on his alleged connection to arrestee Chris Lysak, and
the presence of Diagolon patches on a tactical vest seized by the RCMP.
Jeremy testified that Lysak was a long-time fan of the podcast, and someone he met
personally at meet and greet get-togethers in Saskatchewan. They took a photo
together. Jeremy jokingly appointed him Head of Security for Diagolon, which was
a nod to his physical stature and otherwise a meaningless honorific. Apart from these
encounters, there was never one-on-one conversation, though Lysak may have been
in some larger online group chats for the fanbase. Lysak called Jeremy a couple of
times since being arrested, and he offered words of encouragement. Jeremy did not
know any of the other people arrested in Coutts, and no evidence was provided to
contradict this assertion.
As far as the Diagolon patches, Jeremy testified that they appeared to be homemade
rather than purchased from his provisional supplier. Moreover, he personally had
never travelled to Coutts, nor was he communicating with anyone in Coutts. He
22
testified that the use of Diagolon imagery was about self-identifying as a fan or
member of the community, akin to identifying as a Toronto Maple Leafs fan by
putting a sticker on one’s truck.
Jeremy also described receiving leaked screenshots from law enforcement group
chats, including the RCMP celebrating violence against civilians. He explained, “At
the time, and still presently, I’m very skeptical of law enforcement, especially
considering the political nature in which there appears to be a lot of interference
going on in the country.”
The final five-volume Report of the Public Inquiry into the 2022 Public Order
Emergency is marred by certain shortcomings. First, the Commissioner consistently
took law enforcement at face value, despite issues with methodology and reasoning
that have since been uncovered. Second, the inquiry’s truth-seeking function was
limited by procedural issues. Jeremy MacKenzie was unable to question any of the
countless witnesses who made statements about himself or Diagolon, meaning
potentially false or misleading statements were left unchallenged. Jeremy’s lawyer
was not even informed that CAHN’s Evan Balgord submitted an affidavit
contradicting his client’s testimony and had no chance to test its accuracy through
cross-examination. The evidentiary value of such an affidavit would be next-to-
useless in court, if not inadmissible altogether.
It was convenient for federal policing agencies that Jeremy happened to be detained
on an RCMP-sourced Canada-wide warrant as the POEC unfolded, and worth
noting that the underlying charges have since been stayed.
Still, Jeremy’s POEC testimony marked a turning point in media coverage. His name
went from being smeared for clickbait to barely being uttered. Despite submitting
30-page legal submissions about why it was so important for the media to inform
the public about Jeremy’s testimony, its substance was hardly addressed. No
mainstream media outlets provided an in-depth summary or analysis. It was silent.
“On the battlefield, silence is the sound of victory. You know, because your enemies
are dead,” jokes MacKenzie. He hastily adds, “Metaphorically.”
The Prosecution of Jeremy MacKenzie
In January 2022, Jeremy MacKenzie was arrested in Port Hawkesbury, Nova Scotia
with charges including careless use of a firearm. The alleged incident was the basis
for a search warrant for his home in Pictou, Nova Scotia. The raid resulted in
additional firearm-related offences. That matter is set for trial in September 2024.
23
In March 2022, MacKenzie was charged in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia in relation to
protests outside the residence of Dr. Strang, the provincial Chief Medical Officer of
Health. He spent four nights in custody before being released on bail. His release
order included unusually strict terms limiting his ability to engage in certain forms
of protest and speech against Premier Tim Houston’s government. The presiding
judge ruled in his favour on a motion in August 2023, ordering the disclosure of
records of a meeting held immediately before his release that raises the specter of
political interference. He is raising several Charter
issues, including violation of his right to counsel,
improper search and seizure, and abuse of
process.
On July 18, 2022, an information was sworn
against MacKenzie in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan in
relation to offences that allegedly occurred in

2021. The RCMP did not provide MacKenzie or
      his counsel an opportunity to surrender, which
      would be best practice where a party is
      represented and facing charges in another
      jurisdiction. In fact, MacKenzie only learned
      about the warrant in late August, when he was contacted for comment by journalist
      Stephen Maher from iPolitics—Maher’s source on the warrant appeared to be
      extremism and national security commentator, Toronto 18 informant Mubin Shaikh.
      The warrant was extended Canada-wide and enforced in September 2022.
      In September 2022, MacKenzie made drunken, vulgar comments about Pierre
      Poilievre’s wife, Anaida. The federal Conservative Party leader called for the RCMP
      to investigate. Days later, MacKenzie was arrested. The RCMP denied that
      Poilievre’s complaint had any influence on the sequence of events. Still, they made
      a spectacle of hauling MacKenzie from Nova Scotia to Saskatchewan on a Canada-
      wide warrant. MacKenzie was denied bail, left to sit indefinitely in a jail cell
      thousands of kilometres from home. Additional charges were laid against him by
      Quebec RCMP for allegedly uttering threats and criminal harassment.
      MacKenzie spent over two months in pre-trial custody at the Saskatoon Correctional
      Centre. He narrowly escaped being stabbed by a group of men who mistook him for
      a white supremacist based on unfavourable news coverage that repeated CAHN
      talking points. There was no escaping the smear campaign, not even behind bars.
      Prosecutors in Saskatchewan and Quebec both relied on the same open source
      intelligence material from CAHN to justify MacKenzie’s detention – this, despite
      the presumption of innocence, and his spotless criminal record.
      24
      MacKenzie connected with counsel willing and prepared to tackle his charges
      spanning three provinces. Lawyer Sherif Foda filed a bail review application in
      Saskatchewan, which was granted on consent at the eleventh hour. He also
      successfully obtained bail in Quebec after a day-long hotly contested hearing.
      Getting out of jail was a significant turning point; after months of spiraling
      downward, Jeremy started to bounce back. His original charges from Port
      Hawkesbury have been stayed. The Saskatchewan charges have also been stayed.
      Jeremy entered into two peace bonds with no admission or finding of criminal
      liability on his part. As his lawyer told SaskToday, “Mr. MacKenzie is eager to
      proceed” on his outstanding charges.
      There is curious overlap between characters popping up in his cases across multiple
      jurisdictions. The identities of complainants are protected by publication bans.
      From Hero to Terrorist
      What happened to Jeremy is breathtakingly unfair, but he takes it in stride. “People
      think, ‘As long as I do everything right, if I don’t make any mistakes, I will survive.’
      Like it’s a science. But war is not science, it is chaos. Nothing is fair. Nothing makes
      sense. You could be the best operator in the world and get killed without ever firing
      a shot. It’s hard to cope with. You have to accept, there’s things out of your control.
      This can end with you going home in a box, or not at all.”
      One of Jeremy’s platoon members was vaporized by an IED, leaving behind only a
      boot (with his foot still in it), and the upper half of his rifle. Jeremy had eaten
      breakfast with him that morning. In a separate incident, Jeremy’s favourite sergeant
      was launched 100 ft into the air when the vehicle hit
      a bomb, and possibly had 5-6 seconds of airtime
      before he hit the ground, likely knowing he was going
      to die. His body was retrieved intact. The other six or
      seven soldiers who died in the vehicle were mangled;
      it took nine stretchers to remove all the body parts,
      not knowing for sure whose are whose.
      Jeremy had a moment in the bathroom towards the
      end of his career, literally looking at his reflection in
      the mirror, sighing: “What did you do? Great, I’m the
      Empire. I’m a stormtrooper in the Imperial Empire.
      That is what I am. Holy shit.”
      What were his sacrifices for? How did we get there? Why?
      25
      The reality is bleak: “You never get an answer,
      nothing makes sense. We move onto the next
      thing. Then, years later, we just walk away.
      You watch it all unravel on television. And not
      even an apology.”
      By the time Jeremy retired as a veteran, he was
      training kids who were born after 9/11. They
      were joining a war that has been going on
      longer than they’ve been alive.
      Many cannot fathom what it’s like to live
      through such trauma, only to face the ordeal
      of being vilified by the country you fought for. For Jeremy, there was no other option
      but to keep going:
      You just have to continue. It won’t kill you, but it’s really gonna hurt and
      be uncomfortable. You’re not gonna die, this just really sucks… And
      once you figure that out, what’s the worst that can happen? I am going
      to have a horribly shitty day, but eventually it has to end at some point.
      He recalls how during Special Forces selection, informally known as “Hell Week”,
      soldiers are tested to the limits of their abilities. There are no time limits, no way to
      know what to expect from one moment to the next. One day, he was instructed to
      face the wall and await further instructions. Nobody came back for sixteen hours.
      There was unknown distance marching, with a hundred pounds on your back and
      having to go until they said stop, for kilometres at a time. They made to pick up
      bricks and weights while submerged in water. Sometimes people drowned – he
      recalls one guy had to be resuscitated. There was never any reprieve or end in sight.
      He learned perseverance from those experiences, how to mentally switch off: “The
      only way out is to continue until it ends, and when it ends it ends. You just can’t
      stop. Left foot, right foot, keep going. One day after the next.”
      The mental battle he is going through now is reminiscent of those times. “They just
      kept piling it on. It started with that ARC Collective blog and Kurt Phillips. Then
      the arrests. The RCMP took me to Saskatchewan. Denied me bail. Stacked on the
      Quebec charges. And then I got debanked, and they screwed with my pension
      money. And they just keep piling it on, and I refuse to stop. Sooner or later,
      somebody is going to break. I know I’m not a criminal, so I’m just gonna keep doing
      what I’m doing.”
      Against all odds, his sense of humour remains intact.
      26
      Jeremy believes he was being followed by law enforcement as early as summer 2021.
      Based on emails disclosed in a Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy
      (FOIPOP) request, there is evidence that he was on their radar during the federal
      election. Ever unserious, Jeremy started making fun of the RCMP officers he
      correctly presumed to be tasked with monitoring his podcast: “In case they’re
      listening, they have to hear this, and endure me – like, just making fun of them and
      mocking them. Constantly. All the time. And there’s nothing they can do about it.
      That’s probably what contributed to their enthusiasm.”
      27
      The FOIPOP and What We Discovered
      The Canadian constitution divides power
      between three branches of governance: the
      legislative branch (Parliament and the
      provincial legislatures); the executive branch,
      which is responsible to the legislature (the
      Prime Minister and Cabinet); and the judiciary.
      The legislative branch is foundational to
      democracy, as it is premised on the notion that
      power flows from the citizens to their elected
      representatives who are empowered to make
      laws that govern the populational. The
      executive branch is also dependent on the will
      of the people as expressed in the ballot box– the Prime Minister and the cabinet are
      chosen from elected members of the legislature, and enjoy power only so long as
      they have Parliament’s assent to critical legislation. The judiciary is independent of
      the legislative and executive branches. Its role is to decide disputes and ensure, when
      called upon, that these bodies exercise power in accordance with the constitution.
      This roughly outlines Canada’s democracy. For it to function well, two rights must
      be safeguarded: the right to access information and the right to privacy.
      Access to information is essential to informed debate, and acts as a check on abuse
      of powers. In the words of Pierre Trudeau, “the democratic process requires the
      ready availability of true and complete information. In this way people can
      objectively evaluate the government’s policies. To act otherwise is to give way to
      despotic secrecy.”
      Privacy is linked to individual liberty. Section 7 of the Canadian Charter requires
      respect for the individual’s right to be free from arbitrary government restraint. The
      government collects a lot of data and personal details about its population, on a
      spectrum of sensitivity. The improper use of information, or even a fear of such
      misuse, can stifle political dissent as individuals fear reprisal by government actors.
      In 1983, Canada adopted a twin set of quasi-constitutional laws to protect access to
      information and privacy. Under the Access to Information Act, any Canadian citizen
      or permanent resident may, for a nominal fee, apply to an applicable federal
      institution and request disclosure of information.The Privacy Act restricts the right
      of access, by prohibiting the disclosure of personal information to third parties. It
      also grants individuals the right to access, correct, and monitor the use of any
      personal information in the government’s possession.
      28
      National security concerns may limit the extent of disclosure of information to an
      individual and may permit intrusions into individuals’ privacy. However, the courts
      require measures to ensure that people are treated with procedural fairness.
      On September 1, 2023, Jeremy MacKenzie received the results of a Freedom of
      Information and Protection of Privacy (FOIPOP) request to Federal Policing:
      Any and All records, files (etc), documents, memos, e-mails,
      communication records, and reports on the subject of “Diagolon” or in
      relation or reference to the subject of Diagolon. Search term: Diagolon
      Also referred to as the Diagolon Network or Diagolon Militia.
      Timeframe: January 01 2021 to August 15 2022.
      The request was submitted over a year ago, but a series of external consultations
      delayed the release of documents. It was worth the wait. The information validates
      Jeremy’s apprehension about copy-and-paste police work, in which law enforcement
      accepts open source intelligence at face value without scrutiny or asking questions.
      Every falsehood and misrepresentation seems to lead back to the Canadian Anti-
      Hate Network.
      What you see here is only half the story. We are still in the process of sifting through
      over a thousand pages of information that require careful analysis, and plan to release
      other findings and relevant material as we go along.
      The FOIPOP packages reveal several outrageous blunders and oversights, which
      will be covered in the coming pages. But when it’s all said and done, the lingering
      sentiments we are left with are a mixture of shock and disappointment over the sheer
      incompetence, displayed in full view. The magnitude of it. How it could have gotten
      this far without anyone stopping it.
      Two years of inconsistency and ineptitude. A death by a thousand cuts.
      Inconsistencies and Speculations
      Our most consistent finding was the inconsistency—the casualness with which
      falsehoods were repeated without a second thought. The abject carelessness, coupled
      with a remarkable intolerance for ambiguity. Wherever there was confusion, holes
      in the narrative were patched with rumours, innuendos, and speculation.
      The obsequious desire to be helpful, to impress one’s colleagues, led people to offer
      opinions that were flat-out wrong. A hypothesis became a foregone conclusion.
      Nobody rolled it back. Words like “could”, “might have”, “could have happened”,
      replaced actual proof. As a last resort, clickbaity articles and tweets by CAHN and
      its constellation of anonymous twitter accounts, were offered up in lieu of proof by
      people with “Intelligence Analyst” in their signature line.
      29
      To see how painfully some law enforcement officers and researchers struggled to fit
      a square peg into a round hole, brings to mind Hanlon’s Razor: “Never attribute to
      malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.”
      Conversely, Jeremy was considered a wily mastermind. The absence of any proof
      that Diagolon is a violent extremist group rather than a make-believe concept, was
      not viewed as an exoneration or lack of culpability, but proof that further scrutiny
      was necessary. The idea of presumed innocence was not brought up once, in over a
      thousand pages. At every turn, we saw lazy conflations of Diagolon with ethno-
      nationalism, white supremacy, and ideologically-motivated violent extremism.
      A curious escalation of commitment happened. People who pride themselves on
      their intellect and objectivity refused to believe they were duped, or that they fell
      prey to their own biases. Instead, they strained to redefine Jeremy and Diagolon as
      nefarious in some way, perhaps to save face.
      People who thought themselves impartial did not exhibit a shred of good faith as
      they bent over themselves trying to define Diagolon as a “group”, while at the same
      time referring to it as a “movement”, “accelerationist group”, “militia”, and even a
      “neo-fascist violent militia”—treating them as interchangeable terms.
      These are not synonyms. In law enforcement, language must be precise for good
      reason. Definitions make all the difference in ensuring everyone is held to the same
      standards. The fact that after such extraordinary efforts, there still is no reliable,
      consistent assessment of Diagolon or how violent they think Jeremy MacKenzie is,
      should be proof enough of his innocence.
      Even when they concede that “Diagolon ‘doesn’t fit the definition’ of a terrorist
      entity according to Canada’s Anti-Terrorism Act,” researchers like Amarnath
      Amarasingham, whose work brings him into CAHN’s radius, are averse to admit
      they might have been wrong. “The danger with Diagolon, rather, lies with how its
      viewers might internalize the cynical worldview Mackenzie and other affiliated
      broadcasters present,” he wrote.
      We would argue the true danger lies in the speculation that an artist, author, or
      comedian, should be held responsible for what fringe elements of their fanbase
      might do.
      Slippery slope fallacies are how we end up throwing books into bonfires. And yet
      there is a real possibility that groundwork is being laid out, through the efforts of
      state-funded academics, smarmy consultants, and think tanks powered by defence
      contracts, to make the case for holding influencers and content creators responsible
      for the actions of third parties. This, of course, has less to do with “harm prevention”
      30
      and more about censoring someone at will. What better way to kill artistic expression
      than hold an artist responsible for the actions of thousands of strangers.
      Cultural and generational differences were overlooked by those who were
      surveilling, rather than understanding, the Diagolon fanbase. As external observers,
      rather than participants, they hadn’t been initiated into the subculture. Imagine
      dropping in on a roomful of hardcore “Risk” players talking about armed conflict
      and conquests, and thinking they’re for real. Or taking a Dungeons and Dragons
      session at face value. Or going to a Civil War reenactment where everyone stays in
      character, and interpreting cosplay fantasies as genuine plans for insurrection.
      How could Jeremy Mackenzie become the founder of a not quite-ideologically
      motivated, almost-violent, could-be extremist group, not really-fascist, maybe-militia
      that doesn’t meet RCMP and CSIS definitions of a “group”, yet is still deemed
      dangerous enough to warrant special communiques going out to intelligence
      agencies across the globe?
      Because nobody took the lack of evidence at face value.
      Yes, sometimes it really is that simple.
      Popularized in the blockbuster movie Minority Report, the idea of intercepting crime
      before it happens emerged from the eponymous sci-fi story by Philip K Dick, which
      was preceded by George Orwell’s dystopian masterpiece Nineteen Eighty-Four. Both
      serve as cautionary tales of an omnipotent authoritarian state marked by mass
      surveillance, social repression, and criminal profiling. If they think you’re guilty,
      they’ll take you out before a crime is committed. The State’s word is Supreme Law,
      and no judgment can be appealed.
      As laws crack down on freedom of expression, humour—often a person’s primary
      defence mechanism when it comes to releasing tension, concealing pain, or speaking
      inconvenient truths—is the first to be sacrificed and reframed as wrongthink.
      Historically, those writers, poets, comedians who didn’t censor their exuberance
      were the first to discover that satire comes with a heavy price.
      What was once science fiction is fast becoming reality, and nowhere more obviously
      than in the context of counterterrorism. Those cognizant of the effect of self-
      fulfilling prophecies have argued that, far from preventing crime, such measures
      produce the outcomes they profess to prevent. A crime prevention model might
      work well in theory. But if you’re going to take strong measures to prevent crime
      from happening, you’d better be damn sure you have the right suspect.
      31
      Elisa’s Story
      Taking Down the Heritage Front
      In the early 90s, sixteen-year-old Romanian immigrant Elisa Hategan (then Elisse)
      was held up as the innocent young face of an Ontario neo-Nazi, white supremacist
      group known as the Heritage Front. With over 200 members, including violent
      skinheads with convictions for aggravated assault, kidnapping and attempted
      murder, and implicated in firebombings, it was considered the most dangerous white
      supremacist group in modern Canadian history. Elisa was groomed as a media
      spokesperson to soften the image of violent skinheads, even appearing on The
      Montel Williams Show at age seventeen to repeat scripted talking points that
      concealed the group’s hateful ideology.
      It was a cynical, yet effective strategy. But the adult
      puppeteers failed to account for personal agency, nor
      for Elisa’s identity as a closeted lesbian with Jewish
      roots, later confirmed through DNA tests. Elisa began
      to secretly provide information to anti-racist activists, at
      great personal risk, revealing details about illegal
      weapons and the identity of a Toronto police officer
      who was a group member. At age eighteen, she defected
      from the group, stealing part of Holocaust denier Ernst
      Zundel’s membership list. Months later, her courtroom
      testimony was instrumental in securing the convictions
      of three Heritage Front leaders—a fatal blow that
      triggered the group’s decline and eventual demise.
      While the leaders were serving jail time, co-founder and second-in-command leader
      Grant Bristow was exposed as an undercover CSIS operative by Toronto Sun
      reporter Bill Dunphy, in part due to scrutiny that arose after Hategan’s affidavits and
      testimony pointed to Bristow being an agent provocateur who directed criminal activity
      such as the It Campaign, a brutal harassment campaign directing Indigenous
      community leaders and anti-racist activists.
      Despite having incurred serious death threats, including being questioned at
      knifepoint by Front members the day before her defection, Elisa was inexplicably
      denied entry into the RCMP’s Witness Protection Program. Grant Bristow, however,
      was promptly relocated to Alberta, given a home, cars and a generous monthly
      paycheck for years afterwards, despite the fact that his five years of work in
      Operation Governor had not led to the arrest and conviction of a single Canadian
      neo-Nazi.
      32
      Forced to live in hiding across Canada for more than two years, relying on kind
      strangers, homeless shelters, and dumpster-diving to survive, Elisa, a ninth-grade
      high-school dropout with a history of familial abuse and foster care, managed to
      earn a Nova Scotia GED and was accepted into the University of Ottawa’s
      prestigious criminology program.
      Motivated to understand how extremists target youth for radicalization, Elisa made
      the best of her second chance, engaging in volunteer work inside prison and youth
      detention centres, while working two jobs and relying on student loans to stay afloat.
      In 1999, aged 25, she graduated magna cum laude with a double major in criminology
      and psychology.
      Behind the Scenes at ARC Collective
      It was 2011, long after Elisa had returned to Toronto following a stint as an ESL
      teacher in Seoul, South Korea, when a Google search for figures from her past led
      her to a blogspot site called Anti-Racist Canada (ARC). ARC featured articles about
      Canada’s far right and exposés of people the author characterized as extremists.
      Recognizing an individual ARC was trying to identify in an old Ernst Zundel photo,
      she left a comment. A correspondence with the webmaster, who called himself
      “Nosferatu200”, followed, growing into a fast friendship.
      The website was operated by Kurt Phillips, a Drumheller, Alberta high school
      teacher two years Elisa’s junior, who had created ARC in 2008 as a hobby project to
      keep track of “Nazis.” In an early email, Kurt called himself her “fan boy” and
      gushed about recognizing her name: “You, more than anyone else, took down one
      of the nastiest hate groups that had existed in Canada in years.” He then invited her
      to join the ARC Collective and write for the blog, confessing it was mostly a one-
      man operation. Auxiliary support came from one other person, a female volunteer
      from Quebec.
      Elisa’s first article was prefaced by Kurt’s unreserved endorsement:
      Hategan, who did more to take down the Front than any Canadian
      government agency ever could (and, really, in spite of some government
      agencies). Despite the efforts from 2001 to 2005 to revive the group,
      Elisse’s testimony essentially killed the HF as a viable movement in
      Canada and exposed the activities of CSIS to public examination.
      The blurb was accompanied by a hyperlink to Elisa’s testimony before the Senate
      Parliamentary Committee that investigated the Bristow Affair.
      Kurt visited Elisa in Toronto in 2013. They spent two days hanging out and she took
      him to all the Heritage Front old haunts, such as Zundel’s townhouse on Carlton
      33
      Street, where she had worked and sometimes sought refuge when homelife turned
      violent, and the building where leader Wolfgang Droege was shot dead in 2005.
      Photos taken by Elisa during the visit ended up on ARC’s website; with all her blog
      entries now deleted by Kurt, they are the only visible reminder of her contributions
      to the Collective.
      Although platonic, the two were close friends. Their phone calls and Facebook
      Messenger interactions were marked by affectionate exchanges and Elisa’s
      confessions of severe childhood abuse, chronic depression, and history of suicide
      attempts. Kurt called himself “family” and assured her that if she ever needed him,
      he would drop everything and fly to Toronto. He sent her several gift packages and
      contributed hundreds of dollars to her book fundraising campaigns, enlisting his
      mother to also donate.
      With Phillips’ encouragement, Hategan published her memoir Race Traitor: The True
      Story of Canadian Intelligence’s Greatest Cover-up, in 2014. Phillips promptly wrote a 5-
      star Amazon review under the handle “John Smith”, citing Hategan as “the key
      figure in taking down the leadership.”
      Their friendship allowed Elisa exclusive and unfiltered access to Kurt’s sleuthing
      tactics, which included LARPing as a Russian model named Anya and cosplaying as
      a Nazi to extract what at times seemed rather dubious intel, such as hardcore erotica
      stories.
      “Anya” was one of Kurt Phillips’ alter egos –
      a hot, blonde Russian model who lurked in
      white nationalist chatrooms. Conversations
      with neo-Nazi Paul Fromm, also a (former)
      high school teacher, elicited erotic images and
      stories from Fromm, including a fanfic
      starring Rasputin which included the
      protagonist (bearing a passing resemblance to
      the imaginary Anya) fondly reminiscing about
      having anal sex as a child.
      Kurt boasted about such conquests and
      disseminated screenshots like trophies to Elisa and the other female ARC Collective
      member. He talked about saving the information to be publicly exposed at the right
      moment, but nothing meaningful appears to have been accomplished – not even
      when Fromm sought to run for public office.
      The shady research tactics didn’t stop with the honeypot traps. Once, when someone
      threatened Elisa on Facebook, Kurt gallantly volunteered to “make some calls” and
      34
      “give him a reason to be frightened”. Elisa hadn’t
      seen that side of Kurt, but hints appeared when he
      shared plans to buy a silicone skinhead mask to
      cosplay a skinhead in online forums.
      In 2015, Elisa’s depression spiraled into despair after
      abruptly discovering that, while she’d been in hiding,
      the CBC had culled lived experiences from her 1994
      trial testimony and interviews with people who knew
      her, and released a 1998 movie titled White Lies,
      starring Sarah Polley. Approximately 75% of the
      scenes can be traced to snapshots of Elisa’s life as
      described in print media, trial transcripts, and a 1994 Vision TV documentary.
      Hategan was never credited or paid. Instead, the CBC misattributed the story’s
      inspiration, with Bernie Farber being thanked in the end credits. The film earned
      producers Gemini and Emmy awards; Elisa was picking for food through garbage
      cans while life rights were being sold to the CBC behind her back.
      The shock of seeing traumatic events reenacted without her permission, coupled
      with her mother’s death within months of that discovery, pushed Elisa over the edge.
      The “family” support she had come to expect from Kurt never materialized. When
      she posted on Facebook that her only relative in Canada was dying, she recalls that
      his response was a sad face emoji. Suicidal and under the influence of alcohol, she
      wrote him an angry, abrasive letter accusing him of being no better than the Nazis
      he claimed to fight. She CC’d it to the other female ARC member (who Kurt was
      infatuated with at the time, and who subsequently left ARC), before blocking him
      on social media.
      Within months of CAHN’s inception in 2018, Kurt scrubbed all of Elisa’s
      contributions from ARC, including a link to her memoir’s Amazon page, which he
      had assured her would never be removed. In Elisa’s view, the sanitization coincided
      with a new narrative being disseminated, one that clashed with historical facts as she
      describes in the memoir both Kurt and Bernie Farber once praised. She made several
      attempts to communicate with him, with no avail.
      Soon after, Elisa sued two CAHN Board members, including Chair Bernie Farber,
      after Farber made comments on TVO’s The Agenda with Steve Paikin that, in her
      view, misattributed her singular role in the “takedown of the Heritage Front” in
      order to advance a narrative she believed was more profitable and favourable to
      Farber’s interests. She also sued TVO; the case was settled out of court, with the
      terms of the settlement bound by a confidentiality clause.
      35
      In December 2019, Elisa uploaded a 171-page affidavit to Scribd, which referenced
      her work with Kurt in ARC. Three weeks later, following an appearance on CBC’s
      Fifth Estate where his face was inadequately blurred, Phillips’ identity was revealed
      on KiwiFarms by Bryan Trottier. Trottier had sourced the name from Elisa’s
      affidavit, but it was not until he saw Kurt’s face and distinct glasses on CBC, that he
      was able to match them to photos of Phillips available online.
      Instead of assigning any blame to either the CBC or Trottier, Kurt placed all the
      responsibility for his “doxx” squarely on Elisa’s shoulders. It was the beginning of a
      vicious online harassment campaign by trolls associated with CAHN that continues
      to today, turning a once-lauded heroine into a villain, while elevating someone who
      Elisa refers to as an “armchair activist”, into a hero.
      After his identity was revealed, Kurt was featured in high-profile media interviews,
      gained thousands of Twitter followers, and was praised as a CAHN board member.
      He also incurred threats and harassment, as did Elisa, but there was no one to
      insulate her from the fallout.
      As Kurt’s fame and popularity grew, he—a man who never shut down any hate
      groups or formally studied criminology and terrorism—was touted as an “expert”
      on the far-right, while the Jewish woman with formal training who had risked her
      life to shut down a hate group was smeared as a Nazi.
      The Canadian Anti-Hate Network is Born
      The Canadian Anti-Hate Network (CAHN) was incorporated in Toronto on March
      30, 2018, as a not-for-profit organization that purports to be an antifascist and
      antiracist advocacy group. Its stated mission is to “monitor, research, and counter
      hate groups by providing education and information on hate groups to the public,
      media, researchers, courts, law enforcement, and community groups.” As part of its
      mandate, CAHN publishes articles and toolkits about identifying and confronting
      the nebulous “far-right” and is frequently cited
      on mainstream media platforms as a de facto
      source of information on “hate” and
      extremism.
      CAHN’s founding members are Bernie
      Farber, former CEO of the now-defunct
      Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC), lawyer
      Richard Warman, journalist Amira
      Elghawaby, and Evan Balgord, former vice-
      president of the Canadian Association of
      Journalists.
      36
      At present, Balgord serves as Executive Director, Farber is Chair, Kurt Phillips, high
      school teacher and operator of the ARC Collective is on the board of directors, and
      “Elizabeth Simons,” an individual whose identity or credentials cannot be verified,
      is “deputy director”. The board of directors also include Nigel Barriffe and Sue
      Gardner.
      There is also an Advisory Board that consists of Ontario Tech University professor
      Barbara Perry, ex-CJC director Len Rudner, and has included political pundit Warren
      Kinsella, and others. Its structure and purpose is unclear, as are the identities of most
      of its members. CAHN’s sphere of influence extends beyond the entity itself to
      include associated journalists or quasi-journalists, whether named, pseudonymized,
      or anonymous.
      Armed with $25,000 in seed funding from the Southern
      Poverty Law Center, CAHN quickly outpaced other
      fledgling non-profits by raking in sizeable donations, a
      significant grant from the Bank of Montreal, and a
      $268,400 grant from the Liberal government’s Anti-
      Racism Action Program. It certainly helped that two of
      the men at its helm, Farber and Balgord, had extensive
      media connections, which ensured that CAHN would
      receive the kind of widespread press coverage other
      human rights organizations with established track
      records could only dream of.
      It might have been a new organization, but the ARC Collective’s modus operandi
      continued. A chimera of sorts, CAHN absorbed the blog archive, arbitrary targets,
      and questionable cybersleuthing tactics Kurt had relied on for over a decade, and
      transplanted them into a new incarnation – one that arguably turned the word
      “leverage” into a business plan.
      Whatever CAHN lacked in terms of experience, expertise or credentials, they made
      up for by collaborating with academics and assorted journalists, riding on credentials
      and accolades that existed long before the concept took root in the mind of one
      ambitious, well-connected opportunist.
      The “Dark Arts” behind Anti-Hate
      To gain a rudimentary understanding of how ARC and CAHN’s roads intersected,
      you need look no further than the explosive allegations contained in the Twitter
      threads of Toronto journalist and antifascist activist Kevin Metcalf. Although
      incomplete, his recollections offer a bird’s eye glimpse of the obscure origins of the
      Canadian Anti-Hate Network.
      37
      Metcalf first met Evan Balgord in 2013, at Chrystia Freeland’s victory party. As he
      recalls it, some time later, Balgord – who is rumoured to be Toronto ex-mayor John
      Tory’s nephew – invited him for a beer at a bar “around the corner from the
      downtown condo his US banker parents’ money was paying for,” for a discussion
      centered around the “dark arts of politics”.
      According to Metcalf, Balgord “had a specific interest in twitter disinformation,
      sock-puppetry and media manipulation.” After the beers, they went back to
      Balgord’s place. That’s when Metcalf claims that Balgord behaved in a way that made
      him uncomfortable, prompting his hasty exit. Save for a sporadic email exchange,
      they would not meet again until 2016.
      One week after Metcalf was hired by the Canadian Journalists for Free Expression,
      Balgord, out of the blue, invited him to socialize. “He was suddenly my new best
      friend.” Metcalf slowly warmed to Balgord, despite feeling that his communications
      suggested “a cavalier attitude towards the truth.” He passed on scoops garnered
      from his work with CJFE, a move he now regrets.
      Metcalf’s bitterness is palpable, radiating caustically through his posts. Pointing to a
      screenshot of Balgord’s Muck Rack page, he asserts, “80% of his early work was
      cribbed directly from my notes, activism, scoops, sources (even leaks) I gave him. A
      lot of that can be proved from chat logs. Only one of us ever got credit for the work.
      I did the legwork, provided the consulting, referred sources, vouched etc. Despite
      that it had almost all been my own work, nobody made me “Vice President of the
      @caj”. In fact, I got blacklisted.”
      In the beginning, Balgord seemed more interested in Metcalf’s work against Bill C-
      51, the federal surveillance bill that became the Anti-Terrorism Act, than his
      antifascist work. That all changed after Trump’s 2016 election.
      Metcalf claims he provided advice and feedback on how to start a nonprofit, which
      depended on Balgord’s ability to acquire Kurt Phillips Anti-Racist Canada website,
      which came complete with a decade-long archive and antifascist street cred.
      “Balgord told me straight-up this hinged on co-opting (sorry, professionalizing)
      ARC.” To give credence to his statements, Metcalf’s tweet is accompanied by a
      screenshot of an email where Balgord, if he authored the email, does indeed appear
      intent on continuing ARC, by morphing it into a Canadian rendition of the Southern
      Poverty Law Center.
      In Metcalf’s view, Balgord didn’t intend to build an “antifascist” group, so much as
      co-opt other antifascists’ work “to produce partisan “opposition research” targeting
      conservative political organizing in support of shady electioneering efforts.”
      38
      In private conversation, Metcalf claims that Balgord traveled to either Alberta or
      Saskatchewan to meet with Kurt Phillips on several occasions in late 2017 – early
      2018; we have no way to confirm when exactly Phillips and Balgord first met and
      under what circumstances.
      He also claims that Warren Kinsella, Bernie Farber’s long-time friend and self-
      admitted “brother from another mother”, was the one to initially connect Balgord
      to Richard Warman by email, after being looped into an email thread related to
      Metcalf’s assault by the JDL. Afterwards, Warman allegedly suggested Balgord reach
      out to Farber in order to build social license to start CAHN.
      “I was there for their meeting,” Metcalf says. “It was at a bar in Ottawa. But then I
      had to leave the room.” At the time, he shrugged off the snub. “I just figured I was
      too activist or whatever.” What seemed weirder to him was that Warman’s office
      was ostensibly located in the Department of Defence building, and he was
      introduced as a “DND Lawyer.”
      “On the way home from Ottawa [Evan] told me that he needed to reach out to
      Bernie. That was two months before Charlottesville. I think Bernie just brought the
      license of the Jewish community. That’s when Evan stopped trying to doxx the
      JDL.”
      There is no way to independently confirm the accuracy of Metcalf’s account.Evan
      Balgord did not respond to our request for comment.
      Things between Metcalf and Balgord soured after Metcalf was fired from CJFE for
      releasing a public statement that condemned Israel for the deaths of Gaza journalists.
      Metcalf believes he was blacklisted by the CBC and other mainstream press after
      that. CAHN stopped mentioning Metcalf in their articles, which prompted him to
      declare he “was going to criticize them for being co-optive.”
      He was swiftly blocked. “And that’s when the coordinated, malicious defamation
      started, with an attempt to brand me a “Russiagate conspiracy theorist” by a
      prominent network contributor,” Metcalf shares in his Twitter thread. “Over several
      months in early 2021, nearly anyone who liked my tweets received a message from
      various members/employees/affiliates of CAHN. The whisperers whispered in the
      ears of anyone with open DM’s. It’s called “Badjacketing”. My follower
      count/engagement plummeted.
      “When I tried to address some of the people spreading allegations about me, other
      affiliates accused me of “doxxing” for naming the individuals engaged in the active
      defamation. Others asserted I was an “anti-semite […] They also widely circulated a
      false claim I was working with fascists, throughout their network, urging dozens or
      39
      hundreds of users to block me here, some going as far as to reach out to anyone
      who’d ever published me.”
      Metcalf’s ordeal rings painfully true to the authors of this article, because we have
      both lived through it. Although he declares that he dislikes me, which is his
      prerogative, he is forthright to relate a conversation where Morgan Yew, the author
      of a defamatory article about me published by CAHN, told him that “the reason he
      picked a fight with Caryma Sa’d over the Chris Sky event was that she was
      competition getting in the way of his selling content to @VICE. I don’t like Caryma
      but CAHN did run an article written by a self-admitted competitor, attacking
      Caryma over the 2021 Chris Sky event, an event that same contributor helped
      organize a counter-protest to. That’s a clear ethical breach/conflict of interest.”
      To this day, Metcalf remains unequivocal in his characterization of CAHN: “This
      “network” is a malicious hivemind which turns friends into enemies in a bid to
      maintain its hegemony over Canadian antifascist spaces. That which will not be co-
      opted (or which lacks ongoing utility) must be marginalized and defamed.
      “They’re not JUST an anti-hate nonprofit, they’re an unaccountable nonprofit spy
      agency and I say with some authority that I believe this was always the goal. I’ve tried
      to broach this subject in the past few months, and have been subjected to a campaign
      of harassment.”
      The conflict of interest that Metcalf describes doesn’t end with me. In fact, it’s just
      the beginning.
      40
      The Business of Hate
      Consulting gigs. Training seminars. Educational toolkits. There’s big money in the
      business of hate. Groups whose livelihood hinges on monitoring and fighting “hate”
      would be rendered obsolete if hate disappeared overnight.
      If all you need to establish a “hate group” is a couple of antisocial misfits exchanging
      racist memes in a discord chat, it’s easy to see how Canada could have 300, 500, even
      a thousand hate groups. If you set your filters wide enough, that number is
      surprisingly easy to reach. Especially if a “hate group” can consist of only “three or
      four members”.
      In a 2021 op-ed, journalist Jon Kay takes issue with CAHN Advisory Board member
      Barbara Perry’s estimation that 300 hate groups operate in Canada. He requests to
      see the list, and suggests creating a public database where all 300 groups can be
      logged for easy reference. Moreover, he expresses dismay at how mainstream media
      regurgitates such numbers to buttress the idea that “Canada is on the cusp of some
      kind of full-on white supremacist apocalypse.”
      In May 2023, journalist Cosmin Dzsurdzsa reached out to Ontario Tech University
      and requested documentation of the 300 figure. OTU refused to release the list,
      sending an email saying that Perry’s “research” was not in their custody and citing
      the Privacy Act. Dzsurdzsa had already written about his attempts to access the list.
      Frustrated, he tweeted, “Perry’s extraordinary claims have been cited by the Liberal
      government, in committees and is informing lawmaking. It’s been years and she’s
      never produced a single shred of evidence. Effectively, without releasing the list, Dr.
      Perry’s research serves as a carte blanche for lawmakers to fearmonger and clamp
      down on dissent under the guise of fighting hate. If these groups are indeed a threat,
      the public has a right to know who they are.”
      Inflated numbers. Dubious metrics. Smearing the competition.
      Anonymous “experts” who refuse to provide credentials or evidence to
      back up their expertise. Using others’ work without permission. False or
      unsubstantiated claims. Shady research tactics. Ignoring vicious
      harassment campaigns by supporters against critics and competitors.
      Backdoor influence from intelligence agencies.
      These are all accusations that have been levelled at CAHN. Quite the
      impressive tally for an organization only established in 2018. And yet,
      despite mounting criticism, both this country’s mainstream media and
      its law enforcement organizations continue to unquestioningly take for
      granted, what we consider questionable expertise.
      41
      The Canadian military is still haunted by the shameful spectre of the Canadian
      Airborne Regiment, an elite faction that was disbanded in 1995 following the torture
      and beating death of Somalian teenager Shidane Arone at the hands of two Canadian
      soldiers who took trophy photos with the battered, dying boy. The brutality sparked
      outrage and triggered the Somalia Affair, which uncovered pervasive racism in the
      regiment and led directly to its disbandment.
      There is no question that people with extremist mindsets are drawn to outlets where
      they can learn combat skills to put into practice in the event of widespread
      insurrections. Elisa remembers that Heritage Front leaders encouraged members to
      engage in paramilitary training, urging them to join the Canadian Armed Forces
      (CAF) to gain knowledge about munitions and firearms that would be useful in a
      future Race War scenario. Two brothers who were HF members and part of the
      Airborne Regiment, offered to pass on their skillset to small cadres of hotheaded
      skinheads: they would get together on weekends to run drills and go shooting. The
      same brothers were later arrested and charged with the kidnapping and torture of a
      fellow HF member whom they suspected was a “rat”.
      If you were around in the 90s, the graphic images of Shidane Arone’s bloody face
      are seared in your memory. When the words “racists” and “army” are paired, that’s
      what you flash to – acts of extreme brutality, confederate and swastika flags hung up
      in barracks, the top brass determined to cover up an embarrassing scandal before it
      became impossible to deny it. Not the mundane – yet more prevalent – racism that
      lingers and may never be fully eradicated: crude banter, offensive stereotypes, the
      kind of crass humour you don’t hear in polite company.
      But the military learned their lessons all too well. Nobody wants to be caught with
      their pants down again. Their eagerness to prevent the recurrence of another Somalia
      Affair leaves them prone to overcorrect. If a similar scandal ever broke out, they
      won’t be accused of ignoring racist behaviour – just look at what we’ve invested in
      sensitivity training and toolkits on how to deal with Nazis.
      Clearly, detecting and preventing ideological extremism
      among its ranks is an ongoing concern for any armed
      forces. But it also opens the door for unscrupulous
      opportunists vying to sell snake oil solutions to a problem
      whose parameters they themselves defined.
      If you’re in the business of “preventing hate”, nothing
      beats a country’s defense budget. The big bucks are in the
      military, and those who establish themselves as experts on
      the boogeymen du jour stand to make a pretty penny. If
      you’re clever enough, you can pitch just about anything:
      42
      developing informational manuals, staff training programs, research protocols,
      monitoring software—the sky’s the limit. The top commanders who sign the
      cheques probably know less than those who purport expertise. They simply want to
      show that something’s been done, boxes were checked off, the issue taken care of.
      Setting aside the brutality that is inherent to the military, dangerous violent
      extremists are outliers within the CAF. But upholding an alarmist narrative is more
      lucrative. It also keeps the pressure on the top brass to continue bankrolling training
      seminars that ensure your cup keeps overflowing.
      In such a competitive field, CAHN broke out of the gates early. One of their earliest
      collaborative pieces involved a Vice story about an ex-member of the Reserves
      accused of belonging to an armed neo-Nazi collective called The Base. The focus on
      the military continued, with CAHN appearing to seize every opportunity to be
      critical of how the CAF dealt with hate-related incidents. CAHN co-founder Bernie
      Farber seldom missed a chance to point his critiques at CAF’s Twitter accounts. His
      hyperbolic tweets accused the CAF of “fraternizing with known neo-Nazis”,
      attempting to “cover it up”, and “offering up a proverbial slap on the wrist” to
      soldiers “belonging to the most violent hate groups on the continent”.
      Even as Farber’s complaints mounted, a June 2020 article publicized that CAHN
      Advisory Board member Barbara Perry, Director of the Centre on Hate, Bias and
      Extremism at Ontario Tech University, had received $800,000 in funding from the
      Department of National Defence, to “develop a research-based network for
      exploration of the far right and hateful conduct in the armed services.” Her co-lead
      on the project was David Hofmann from the University of New Brunswick, who
      was widely quoted by CTV and other networks on Diagolon. (The RCMP found it
      “difficult to understand” how Hofmann could assuredly purport that Diagolon is
      “an American-style militia movement.)
      This was one of several grants Perry was awarded since hitching her wagon to
      CAHN: $500,000 from Facebook to research “violent extremism”, not long after a
      2019 press release announced that Perry / OIT “received $366,985 over three years
      from the Government of Canada to examine the right-wing extremism movement
      through interviews with law enforcement, community anti-hate activists, and former
      and current extremists.” The OIT Centre was created in 2018 – coincidentally, the
      same year CAHN was born. By the fall of 2022, Perry was appointed UNESCO’s
      Research Chair in Hate Studies. Not bad for someone who already earns an annual
      salary of $203,859, according to Ontario’s 2022 Sunshine list.
      Along with the grants come paid speaking engagements, prestigious conferences,
      fancy club invitations, townhalls, academic publications, and opportunities to garner
      43
      media publicity, such as meeting with the Prime Minister, which often leads to more
      consulting contracts.
      With such significant funds pouring in from different sources to research “far right
      extremism”, a cynic might speculate as to whether researchers could be getting paid
      for what might be viewed, at least in part, as overlapping work. A cynic might also
      question the narrative of full-service providers who get to define a problem and
      supply the solutions to the same problem. But when it comes to the business of hate,
      cynicism is in short supply.
      The Public Safety grant was in partnership with the London, UK-based Institute for
      Strategic Dialogue. Although the press release does not indicate if ISD received
      additional funding, Elisa Hategan remembers a conversation over lunch with a
      former inner-city gang member whom she’d met during her stint as a consultant
      with Against Violent Extremism (AVE), an ISD initiative involving former
      extremists. This colleague claimed he’d connected Perry with ISD, and shared details
      of the proposal before it was submitted to Public Safety. From what Elisa recalls,
      ISD was going for $7.5 million and had pitched, among other things, the creation of
      learning modules on the far-right, but they needed a Canadian partner to access those
      kinds of funds from Canadian taxpayers.
      Elisa’s AVE colleague then shared explosive details involving a high-profile
      Canadian government official who had allegedly traveled to meet with ISD the
      month before the grant was approved. “We were having a transatlantic conference
      call, and that’s when I heard [REDACTED] talking—he was right there in their
      London office, he flew all the way there to meet with them,” her colleague had raved.
      They’d looked at each other in shock, and in that moment they both fell silent,
      knowing exactly what that meant: there were very powerful forces at play.
      That information could not be independently corroborated, but the news spurred
      Elisa to also put together a team, complete with academic and law enforcement
      experts from Ontario’s Hate Crime Unit and submit a proposal for the same Public
      Safety Community Resilience Fund. Knowing she was sure to lose if her bid went
      up against Perry’s, Elisa focused her proposal not on “far-right extremism”, but on
      LGBT youth and homophobic violence prevention in rural communities. It ticked
      all the right boxes and her team’s credentials seemed impeccable, but Elisa’s proposal
      was declined. She was perhaps too ahead of the curve.
      When the Department of National Defence finally announced, in June 2021, the
      creation of a panel that would address systemic racism and “focus on anti-
      Indigenous and anti-Black racism, LGBTQ2 prejudice, gender bias and white
      supremacy”, Farber wasn’t satisfied. After meeting with advisory panel officials who
      informed him that antisemitism was not part of the focus, he was featured in an
      44
      Ottawa Citizen article where he complained it was “a major oversight in the battle
      against the far right.” The article was followed by an indignant tweet: “it baffles the
      mind that antisemitism training would not even be considered.”
      In an increasingly polarized world that has seen a revival of century-old conspiracy
      theories about Jewish cabals and blood sacrifices, antisemitism training is crucial to
      combat hatred and stem violence. However, when there are huge sums of money at
      play, it becomes equally necessary to have transparent procurement processes in
      place, to ensure training budgets are allocated equitably.
      In November 2022, a York Region District School Board purchase order was leaked,
      which showed that Farber was awarded a YRDSB contract for $40,000 to conduct
      a total of “10 Antisemitism Professional Sessions” – three in person, seven on Zoom.
      There was no indication of duration; the sessions could have been an hour, or a half-
      day. Bernie Farber did not respond to our request for comment.
      When Elisa Hategan asked whether there had been a contractor bidding process, so
      that consultants working in the same field (who could provide similar training at a
      reduced rate) had the chance to bid, YRDSB ignored her. The Board’s silence—at a
      time when they were cutting staff and eliminating student extracurricular activities—
      flew in the face of the YRDSB Purchase Services mandate, which promised they
      were “accountable, ethical and fiscally responsible in protecting public funds.”
      Elisa has a right to be upset. In February 2019, in a phone call with Cecil Roach,
      YRDSB Associate Director of the Schools, Programs and Equitable Outcomes,
      Roach acknowledged that Farber was someone he’d known, and at times worked
      with, since Farber’s CJC days. Roach also admitted that Farber had been contracted
      by their Equity & Inclusion office on many occasions over the years He would not
      say why the YRDSB didn’t appear to open bids to other consultants who could offer
      similar training for far less. Elisa followed up with an email outlining her concerns
      over cronyism; her email went unanswered.
      The irony was not lost on her. Back in 2015, when she was still on good terms with
      Farber, Elisa—who formally converted to Judaism in 2013—pleaded with him to
      help her fundraise for a book project that involved traveling to Romania to dig into
      her deceased father’s Jewish past. “Sorry to be begging for money, but I wouldn’t
      ask if it wasn’t absolutely necessary,” she wrote on Facebook Messenger. “Even a
      single dollar will help. Even a share of my link on your wall. Please consider it.”
      Farber’s reply: “Elisa I have made it a rule not to allow my social media to be used
      for fundraising other than registered charities. If I break the rules for one I d (sic)
      must do so for all. I hope you understand”. Elisa was hurt: “I understand very well.
      I think I understand you more now than I ever have before.”
      45
      She was wrong on that count. The trip to eastern Europe, paid for with borrowed
      money and a $12,000 Ontario Arts Council writing grant, uncovered new familial
      connections. But it was not until December 2020 when, after uploading her family
      tree to genealogical website Geni’s ancestry network, the final jigsaw piece fell into
      place: she and Farber were distantly related.
      Bias on Their Sleeves
      In April 2022, as he and fellow CAHN Board member Barbara Perry appeared
      before a House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National
      Security, CAHN Executive Director Evan Balgord was asked what seemed, on the
      surface, a simple question:
      “Mr. Balgord, would you say that your organization is an objective organization?”
      “We wear our biases on our sleeves,” Balgord replied. “We are very proudly anti-
      fascist, and we focus on the far right.”
      While some might take issue with CAHN’s single-minded obsession with the far
      right and argue that a group calling itself “anti-hate” should track hatred from all
      sides, choosing to focus exclusively on one extreme end of the political spectrum
      isn’t the problem. It’s how one defines “far right” that’s being contested.
      CAHN Chair Bernie Farber is assumed to be an untainted resource of information
      on what constitutes “hate”, yet he often makes negative or inflammatory comments
      about political candidates to the right of the Liberal party. His adversarial
      relationship with the Conservative Party poses another possible conflict of interest.
      Farber’s connection to the Liberal Party goes back decades and is no secret. In 2011,
      he ran a failed campaign for a Liberal seat in his home riding of Thornhill, and was
      defeated by PC Candidate Peter Shurman.
      Proximity to State Power
      The fact that Farber has been repeatedly contracted to train police officers across
      the province about extremism in North America, shows how easily CAHN is able
      to shape not only public sentiment, but also law enforcement targeting.
      Bernie Farber has had meetings with Public Safety ministers Ralph Goodale and
      Marco Mendicino, as well as other influential figures.
      A November 19, 2021, tweet by Farber reveals that CAHN prides itself on being
      able to “guide public discourse on the state of hate in the country.” Given that such
      a position carries with it the risk that it could be used for unethical purposes, one
      hopes that persons with half the authority Farber commands would be more closely
      scrutinized. However, despite financial conflicts of interest in the sector, accusations
      46
      of misinformation, friendships with former CSIS employees, and the inclusion of an
      individual with a history of running election war rooms and disinformation
      campaigns for hire into CAHN’s Advisory board, this has not been the case.
      Like the saying goes, with great power comes great responsibility.
      When you have what could be considered a monopoly on the mainstream media’s
      understanding of far-right extremism and the very definition of hate, you gain the
      keys to a kingdom.
      You hold the power to shape the prevalent narrative
      and manipulate said media to report your version of
      truth, with very little, if any, scrutiny of allegations
      made, or opposition.
      But without scrutiny, it can be incredibly tempting
      to abuse that authority and legitimacy. One way you
      can eliminate all obstacles standing between you
      and a pedestal is to discredit anyone who questions
      your legitimacy. Tearing others down from hard-
      won pedestals and inserting yourself in their place,
      is another.
      Civilian Undercover Operations
      Here is an actual CAHN job description / casting call for people to play neo-Nazis
      “under assumed identities”:
      47
      Whose bright idea was it to advertise an undercover operation?
      Fun fact: recruiting people to cosplay as Nazis for a salary of $55,000 per year is
      more than Grant Bristow was paid annually for his agent provocateur work, even
      when adjusting for inflation.
      It is also $5,000 more per year than Jeremy earned in Afghanistan, risking his life for
      his country.
      CAHN founder Richard Warman is perhaps best known for going undercover using
      anonymous accounts to infiltrate far-right corners of the internet. He made prolific
      use of the now-repealed Section 13(1) of the Canada Human Rights Act, winning ten
      cases before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT).
      The Supreme Court of Canada endorsed the “hallmarks of hate” enumerated
      in Warman v. Kouba as examples of the types of “extreme and egregious” expressions
      and speech devices that reach the contemplated threshold of “hatred”.
      However, in Warman v Ouwendyk, the CHRT ruled that Warman’s posts, which he
      initially denied were his, could have precipitated further hate messages from forum
      members, describing this as “both disappointing and disturbing and it diminishes his
      credibility.” Warman maintains his posts helped him identify neo-Nazis, and says
      there was no “road map” for such investigations.
      “With hindsight, he told the Ottawa Citizen in 2009, “things might have been done
      differently today.”
      The Spy Who Got Left Out in the Cold
      Critics who distrust CAHN’s claim of expertise on far-right extremism will cite a
      noticeable double standard—the penchant to reserve the brunt of condemnations
      for political opponents, while overlooking and even forgiving misconduct by peers
      48
      and members of their devoted fanbase. They point to situations where CAHN
      implies they are selective when choosing who gets publicly denounced as a bigot or
      extremist, and who is ignored.
      For instance, relative unknowns get spotlighted and called heroes, even when there
      is no evidence to suggest they did anything to earn the accolades. To our knowledge,
      none of the former white supremacists promotes by CAHN has provided evidence
      of assistance to law enforcement organizations while still inside their hate groups.
      None testified against former comrades to help secure convictions.
      There is arguably no better example to underscore concerns over CAHN’s personal
      biases affecting what is purported to be expert research, than the enduring friendship
      between Bernie Farber and Grant Bristow, the undisputed co-founder and self-
      appointed “Intelligence Chief” of the Heritage Front.
      Prior to her defection from the Heritage Front, Elisa Hategan submitted
      approximately 30 affidavits to the Ontario Provincial Police. Several involved
      situations where Bristow purportedly counseled Elisa—initially still a minor—to
      engage in criminal activity, such as giving her instructions on how to anonymously
      harass and intimidate left-wing activists, hack into answering machines to collect
      data, and spy on the Irish Freedom Association of Toronto.
      She, along with scores of neo-Nazi skinheads and white supremacists, were given
      names, addresses and telephone numbers and taught how to use voter registry
      information to gather details about individuals on the target list, such as the names
      of everyone residing at that domicile.
      Bristow also boasted about his intention to drive a lesbian Anti-Racist Action (ARA)
      activist to mental breakdown and suicide. “I want to pound Ruth’s head in. I want
      to give her a facial massage with a sledgehammer,” he is described as saying in one
      of Elisa’s 1994 affidavits. He enlisted Elisa specifically because he needed a woman’s
      voice for that particular job—to record messages on adult personal ads while passing
      as Ruth, and give out her address and telephone number.
      Reluctant to obey his instructions, Elisa had asked him why he was so invested in
      targeting Ruth and other young women in the ARA. Bristow looked at her and
      laughed. “Women are more emotional. They’re the first to break.”
      It was this specific targeting of an innocent woman who shared Elisa’s sexual
      orientation that marked a crucial turning point in her beginning to identify with “the
      other side” and starting to spy on the Front. After her defection, her four month-
      long sleuthing uncovered the identity of a Toronto Police Services officer who was
      a Front member and attended KKK rallies in Arkansas; this information led to
      discreditable conduct charges. She also exposed a scandal involving Heritage Front
      49
      members infiltrating the Preston Manning’s Reform Party in the hopes of overtaking
      the leadership. Furthermore, she confirmed that the Front was involved in a
      Kitchener firebombing, although the specific details of the action had not been
      shared with her.
      Elisa also volunteered to appear as a witness for the defence in the case of a black
      woman who had been a staff member at Runnymede House, a Toronto group home
      for teen girls that was firebombed twice after a resident with ties to the HF was
      kicked out for displaying hate content in the home. After the staff member was
      stalked, then sexually assaulted by a possible Front member, she reported her assault
      only to be charged with mischief afterwards because Toronto police did not believe
      her. On the morning that her lawyer Clayton Ruby announced Elisa as a witness, the
      prosecution dropped the charges.
      After Bristow was unmasked as a CSIS operative,
      Clayton Ruby published an op-ed in the Toronto
      Star which cited Elisa, and criticized the Security
      Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC) for
      allowing Bristow to terrorize with impunity. He
      wrote a second column, specifically about Elisa,
      praising her courage and demanding to know why
      authorities had not prosecuted HF leader
      Wolfgang Droege based on her solid information.
      Clayton Ruby wrote: “What is Elisse Hategan?
      Chopped liver? Hategan is credible. She testified before Madame Tremblay-Lamer
      in the Federal Court of Canada in the course of a contempt hearing against Wolfgang
      Droege and Gary Schipper. Justice Tremblay-Lamer explicitly accepted her evidence
      as credible and ultimately sent these men to jail.”
      In 1995, Elisa testified in front of a House of Commons Senate committee
      investigating allegations that the SIRC Report had whitewashed Bristow’s criminal
      involvement. Her affidavits, which were subsequently shared with Farber, captured
      the explicit details of Bristow’s hands-on role in directing skinheads to target anti-
      racist activists for harassment and threats in what became known as the “It
      Campaign”. Some of the victims, including ARA leader Kevin Thomas, shared their
      harrowing experiences and how Bristow appeared to relish the abuse, in a 1994 Fifth
      Estate episode titled Good for Business.
      In private conversations with Elisa, Farber never disputed Grant Bristow’s actions
      within the Heritage Front. He called him a “schmuck” and openly praised Race
      Traitor, going so far as taking Elisa to lunch in 2014, soon after her book’s release.
      He also emailed an unreserved endorsement of the memoir to one of his
      50
      connections, a senior editor at Random House, after Elisa suggested that if he could
      help her secure a print deal, he could write the Foreword.
      Their budding friendship would not last. In early 2015, soon after Elisa discovered
      that her lived experiences had been appropriated and reenacted without her consent
      to form the bulk of CBC’s White Lies, she confronted Farber. They had a terse
      meeting at his office. At the time, Farber was with Gemini Power Group, a company
      created by his friend, billionaire Michael Dan, that sought to partner with Indigenous
      communities to build power plants on reserves.
      “It’s been so long, what do you want? Money?” she recalls Farber asking as she
      walked in. Elisa didn’t want money—all she asked was that Farber reach out to White
      Lies scriptwriter and CBC producer Dennis Foon, a Facebook friend of his, to add
      a line to his website and the film’s IMDB page crediting her as an inspiration.
      A single line—to her, a gesture that she existed, that her trauma had not been
      exploited and monetized by others to make a movie that would not have existed
      without her, while she was homeless and dumpster-diving to survive.
      “I’ll get Dennis on the phone,” Farber reassured her. But nothing changed.
      In 2017, within one month of Elisa starting a speaking tour billed as “The True Story
      of Canadian Intelligence’s Greatest Cover-up”, the Toronto Star published a front-
      page article about Bristow by Jennifer Yang, a journalist who has interviewed Farber
      on multiple occasions. Yang’s piece significantly downplayed, and at times omitted,
      Bristow’s most egregious actions as Heritage Front co-leader, framing him as an
      imperfect hero. Bristow’s name had not appeared in the press for many years; for
      Elisa, the timing was too much of a coincidence.
      Although the Toronto Star’s IP was captured by tracking software on Elisa’s blog
      within two weeks of her fundraising talk for the international Jewish women’s
      organization Hadassah-WIZO, lingering repeatedly over several posts citing Bristow
      and criminal activity, no journalist reached out for comments. Instead, when the
      article came out, Bernie Farber’s endorsement of Bristow was front and center: “He
      was actually a man who wanted to do something real good for his country,” he said.
      Admitting he still considers Bristow “a friend”, Farber claimed that Bristow had
      averted a plot on his life. Elisa denies such a plot ever existed, and points to the fact
      that nobody was ever charged or prosecuted.
      But for the sake of playing devil’s advocate—even if there had been a nefarious plot
      against Farber, that does not in itself justify the glowing endorsement of a man who,
      according to the SIRC’s sanitized report, “tested the limits of what was acceptable.”
      51
      Bristow’s unsubstantiated tip about a possible attack on Farber conveniently seemed
      to come to light after he had been outed and was already under fire for allegedly
      directing skinheads to commit illegal acts that fanned flames of hate in this country.
      And what about all the other people who came into Bristow’s crossfire? Are they all
      collateral damage? Is an “End justifies the means” strategy all that matters?
      How many others, like Jeremy Mackenzie, have been crucified by CAHN and its
      predecessor ARC, for far lesser sins than what Bristow got away with? How many
      have been unjustly smeared as “Nazis”, while CAHN’s Chair boasts openly of his
      friendship with a former leader of Canada’s most dangerous neo-Nazi domestic
      terrorist group in modern history? Why the double standard?
      After Farber’s comments on The Agenda with
      Steve Paikin downplaying her singular
      contributions to destroy the Heritage Front,
      Elisa felt she had no choice but to engage in
      litigation. In her mind, it was a battle for her
      life – for the integrity of her lived experiences
      and her right to be the only person to profit
      from her own traumatic past. Others saw a
      former neo-Nazi who had once been called a
      “wretched little immigrant girl” by one of the
      litigants, go up against the former CEO of the
      Canadian Jewish Congress, a well-connected
      man who had provided expert witness to the
      courts on countless occasions – and laughed.
      Elisa was outmatched financially in the protracted court battle, spending
      approximately $50,000 up against $300,000 according to legal documents. She lost
      her right to appeal (purportedly due to time delays), leaving in place a ruling that
      takes most of its verbiage directly from the defendants’ harshly worded written
      submissions with minimal accompanying analysis, and a permanent prohibition on
      speaking about the case, at risk of contempt.
      Forbidden from sharing what she considers incontrovertible evidence that would
      exonerate her, she silently faced an onslaught of harassment from taunting CAHN
      supporters who mocked her loss, her Romanian surname (calling her HateAgain),
      and characterized her as a “vexatious liar” and Nazi.
      Elisa then discovered that Farber, Bristow, and Bristow’s former CSIS handler, now
      operating a “Public Safety and Risk Consulting” group, were all mutual Twitter
      followers. Indeed, Bristow’s ex-handler was among the first to retweet celebratory
      52
      posts about Elisa’s loss. It was a visceral gut punch for Elisa, who remembered CSIS
      sources shared with the Fifth Estate that after she told the truth about Bristow, his
      livid handler’s first reaction was, “We’ll tear her to shreds.”
      Thirty years later, CSIS’ narrative had won out.
      53
      Top Shocking FOIPOP Revelations
      Information-Sharing with Five Eyes
      The Five Eyes (FVEY) is an intelligence alliance comprising Australia, Canada, New
      Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. On April 7, 2022, an email
      lands in the inbox of Washington-based RCMP officer Sean Gordon. The subject
      line: “RESTRICTED Canadian Protests – eDiagolon.” The Sender’s name is
      redacted from the correspondence, but the domain is @Police.Govt.NZ. The
      message has been redacted as well; all that is visible is the greeting, “Hi Sean”.
      Seven minutes later, Sean sends it up the food chain to Guillaume Croisetiere.
      “Could you please reach out to FPNS for this? There must be an analyst with us (or
      maybe OPS?) that has looked into this group.”
      Sean’s reference to Diagolon as “this group” indicates some level of unfamiliarity.
      Still, New Zealand police wants intel for their files, so let’s give them what they need.
      A couple of minutes after that, Guillaume forwards it to Alvin Tang: “Would you
      be able to assist me with that? It’s from New Zealand. I’ll double back with FPNS
      once I hear from you.”
      Alvin’s reply comes promptly. “I reached out to our IMCIT team (Ideologically
      Motivated Criminal Intel) and they did not work that group during the convoy
      protests. It’s my understanding that FPNS had visibility on that group.”
      Shortly afterwards, Guillaume emails Eliane Caron, Director of Ops Team 2, Federal
      Policing National Security (FNPS), saying he was referred to her by Alvin. Parts of
      his message are redacted. Her reply, dated the morning of April 8, is as follows:
      Yes, all information sharing in relation to operations and NS-related
      groups nationally is covered by FNPS. I’ve looped in Insp. Simon Pillay
      and A.Insp J-S Grenier who are the project Team OICs to assist with any
      discussions your NZ LO may wish to have on Diagolon. We do not
      consider it a right wing militia group at this time however
      assessment is ongoing as I understand it. [Emphasis added]
      Also on April 8, Inspector Simon Pillay emails Lisa Ducharme to request a report
      that describes what is currently known about Diagolon.
      We understand your group has a Diagolon work up of some kind. Not
      the association chart but rather a report that describes what is currently
      known. The reason I ask is that due to the media attention this group
      has incurred, NZ authorities are asking if we have any information
      we can share. [Emphasis added]
      54
      Let this sink in: CAHN’s fabrications about
      Diagolon, parroted by a gullible Canadian press, then
      get picked up by international intelligence agencies,
      who demanded access to the intel files. Trouble was,
      there was nothing the RCMP could provide other
      than perhaps a vague “association chart”.
      Inspector Simon Pillay’s statement makes it clear that
      Jeremy Mackenzie’s information ended up circulated
      to international police agencies because of
      mainstream media attention, and not because police
      had classified Diagolon as a “right wing militia”.
      Police took their cues from media who cited CAHN.
      As he’s waiting for Lisa to get back to him, Simon keeps Guillaume in the loop with
      a quick note on April 9: “As this is a fairly new matter we don’t have any products
      ready for international dissemination but I am making some inquiries elsewhere and
      will get back to you when I hear.”
      On April 11, Lisa Ducharme replies to Simon: “Yes our IMCIT team recently
      completed a written assessment on Diagolon for OA; it’s based on open source
      material so it should not be a problem to share with our FVEY partners. It’s in the
      final quality control stage – can we get it to you once completed? Should not take
      too much longer.”
      In case you didn’t catch that, “open source material” is whatever they scrap from
      the broadcast media news channels, newspapers, even dubious intel sourced from
      anonymous Twitter accounts. In other words, it is not intelligence derived from
      actual police investigations.
      On April 12, Guillaume writes back, undeterred. Reading between his words, it
      appears the New Zealanders are pushing for the information: “Who can I refer the
      NS LO to at FNPS to discuss? Or do you want to keep [Washington-based] Sean
      Gordon as the middle man?”
      A couple of email exchanges establish go-to contacts, then Guillaume emails Simon
      Pillay, Mike Saghbini, and Jean-Sebastien Grenier: “Gents. Hope all is well. As
      mentioned earlier last week The NZ LO in DC is asking (see below) for more
      information on the group a/n. I would need a contact at FNPS that I can pass on
      to my LO in DC (Sean GORDON).”
      On April 14, Mike Saghbini emails Simon and JS: “Hey boys. Have you replied to
      Guillaume? Will you be directing him in the right direction?” The following sentence
      is REDACTED, with Mike adding “My two cents” at the end.
      55
      Clearly, those who directed Guillaume were under the impression that “the boys”
      had the intel NZ was itching to obtain. This does not appear to be the case.
      Everyone does the prudent thing: nothing. Until May 12, when Lisa Ducharme
      receives an email from Washington-based RCMP officer Sean Gordon, titled
      “RESTRICTED Canadian protests – Diagolon.”
      Hi Lisa,
      I’m finally catching up with some old emails from a bunch of
      leave/COVID/travels.
      I’m just curious whether the Diagolon product is finished? If so, can I get a copy
      that can be shared with a FVEY (New Zealand) partner?
      The next morning, Lisa emails Ashley Chen: “Would you know how the Diagolon
      paper is doing? Can I get an ETA for review? I’m hoping to see it Monday.”
      Ashley replies within the hour: “The DIAGOLON paper has been completed by
      Kandi’s side of IMCIT (please see attached). This version is Pro B and I will discuss
      with Garrett about making a FVEY shareable version for next week.”
      Eight days later, on the morning of May 20, 2022, an email from Ashley Chen went
      out to Eliane Caron, cc’ing Garrett Morawiec, containing an attached document.
      The subject line was “IMCIT DIAGOLON Assessment Paper.
      As was the case with most of the attachments contained in RCMP emails, the
      FOIPOP Package does not include the attachment.
      Good morning, Eliane, I hope you are doing well.
      Please find attached the Intelligence Assessment on DIAGOLON
      produced by IMCIT for FPNS. would you mind reviewing and
      confirming whether this product can be released to RCMP
      DCAS/DIOs as well as external partners in Public Safety, PCO, CSIS,
      ITAC, CBSA, DND/CAF, and CSE? IMCIT would also wish to share
      it with Five Eyes law enforcement partners.
      For the version shared outside of RCMP, IMCIT will remove the
      following sentence on Page 2 in the PURPOSE section: “This paper has
      been produced in response to a Federal Policing National Security
      (FPNS) request for an intelligence assessment on DIAGOLON.
      If you have any questions please feel free to reach out or give me a call.
      Thank you,
      Ashley Chen
      56
      At 3:24 PM that same afternoon, Lisa Ducharme emails Ashley Chen:
      Hi Ashley,
      Have you heard anything back from Eliane on whether we can share the
      DIAGOLON product with the Divs, GoC, Five Eyes?
      Reason I ask is – Sean Gordon LO Washington is waiting to share it with
      the US.
      Ten minutes later, Ashley writes back:
      Hi Lisa,
      I have not heard back from Eliane or anyone from FPNS about the
      product. I can send a heads up to her to let her know LO Washington is
      waiting for the product.
      Exactly one minute later, Lisa replies: “Please – we’d like to at least get it out to the
      Five Eyes today as [REDACTED].”
      Just to reiterate the facts: as of April 8, 2022, according to a FNPS Director,
      Diagolon was not classified as a “right wing militia group.” Over a month later,
      RCMP was intent on sharing intelligence reports to international spy agencies,
      presumably including information about the purported leader who happens to be a
      Canadian citizen war veteran with no criminal record and no history of terrorism.
      Since the report was redacted, there is no way for us to know what was said. But if
      the repetition in other documents is any indication, the material shared may affect
      innocent Canadians as far as crossing international borders and prompting additional
      surveillance. This, based on salacious headlines and clickbait reporting.
      What if that was you?
      This is a chain of events that shows, in real time, how Canadian media’s hype about
      an imaginary nation posing an imaginary threat, ended up disseminated across the
      globe. And when international intelligence agencies came knocking for the intel they
      assumed was in the RCMP’s possession, the RCMP acquiesced and produced a
      report based on “open source” material they gleaned, in essence, from the Canadian
      Anti-Hate Network, with sycophants in Canadian media as their proxy.
      Privacy lawyer David Fraser (who did not review any documents related to this
      matter) says that any personal information related to a Canadian citizen in the hands
      of the federal government is protected by Canada’s Privacy Act, even where the data
      is collected through open source intelligence. However, he notes that police are
      generally unrestrained in sharing information with other law enforcement. There are
      57
      formal mutual assistance treaties that may apply to cross-border information sharing,
      and more casual exchanges of information.
      “It is difficult to say whether it crossed any lines, or if there is an approval process,”
      Fraser says. He adds that information obtained with a warrant, such as wiretaps,
      would likely require additional diligence and scrutiny.
      Is ambiguity an acceptable standard for intelligence agencies? What could justify
      sharing prejudicial non-information with foreign spy agencies? Jeremy MacKenzie
      has no criminal record. Why did nobody approach him directly to investigate?
      Copy-and-Paste Policing: The 15-Minute Report
      An email thread dated February 14, 2022, titled “Urgent WHAT WE NEED”
      culminates in the RCMP compiling a key briefing for top officials in only fifteen
      minutes. The report was sent to Adriana Poloz, Executive Director, Intelligence and
      International Policing, RCMP, and lists Diagolon among Ideologically-Motivated
      Violent Extremists (IMVE) adherents, along with Three Percenters and Canada
      First.
      Short-turnaround projects are not uncommon in fast-paced, high stakes work
      environments. What makes this insidious is the incomplete analysis. Diagolon is
      described as a “meme-based and satirical movement.” Furthermore, it is said that
      Diagolon “adherents express desires to form a country based on right-leaning
      Canadian provinces and US states.” A high-level official reading this assessment
      might easily conclude that a real threat to territorial sovereignty exists and should be
      taken seriously because Diagolon operates “under the guise of humour” to conceal
      its real intentions. The perception of threat outpaces any actual danger. In this way,
      alarmism was passed up the chain of command amid the turbulence of the convoy.
      The response comes after a rush-order request from Poloz, which is not included in
      the FOI disclosure, to which Lisa Ducharme answers: “Will do our best but this is
      quite a lot of analysis and writing to do in 15 minutes.”
      Fortunately, Ashley Chen—with Ducharme providing auxiliary cut-and-paste
      assistance—saves the day and delivers one for the team. Ducharme rushes it over to
      Poloz, who responds by thanking everyone: “the effort and professionalism
      demonstrated by you and your team has been outstanding.”
      An email titled “Kudos to Ashley”, in which a gushing Lisa Ducharme commends
      Ashley on the huge impact the fifteen-minute hatchet job will have on top brass
      decision-making:
      58
      WELL DONE ASHLEY!! Talk about an amazing intelligence ‘pull it
      together in 15 minutes’ assessment! Thank you so much.
      Your work has been shared at the highest level over at PCO. This request
      originated from a pressing tasking from the National Security and
      Intelligence Advisor for such information to help inform senior
      government decision-making.
      Talk about work impact! Well done Ashley, and thank you again for the
      outstanding work.
      Best regards,
      Lisa
      The pressure to expedite such a significant assessment, one intended to inform
      senior government decision-making, is counterproductive. It virtually guarantees
      there is no time to review updates or fact-check new information.
      We have no doubt that the team did their best to meet the rushed deadline, under
      the circumstances. But to do so, they were forced to rely on the same old, erroneous
      content sourced through the broken telephone chain of broadcast media, from a
      single apparatus pumping out inaccurate and alarmist statements to maintain a
      foothold in the highly lucrative, competitive market of hate group expertise.
      The Mendicino Scandal
      Among the most egregious examples of overreach that we uncovered in the
      FOIPOP packages, the shocking incident described in an email thread dated
      February 16, 2022, stands out. Both for the gravity of what went transpired, and the
      heedless way in which a man’s reputation was judged expendable.
      Around 3:30 PM, an email from RCMP officer Lisa McDonald-Bourg landed in her
      colleague Leslie Sohm’s inbox. The subject line: “protests and far-right groups –
      Michael Talbot – CityNews. Importance: High.”
      Hi Leslie,
      We just received another request for the remarks made by Mendicino re:
      far-right extremism.
      Deadline: ASAP
      Again, I’m looking for your advice on this.
      Thanks,
      Lisa
      59
      Request:
      During a news conference today, Minister of public safety Marco
      Mendicino said the following:
      “Several individuals at Coutts have strong ties to a far right
      organization with leaders who are in Ottawa”.
      When pressed further, he advised media to direct questions to
      law enforcement.
      A few questions then:

• Can the RCMP confirm a link between the individuals arrested
  at Coutts and members of the Ottawa protests?
• Does the far-right group the Minister referred to have a name?
  Can you provide any info on this group?
  Any other info on this statement made by the Minister would be
  appreciated.”
  A flurry of emails between RCMP officers followed. Leslie Sohm forwarded the
  request to Inspectors Mike Saghbini, Simon Pillay, and cc’d Lisa McDonald-Bourg.
  Hi guys,
  Media request related to the Minister’s recent statements about the
  protests.
  I am not in a position to guide Lisa on the appropriate response to either
  of the questions posed by the reporter – if in fact we are even in a
  position to respond.
  Can you please assist and if these questions we are not in a position to
  respond to (as in we don’t have the knowledge) please advise.
  Thank you!
  Inspector Saghbini’s instinct was to leave the whole thing alone. He covered for the
  lack of knowledge by suggesting they ignore the query and get on with their day.
  Hi Leslie/Lisa,
  I don’t think we at FPNS should be responding to this. It’s an ongoing investigation.
  Undeterred, Leslie pressed Mike further, insisting some kind of response was
  necessary. Remember, other media requests had already come in, and the pressure
  was starting to weigh heavily.
  60
  We have to provide a response – what it will say, still remains to be
  seen and this is where Lisa needs some assistance.
  Leslie offered Lisa a helpful hint as to where she can look to “find” the needed
  evidence to back up Mendicino.
  Lisa – if you want to start crafting from your standing “ongoing
  investigation” lines and the IMVE standing lines, that should give us
  something to work with.
  Give us something to work with. Let that sink in.
  Inspector Simon Pillay finally weighed in with a solution:
  “I […] think we could acknowledge what is already publicly available.
• Adherents of ideologically motivated violent extremism often share
  terms, symbols and concepts including fluid and unspecific anti-
  government sentiments.
• Symbols linked to the “Diagolon” ideology were found among exhibits
  in the Coutts file.
• Already made public so this info is open source:
  He provides a hyperlink to a globalnews.ca article that had come out just a day earlier,
  titled “Anti-hate experts concerned about possible neo-fascist involvement at
  Alberta trucker convoy”.
  The Global News article relies heavily on quotes from “anti-hate expert” and CAHN
  deputy director “Elizabeth Simons”, whose credentials cannot be verified. All we
  can say about Simons is that she is likely a female, going by the voice. We were not
  able to find any records of her appearing in person or on camera.
  We cannot verify that the moniker isn’t shared by multiple individuals in CAHN.
  Given Kurt Phillips’ predilection to adopt both male and female personas while
  cyber-sleuthing, is it really outside the realm of possibility that several CAHN
  employees are running “Elizabeth Simons” as another “Anya” – a disposable NPC-
  like character to be scrapped at the first whiff of a defamation lawsuit.
  You can’t serve someone if they don’t exist.
  Inspector Pillay added: “My two cents but nothing in the above could hurt a criminal
  investigation as long as don’t get into the weeds about the Coutts file.”
  He couldn’t be more wrong. He forgot that there was one other person in this
  equation – a man who had nothing to do with what happened in Coutts, but was
  about to be hurt. All because of the carelessness of a Public Safety Minister who
  61
  made irresponsible comments during a press conference and, when pressed for
  details by reporters, directed media inquiries to the RCMP.
  Jeremy Mackenzie, Public Boogeyman Number One, is in the process of having his
  life destroyed by a repeated, reprehensible association to four men on the other side
  of the country, only one of whom he’d met in a group setting, and only twice. All
  because a patch that replicated his imaginary nation’s make-believe flag, but wasn’t
  manufactured or sold by him, had been stuck on body armour, along with other
  patches indicating affiliations with other groups.
  None of the other patches got media attention.
  Indeed, only one set of patches looked like it could be linked to someone who had
  been in Ottawa during the Freedom Convoy. So that’s who they pinned it on.
  Forced to scramble and invent a story to cover for Mendicino’s recklessness, a team
  of stressed RCMP staff googled news media articles to quote right back to news
  media, in order to cover for their own lack of knowledge in the matter. By doing so,
  they circulated a version of reality that might have been amplified by other journalists
  who continued this infernal game of broken telephone.
  A game of broken telephone that goes all the way back to 2008, to the shady tactics
  of an anonymous account created by an untrained, lonely, middle-aged school-
  teacher in a small Alberta town, who spent nearly all his spare time online cosplaying
  as an armchair Nazi-hunter.
  For this – for Marco Mendicino, for Kurt Phillips, for Bernie Farber, for the sake of
  saving their own face – the RCMP offered up Jeremy, a decorated combat veteran
  with no criminal record and no history of terrorist behaviour, as a sacrificial lamb.
  In a world where the weight of truth depends on the perceived worth of those who
  speak it, this is a tragic testament to how the lives of those most powerless and
  unconnected, can be destroyed on a dime.
  Overreliance on Media by Law Enforcement
  The FOIPOP documents heavily suggest that RCMP intelligence takes their cues
  from the press, relying on second-hand information rather than presenting as the
  originating source of information distributed to the press. One wonders how much
  of their “intel” simply consists of scouring daily news and disseminating it through
  regular “MEDIA SCAN” emails.
  The Canadian press, for their part, typically churn out reporting that fits into an
  exceedingly short time slot. That is the nature of their work. There is no time to
  inject nuance and qualifiers when the segment on “far right extremism” is only four-
  62
  minutes long and the goal is to grab as many eyeballs as possible. Polarization sells;
  oversimplified platitudes are geared to the lowest denominator. Trading on pearl-
  clutching and scary speculations is how they pay the rent.
  You could be working for the most prestigious intelligence agency in Canada, with
  an ivy-league pedigree and a fancy job title in your signature line. But if you get the
  bulk of your intel from the six o’clock news, and the twentysomething intern tasked
  to line up interviews routinely taps a single source for “expert” soundbites because
  everybody else is doing it, what’s the point?
  The FOIPOP files we reviewed contained an email with an attached report on
  “Accelerationism”. The email sender was forwarding the report to an RCMP
  colleague, saying they’d received it from an academic who presented it at a “CSIS
  Expert Briefing” on the topic. The sender made the casual observation that the
  “expert” making the presentation had appeared “ill-informed”.
  To a cynic, the concept of “accelerationism” may sound like the kind academic
  gibberish slapped together to secure a million-dollar defence contract or garner
  positive peer-reviews for a publication. If the so-called expert CSIS hired to train
  agents on “accelerationism” can’t bluff their way through the concept without
  sounding “ill-informed” to people who don’t even know the subject, what hope is
  there for the future of “countering violent extremism?”
  A Filtered Version of Truth
  Media sources should never be considered standalone reliable open sources by
  intelligence services. What viewers get is not absolute truth, but information that
  may or may not be accurate, which has been filtered through an editorial lens. That
  lens is invariably primed to favour some stories, and some people, more than others.
  Especially if the editor in charge goes way back with a recurring guest and takes what
  they say for granted.
  When Elisa Hategan tried to reach out to TVO’s The Agenda to inform them that
  the program they planned to air contained what she believed to be a fraudulent
  narrative, producers ignored her. Later, internal emails revealed producers had
  dismissed her pleas while simultaneously fawning over their important guest and
  apologizing profusely for the inconvenience of having to ask for clarification.
  The clarification, of course, was simply asking if what Elisa was saying was true. The
  assertions were baldly denied. On that alone, producers declined Elisa’s offer to send
  them a motherload of evidence to the contrary.
  A lawsuit could have been avoided. Government-funded TVO could have saved
  thousands of taxpayer dollars in legal fees if producers unfamiliar with the subject
  63
  matter had not made an instant judgement call in which one person was
  automatically dismissed, while the other greeted with a red-carpet rollout. It was a
  breathtaking display of bias in action.
  In a June 2019 email exchange with Steve Paikin, Paikin admitted to Elisa that he
  had known Farber for 25 years. Paikin expressed sympathy over Elisa’s predicament,
  going so far as offering to ask people he referred to as “the deciders” and “the top
  brass” if she could come on the show. As just the figurehead, he didn’t have the
  power to make that call. His request was declined. Paikin stopped answering Elisa’s
  emails; in her view, he was docile to speak up on her behalf.
  Was Bernie Farber automatically believed because of the power of his name brand?
  If so, there is no way to escape an insidious self-fulfilling prophecy – those who
  trade on the name recognition of the organization backing them up (such as the
  defunct CJC, and now CAHN) will always have an unfair advantage. Accolade builds
  on top of accolade, and before long there is an insurmountable chasm between the
  connection-havers and the have-nots.
  Everywhere Elisa turned, she hit a wall – and its name was Bernie Farber. On the
  power of his word, journalists published boldfaced lies that splashed the front pages
  of national newspapers.
  His reputation preceded him to such a degree that nobody flinched, even after Jewish
  journalist Jon Kay caught him in March 2022 tweeting the photo of an antisemitic
  flyer, supposedly taken by his “friend” at a freedom convoy event in Ottawa, which
  turned out (thanks to a reverse-image search) to originate from Miami Beach.
  In any other iteration of reality, the idea that someone appointed to Prime Minister
  Trudeau’s “expert advisory group” on online safety could possibly fabricate evidence
  to smear Liberal government critics as antisemites, would warrant scrutiny.
  Not in Canada.
  During the course of her lawsuit, Elisa Hategan contacted hundreds of Canadian
  journalists across the country. She emailed them documentation of what she
  considers irrefutable proof of a conspiracy to exploit and monetize her bravery as
  the only woman to shut down the Heritage Front. Less than a dozen people replied.
  Among them, two female journalists wanted to cover the story – one was with CBC
  Toronto, the other with CBC Ottawa. In both cases, higher-ups killed the story.
  She followed up with both reporters; neither wrote back. Going from friendly phone
  calls to being snubbed without explanation was jarring. She became convinced that
  they had been told she wasn’t credible – her, the woman whose testimony as a 19-
  year girl prompted a Human Rights Commision judge to write: “Based on the
  64
  evidence of Ms. Hategan alone, I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the
  defendants are guilty.”
  For the daughter of deaf Romanian immigrants, the silence was deafening. “At least
  Romanians KNEW we lived in a corrupt system where people were bribed/bought
  to rewrite history & silence dissent. Here, people choose to become deafmutes,” she
  tweeted in 2022.
  The mainstream media blackout served its purpose, censuring any hopes she had to
  generate outrage in the court of public opinion. But nobody came to her aid. A
  momentary flicker of hope emerged when actress Sarah Polley, who remembered
  Elisa’s name floating around on the set of White Lies, tweeted a public apology: “I
  am very sorry you were not consulted or paid for details of your life. It must have
  been awful and bruising and even though I was not aware of all this I am very sorry!”
  Sarah Polley’s apology made no difference. By the time she and Farber squared off
  in court, his narrative was the only one that counted.
  What you see on the news isn’t reality as it unfolds around us. It’s a filtered
  reinterpretation of reality after it has undergone editorial pasteurization and was
  marked “safe” for public consumption. By “safe”, we mean congruence with the
  partisan affiliations of the broadcasting corporation’s culture.
  What makes the front page is just as important as what doesn’t. “News” is
  manufactured through a process of selection that involves everyday judgment calls
  made by people under pressure to choose politically-fashionable talking points and
  discard anything that rocks the boat, thereby infusing journalistic biases and
  projections into what you think is accurate and impartial reporting.
  The fickleness of the industry’s changing tastes often mirrors the contemporary
  administration’s spin. The events of September 11, 2001, shifted the attention of
  media and law enforcement almost overnight from white nationalism to a tenacious
  focus on brown terrorism. Because it justified the horrors to come.
  The focus lasted nearly two decades, before Charlottesville turned the spotlight back
  to far-right extremism. Had neo-Nazis suddenly vanished on September 12, 2001?
  Of course not. But the instant pivot shows how selective reporting can generate a
  public’s buy-in and manufacture consent for atrocities faster than you can spell
  “Noam Chomsky.”
  If you want to get into journalism, you do as you’re told. You tell the stories that
  earn you a gold star, not ones that challenge your editor’s worldview. But in a world
  where growing numbers of people hunger for nuanced analysis and a diversity of
  viewpoints, mainstream media – which was built on the authority of government-
  65
  funded information gatekeepers who reflected the politics of their masters – has lost
  its ability to command widespread attention. At times, it is indistinguishable from
  propaganda.
  For a journalism student, the existential threat posed by legacy media’s evaporating
  viewership means there are less jobs to go around. You’re competing not only with
  your cohort, but with savvier, more experienced freelancers recently laid off across
  the Postmedia network. Any job positions that open up require experience, and how
  are you going to build up a portfolio of published work if you don’t already have it?
  Luckily, the Canadian Anti-Hate Network has thought of that, offering many
  budding journos the opportunity to get bylines and make a quick buck.
  Desperation breeds obedience, which might explain the curious case of Toronto
  Metropolitan University (formerly Ryerson) hosting a panel discussion in November
  2022 about the online harassment of women journalists. The event advertised
  “Hazel Woodrow”, another one of CAHN’s experts whose credentials cannot be
  verified.
  As a journalist who has been the victim of a two-year vicious harassment campaign
  waged against me by primarily anonymous online accounts, some of which appear
  affiliated with CAHN, I registered for the event and tweeted my concerns about
  CAHN’s pattern of obscuring the identity of its “experts” and dismissing requests
  for transparency as the work of bigots.
  For that, I was subjected to an immediate barrage of harassment that targeted my
  race, skin colour and gender. The journalist leading the pack was Erica Ifill, one of
  the panelists invited to discuss harassment against female reporters, who reacted to
  my query with the unequivocal declaration that I am “a plant for white supremacy”.
  The irony was lost on her. A brown, Muslim woman questioning the narrative of
  anonymous, white representatives of a state-funded organization headed by
  privileged white men who work with law enforcement, whose Chair boasts of being
  friends with the CSIS-salaried former leader of Canada’s most notorious white
  supremacist organization in recent history – a “plant for white supremacy”. The
  harassment prompted me to sue Ifill for defamation; the case is before the courts.
  When did we go from questioning authority, especially one that delivers its dictates
  from the shadows, to defending their right to conceal evidence and silence dissent?
  Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “The greatest purveyor of violence in the world is
  my own government.” In February 2023, Malcolm X’s family announced they would
  sue the CIA, FBI and the NYC Police among others, for $100 million, accusing them
  of playing a part in his 1965 assassination.
  66
  With irrefutable historical records showing countless prominent civil rights leaders
  and activists under surveillance and subjects of intelligence dossiers, how can
  Canadian left-wing activists so rabidly defend the State? Are the sycophantic
  opportunities for photo-ops with CAHN’s leaders – maybe they’ll throw some
  scraps your way (a recommendation letter, a friendly word with an editor) – worth
  it?
  For all we know, “Elizabeth Simons” and “Hazel Woodrow” could be disbursing
  their pearls of wisdom about far-right insurgency from their offices in CSIS/DND’s
  Ottawa headquarters.
  There are no sacred cows in journalism. Fact-checking should be the Number One
  Rule for people who aspire to report news and guard against misinformation. Yet as
  the lines between government, intelligence agencies, and state-funded media
  broadcasters grow increasingly blurred, conflicts of interest are inevitable.
  When your editor tasks you to interview Bernie Farber about the antisemitic flyer he
  says his buddy saw in Ottawa during the Convoy, do you stop to reverse-search the
  image and risk annoying your boss (who’s tapped Farber for soundbites for 25 years),
  or do you simply do what you’re told? And when you don’t have a choice in the
  matter, do you really want to know the truth?
  The absolute, unquestioning deference to CAHN by TMU’s J-school students flies
  in the face of CAJ’s own guidelines, which instruct journalists to “make every effort
  to verify the identities and backgrounds of our sources, as well as “seek
  documentation to support the reliability of those sources and their stories” and
  “distinguish between assertions and facts.”
  What a fantastic coup for its Executive Director. Within 4 years of CAHN’s
  inception, despite being plagued with accusations of inflated numbers, shoddy
  methodology, and outright lying, and currently facing two lawsuits in federal court,
  the grasshopper had surpassed its master. Evan Balgord’s propaganda machine had
  overtaken the authority of the association that had once elected him as vice-
  president. In effect, the Canadian Association of Journalist’s mandate that “We do
  not allow our biases to impede fair and accurate reporting” had fallen to an
  organization that proudly “wore its biases on its sleeves”.
  In the weeks following Charlottesville, Elisa Hategan met for coffee with then-
  Macleans editor Q (formerly known as Andray Domise) to discuss his plans for a
  column on the re-emergence of the white supremacist right. Q related that after he’d
  joined Macleans, his editor told him to direct any questions he had about antiracism
  to Farber. The directive rubbed him the wrong way. Why should he defer to the so-
  called expertise of a white, privileged boomer who hadn’t lived through the
  67
  indignities suffered by a person of colour growing up poor in the inner city? Because
  his equally-white, equally-privileged boomer editor always deferred to Farber? For a
  black man who’d experienced racism first-hand, “That’s how we do this” wasn’t
  going to fly.
  Q chose to cover antiracism in his own way, and Hategan respected him for it.
  Because, no matter what you think of anyone’s politics, it takes guts to have an
  original voice in a country where the unspoken marker of success is breathtaking
  cowardice.
  68
  Who Gave CAHN the Right?
  Who gave CAHN the right to declare themselves definitive arbiters of what is
  acceptable, vis-à-vis extremist, behaviour? And how did they pinpoint the meridian?
  What percentage of the population need to fly the Red Ensign flag from their pickup
  trucks and hold right-wing views, as opposed to those whose attachment stems out
  of its historical context, before it shifts from being the former flag of Canada, to a
  hate symbol? Who came up with the calculation, and does CAHN really know how
  to do the math?
  How can we take at face value, the declarations of someone who refuses to show
  their face?
  Who appointed CAHN ultimate arbiter, and judge of character and intent, when the
  identity of their “deputy director”, along with other staff, is kept anonymous due to
  unspecified concerns over unspecified threats from unspecified “Nazis”?
  Countless academics and journalists throughout the years have investigated fringe
  extremist movements and lived to tell the tale. When it comes down to something
  as serious as destroying reputations, is asking for transparency really tantamount to
  a “fascist” attempt to “doxx” the accuser?
  In a fair and democratic society, we have the right to know who our accuser is. As
  English jurist William Blackstone once said, “Better that ten guilty persons escape,
  than that one innocent suffer.” Surely erring on the side of innocence is worth
  something? On a balance of probabilities, is the risk of someone who claims to be a
  researcher (but offers no credentials to prove it) maybe experiencing something that
  has not even happened, worth more than a life that will permanently be stained by
  unverifiable accusations?
  Who gave CAHN or their rabid acolytes the right to arbitrarily shut down discourse
  under the pretext that it is “extremist”, even as the goalposts keep shifting? The right
  to suggest that engaging in conversation with a political adversary makes you “fash-
  adjacent”? The right to equate countering polarization through dialogue, with
  platforming hatred?
  Who gives anyone the power to browbeat you with reductive jingles and thought-
  terminating clichés? The power to shame you into staying silent, because speaking
  out against injustice committed by your side makes you a traitor…and therefore a
  “Nazi”?
  69
  You did.
  Every time you buy blindly into a narrative that you then repeat without examining
  the evidence behind the accusation, you empower those who stand to gain from
  your oblivion.
  70
  Cowardice
  It is difficult to fathom the profound sense of betrayal that Jeremy MacKenzie and
  Elisa Hategan must feel at how their country threw them to the wayside in favour
  of a more advantageous narrative.
  For Jeremy, the homeland he risked his life to fight for, framed him as a criminal.
  For Elisa, the adopted country that rallied around a CSIS agent provocateur, threw
  an eighteen-year-old girl trying to do the right thing, to the wolves.
  It is a testament to Jeremy and Elisa’s character that they have not allowed the
  extraordinary injustice they suffered to detract from how sincerely they carry
  themselves. No one would blame them if they turned irredeemably bitter and angry,
  which would have played into the hands of those who portrayed them as such, who
  would relish the opportunity to say they were right all along.
  But Jeremy and Elisa are not your average people. They could not be bullied into
  being ashamed or questioning their own reality. They were determined to survive
  through their ordeals, to do like Jeremy did as a young soldier—left foot, right foot,
  keep going, day after next—as they walked through the darkest nights of their lives.
  “Probably the only reason I didn’t kill myself is, I didn’t want to give them the
  satisfaction,” Elisa says. “Sometimes the only reason I got up in the morning was to
  spite them.”
  She finds irony in the fact that her parents thought they were escaping Romanian
  dictator Nicolae Ceaușescu’s communist authoritarian rule by emigrating to Canada
  when she was eleven, only for her life to be destroyed before it ever got started.
  “I was erased from history, erased from my own work, from my own articles, erased
  from a movie that monetized my hard-fraught experiences, erased by a world that
  rendered me inconvenient because I spoke the truth about government corruption
  that was deliberately suppressed for thirty years.”
  On her Substack blog, she writes:
  Just because they win, doesn’t mean you are a loser. Because what is loss,
  in such an artificial setting? Throughout our lives, we’ve seen people who
  win while losing their integrity, compromising their beliefs, ignoring their
  conscience, siding with liars and sycophants, sacrificing Truth for an
  illusion in order to please and appease powerful men from whom they
  hope to extract favours– an illusion that gets them success and accolades,
  things that this world considers indicators of what makes one human
  being better than another.
  71
  From cradle to grave, we are pushed to bend, to become warped by
  categorizations of perceived value, a valuation of a human being’s worth
  filtered and imprinted into your psyche by the society and culture you’re
  born into.
  What kind of win is that? Winning the right to pass a lie as truth, will
  never make it true.
  There is a scene in the iconic film V for Vendetta, where a tortured, broken Evie
  emerges from the darkness of her prison to stand on a rooftop and lift her arms
  toward the sky as rain washes over her, symbolizing her rebirth. To Elisa, her ordeal
  has been a baptism by fire that led to a powerful awakening.
  Her career destroyed, her Amazon page hit with scores of 1-star reviews, countless
  journalists and academics unfollowing or blocking her without explanation, a
  Wikipedia page created in her name falsely stating she lost her lawsuit on the merits
  of an appeal, rather than procedural delay. But in the end, what did any of it matter?
  “If our society wasn’t structured around making a competition of such artificial
  rewards, if the measure of success wasn’t counted by the number of followers,
  retweets and clicks a story gets, our reality would be a whole lot more authentic. It’s
  about standing on that stage and speaking your truth, even if the theatre is empty.
  Your conscience is your audience.”
  When asked about being exploited, irreparably harmed, and discarded by the state,
  Elisa and Jeremy both point to the same loathsome characteristic of Canadian
  society: cowardice.
  Canadians are too cowardly to be outraged about things that matter. Like CSIS
  covering up a botched operation by rewarding the perpetrator while punishing the
  whistleblower. Or politicians pushing for immoral wars from behind the safety of
  their podiums. Or the symbiotic relationship between subsidized media corporations
  and the government that they depend upon for sustenance.
  For many, the idea of disloyalty to a cause or political party is a frightening prospect,
  backed by the assumption that if you’re not with us, you’re against us. Because we’ve
  all seen what happens when others strayed outside their lanes. The policing that goes
  on in activist circles, the ever-deepening purity spiral.
  The fear that if you challenge the central orthodoxy, you’ll be excommunicated.
  Worse yet, you might be called a Nazi. And the purging is always retroactive. You
  were never one of us. You never deserved a seat at the table. You’re a traitor. Your
  crime never has any mitigating factors, either—only pure malice can be attributable
  to the noncompliant.
  72
  Is it any wonder then, that in a time when people are silently afraid of slipping up,
  laughing at the wrong joke, being accused of wrongthink, that it seems so much safer
  to outsource critical thinking to “experts”?
  But it is the countless tiny acts of cowardice by bureaucrats and journalists that allow
  bad behaviour to go unchecked: parroting false information, failing to ask critical
  questions, turning the other way to ignore inconvenient truths. Our institutions are
  only as strong as the people running them, and the checks and balances in place.
  Guess what happens when you see wrongdoing and choose to look the other way?
  You enable it. As most of the population cowers in fear and remains silent so as not
  to accidentally offend, the loudest voices left standing come from fringe extremists
  on both ends of the political spectrum.
  Canada is a unique country where huge scandals are ignored or buried due to
  cronyism and corruption. No place on earth is completely free from corruption, but
  at least citizens in most places know about it and demand change. Some make it a
  hobby to complain about crooked politicians to their neighbours or at the local cafe.
  Everyone knows how nepotism works. Here in Canada, we are too complacent and
  satisfied by scraps and distractions. Bread and circuses rule the day. But the worst
  part is the unshakable, endemic self-righteousness that we can do no wrong. “We’re
  too civilized, too polite. Things like that just don’t happen here”, accompanied by
  the unspoken belief that “We’re better than those people.”
  And like it or not, complacency leads to complicity.
  Indifference is the scum floating at the top of this cesspool. Deeper, there is actual
  complicity and coverups. It all goes back to cowardice, whether motivated by fear,
  insecurity, greed, or misplaced loyalty.
  Elisa believes the indifference masks a deeper problem:
  Believing the worst about those you don’t want to help allows you to
  walk away with a clean conscience—because the wounded animal in the
  road either isn’t really that hurt, or is beyond saving.
  The most sheltered tend to be the most inflexible and unforgiving.
  They’re the ones most likely to accuse the sufferer of exaggeration or
  manipulation. You must vilify the Other to justify why you won’t help,
  even if helping is within your means. The cruelty of indifference gives
  you peace of mind; it allows you to sleep at night.
  Conversely, those who’ve known hunger will always be the first to break
  bread. Those who have encountered trauma will most readily understand
  suffering and pain, because they’ve lived it. Some of the kindest, most
  73
  selfless and forgiving people I’ve ever met – people I credit with saving
  my life, once upon a time – were poor themselves, were immigrants or
  visible minorities, were people who had experienced hardship and
  recognized it on my face before I ever had to ask for help.
  There’s a saying that goes, “When an honest man discovers he is mistaken, he will
  either cease being mistaken, or cease being honest.”
  Which of those do you count on being?
  The Courage to Have Second Thoughts
  It should not be up to the victims to correct grave errors made by powerful
  institutions. But a signature trait of being among cowards is that nobody ever admits
  they were wrong. Instead of an apology, we sweep our dirt under the carpet and
  pretend our living room is spotless. The “dirt” are the expendable ones; the “carpet”
  is our denial and sense of decorum.
  Kristen Little, RCMP Intelligence Analyst with the Ideologically Motivated Criminal
  Intelligence Team (IMCIT) gently raised concerns on February 14, 2022:
  I don’t mean to bother you… but I have some concerns which u may as
  well [sic] about including diagolon and Canada first in paragraphs using
  “imVE… Apologies if I am overstepping here. But maybe we shouldn’t
  rush on trying to put something out considering it appears our reports
  are going out to so many agencies… Just a suggestion, again..not trying
  to overstep but just trying to think of what our “value added” can be due
  to the numerous reports coming from rcmp as well as other agencies.
  Reading between the lines, it seems she was hesitant to rubber stamp a research
  document that lacked nuance:
  I know the content of the report is seeking to answer some higher
  questions and this isn’t a criticism at all of the hard work done by Ashley
  and James under what have no doubt been stressful circumstances but
  before our unit’s name is on something I want to be sure we are giving
  accurate historical context and a full picture.
  A very Canadian email, overladen with apologies. Still, a notable outlier among her
  colleagues considering the overall lack of pushback, and apparent willingness to
  adopt copy-and-paste as an investigative technique.
  A comprehensive 16-page RCMP report titled “Diagolon Profile January/February
  2022” states that it is “difficult to understand” how certain conclusions were reached
  with confidence despite the lack of substantive evidence:
  74
  Based on available open source information it is exceedingly difficult to
  ascertain the extent to which Diagolon is a distinct group, with common
  ideology, a political agenda, and the cohesion necessary to advance such
  an agenda.
  The Canadian Anti-Hate Network (CAHN) is cited as the main authority
  on the group by all mainstream media outlets; due to the fact that all
  information traces back to one source, triangulation and the verification
  of facts is almost impossible at the current time. Based on the
  information that is publicly available, it is difficult to understand how
  CAHN can confidently assert that Diagolon is an “accelerationist
  movement that believes a revolution is inevitable and necessary to
  collapse the current government system… Due to a lack of substantive
  open source material, operational information would be needed to
  supplement the profile.
  If anyone else questioned or critiqued CAHN’s narrative, premised on dubious
  assertions, it is not apparent from over a thousand pages of documents reviewed in
  the FOIPOP.
  Abject cowardice is the reason why charlatans have been entrusted to define “hate.”
  The Courage to Speak
  As Elisa told me while we worked on this daunting project:
  The biggest lesson I learned over the last eight years is that nobody
  comes to your rescue when you live in a country of cowards. When you
  can’t offer anything in return. When you have no doors to open, names
  to drop, favours to trade on. You have to save yourself, because nobody
  else will do it for you. If not now, when? If not us, who?
  Cowardice is not having tried at all. Rolling over and giving up before trying to fight.
  Buttressed by its façade of moral superiority and banal platitudes, CAHN gives those
  who love to hate a powerful outlet to rage for a good cause. Within its radius,
  CAHN’s quest to purge “fascists” has attracted certain clusters of personalities
  looking to destroy others in good conscience, or as Aldous Huxley wrote, “to behave
  badly and excuse it as righteous indignation.”
  This is the antithesis of countering radicalization.
  If your policy is not to “engage with fascists”, all possibilities for understanding,
  conversation, even deradicalization, go out the door. The moment you determine
  someone is, in your eyes, a Nazi, then that person has lost all right to dispute that
  conclusion. Since you refuse to speak or listen, once the label has been cast, they
  75
  have no hope for an appeal. You took away that opportunity when you prioritized
  your interpretation over their truth.
  Some might call such an inflexible mindset, totalitarian.
  Do you really believe that some people become more dangerous on others’ say-so?
  People and symbols are not that different from each other. We affix labels and
  meaning to everything we experience, as part of encoding memory. If you can label
  a flag a danger, you most certainly can, a human. As the world becomes more
  complex, everyone’s bandwidth cranks to capacity and it’s ever more tempting to
  reach for simplistic, black and white answers.
  Why risk blurting out the wrong opinion, when you can let the “experts” do the
  thinking for you?
  76
  An Unholy Alliance
  Based on the work of renowned American psychologist Jennifer Freyd, DARVO is
  an acronym that stands for “Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender.”
  According to Wikipedia’s definition:

2021. The abuser denies the abuse ever took place
2022. When confronted with evidence, the abuser then attacks the person that was
      abused (and/or the person’s family and/or friends) for attempting to hold the
      abuser accountable for their actions, and finally
2023. The abuser claims that they are actually the victim in the situation, thus
      reversing the positions of victim and offender. It often involves not just
      playing the victim but also victim blaming.”
      All three of us—Jeremy, Elisa and myself—have been the victims of DARVO
      campaigns, both on social media and in real life, to varying degrees. The most
      insidious effect of being forced to face an endless barrage of psychological attacks
      intended to break you down and make you doubt your own perception of reality, is
      the gaslighting. Its aim is to make a person feel defensive about fighting back against
      his or her own exploitation.
      And then there’s the tested and true formula of Anonymity. Among the shrewd
      arsenal of tactics used by proponents of anonymity to shut down requests for
      transparency is the accusation of “doxxing,” which carries the implication that you
      are putting the culprit in danger if by demanding to know who is behind a malicious
      accusation. In the age of character assassination by social media, any attempt to
      uncover and confront one’s maligner is inextricably entwined with the accusation of
      “doxxing”. When combined, they create a remarkably effective form of DARVO.
      The Oxford Dictionary defines doxxing as “search for and publish private or
      identifying information about (a particular individual) on the internet, typically with
      malicious intent.” Open-source intelligence (OSINT), on the other hand, is defined
      by Wikipedia as “the collection and analysis of data gathered from open sources
      (covert and publicly available sources)”.
      Over time, however, and largely the result of contrived accusations of misconduct
      advanced by anonymity proponents, a gray area has emerged between the two,
      rendering the charge arbitrary and frequently used as a tool to preemptively silence
      demands for transparency and accountability.
      Nowadays, an accusation of doxxing can mean anything from identifying the owner
      of a social account by their real name, to posting publicly available information about
      77
      them, to sharing personal or private information such as an address or contact
      details. A great deal depends on who is targeted. Some so-called researchers take
      pride in OSINT, but claim the same tactics are harmful and inexcusable when used
      against them. It gets even murkier when anonymous accounts produce material
      about real people that itself becomes OSINT.
      Any discussion about doxxing and social media is apt to be intertwined with the
      debate over anonymity and its abuses. Nameless trolls regularly reach into their
      targets’ real lives for ammunition to use in a cyber battle, while themselves remaining
      anonymous. When they can’t fight a fair fight because they’re objectively wrong,
      many choose to launch a covert attack that is part distraction, part bullying, part
      intimidation into silence.
      How are anonymous accounts able to sway so many people to believe them over
      real-name accounts? Why do so many Twitter users seem to have a positive bias
      toward them, and judge real-name accounts with more cynicism and suspicion?
      A lot has to do with how we’re wired, and how incredibly difficult it can be to
      separate ourselves from our social programming. We have biases built into us by the
      society we’re born into, preconceptions that shape our responses and which can
      become ingrained reactions. Our brains constantly evaluate contradictory
      information flooding in from our environment and make split-second decisions that
      can impact our survival. But in a virtual ecosphere like Twitter, where you are not
      presented with the same amount of tangible information you’d encounter in real life,
      this evolutionary feature can be a downfall.
      The reality of online platforms is that it is nearly impossible to avoid the temptation
      of making assumptions about a stranger based on 280-character interactions stripped
      of context and other sensory data. It requires a fair bit of intellectual humility to
      recognize that the people with whom we interact, as well as ourselves, are not one-
      dimensional characters. Context and backstories matter. This doesn’t mean truth is
      relative, just that we must be cautious about leaping to conclusions.
      Anonymity holds the promise of something special, a treasure trove of exciting
      possibilities, and perhaps this is why we tend to give anonymous accounts the benefit
      of the doubt far more often than they deserve to be trusted. People project heroic
      attributes onto accounts purportedly fighting for good causes– since you don’t know
      who they are, your imagination makes up all sorts of stories about who they might
      be: an edgy hacker, an underground resistance fighter, a Guy Fawkes-masked hero.
      We respond positively to images that represent causes and ideals we already embrace.
      If you want to be noticed by a particular target demographic, all you need to do is
      upload a banner image and profile photo that conveys solidarity with a cause du jour,
      78
      and you’ve primed your target audience to treat you like an in-group member, a
      fellow activist who shares their values and ideals.
      Most people believe themselves savvy enough to avoid being catfished by extremist
      ideologues and garden-variety trolls, but are they really? How do you know who is
      behind that rainbow flag, the BLM hashtag, the Antifa banner claiming solidarity
      with Indigenous causes? Could you tell if you were engaging with an incel LARPing
      as a knight in shining armour? Are they every bit the activist they claim to be?
      Social justice movements have a history of being infiltrated by agitators, saboteurs
      and government agents who seed division and incite criminal activity to derail
      progress. And yet, among many Twitter activists, anonymity is not just
      commonplace but encouraged and even expected.
      It is naïve to assume that law enforcement and intelligence agencies would not take
      advantage of the anonymity afforded by online platforms. Why are we not asking
      ourselves how the normalization of concealment in social justice groups plays into
      the hands of nefarious actors?
      For two years I battled bullies from all sides of the political spectrum, people who
      wielded anonymity like a shield as they tried to erase who I am and publicly
      disseminated an alternate version of me, a construct of their imagination. It was a
      crowd of people playing pretend, while seeking to redefine activism to suit their
      narrative and make themselves out to be greater heroes or greater victims. They
      claimed to fight for justice but harassed with impunity, assembling through Twitter
      flash mobs in pile-ons that often started with a single troll siccing the pack onto a
      particular target.
      The more they veiled themselves in anonymity, the more I pursued transparency–
      only to realize that accusations of “doxxing” are entrenched in an arsenal of tactics
      used by cyberbullies to gaslight their victims into not naming their harassers or
      demanding accountability, lest they be smeared as “doxxers”.
      There is something perverse about being forced to take relentless abuse and not seek
      to identify your abusers. It’s the epitome of gaslighting. The culture of secrecy in
      some circles appears at odds with a movement that claims to advocate for people’s
      intrinsic right to live without persecution and mistreatment.
      Why would any social justice activist be expected to abide by an Omertà code that
      commands everyone to keep silent and not discuss abuse “among our own”, or risk
      ostracization? Who decided this? And why does it seem like the worst abusers of
      anonymity are also the ones who wield the “doxxing” accusation most freely?
      79
      I do not believe it is “doxxing” to identify by name someone who incites harmful or
      criminal activity. While there are valid reasons to keep one’s identity private, hiding
      behind anonymity while attacking real people is cowardly. I reject the premise that
      self-identified “antifascists” who make a hobby of online harassment are, in fact, the
      ultimate do-gooders. Their actions do not align with the basic principles of leftism,
      which advocates for justice and fair treatment of all human beings.
      People who claim to fight for justice yet harass and try to destroy others using shady
      tactics, are self-deputized gatekeepers who believe that rules of fairness and respect
      should apply to them, but not their foes. Benefit of the doubt only goes one way.
      They use buzzwords that elicit strong emotions (“Nazi”, “fascist”, “TERF”),
      sometimes for weeks and months on end, and repeat them until they stick, counting
      on the fact that most online users won’t be bothered to investigate the source and
      context surrounding the original accusation.
      In large part due to anonymity, social platforms have become caustic environments
      where smack talk, vicious comebacks and mockery are viewed as entertainment.
      Many users show up for a fight—either to fight it or to watch it—and whoever lands
      the best insult wins.
      The Social Colosseum
      In a virtual arena like Twitter everyone plays a part, and what you do is as important
      as what you don’t do. An audience that feeds off bloodshed and trauma, however
      passively, will invariably contribute to the antagonistic climate that sustains it.
      Remaining silent while you witness pile-ons and cyber-harassment is not a neutral
      stance—it is complicity. When you amplify an insulting tweet, you encourage and
      abet the account holder to keep behaving recklessly. Likewise, looking away without
      saying anything is a role in itself—the role of a cowardly spectator.
      If you would not tolerate the same comments if they were made by people “on the
      other side”, then you are part of the problem.
      Most people are afraid to stand out and voice unpopular opinions, so they get their
      carnage vicariously. Through likes and retweets, they can amplify things they don’t
      have the courage to speak aloud, even as they know, deep inside, that the content
      they choose to disseminate is malicious or nasty.
      In the Roman colosseum, no moral blameworthiness could be attributed to the lions
      or slaves. The emperor may have been cruel, and some warriors battled for sport,
      but ultimately the biggest culprits were the audience.
      80
      Two thousand years have passed, but human nature is predictable. I suspect social
      media trolls would not behave as they do, were it not for the encouragement of an
      enabling crowd. Emboldened by the acceptance of silent onlookers, nefarious users
      project their rage and obsessions to an arena where the spectators are never held
      accountable.
      Any perception of fairness is an illusion, because nothing is fair about this fight. It’s
      torture and punishment disguised as public discourse. To fight against an onslaught
      of malicious trolls, acutely cognizant that every word you speak will be dissected,
      reinterpreted in bad faith and examined under a microscopic lens a thousand times
      over, is like being in the arena with a hand tied behind your back.
      Real-name accounts are scrutinized and held to a higher standard of perfection
      because people’s careers and reputations are at stake. Conversely, anonymous users
      lack that responsibility because they have no real names and reputations attached to
      disposable accounts. This endows them with a vast advantage—anonymity means
      bad actors can use deception to harass those whose real-name persona prohibits
      them from responding in kind.
      Progress happens when people come together to bring about positive change, not
      to destroy others in order to feel superior. This puts social media colosseums
      inherently at odds with peacebuilding. The combative nature of Twitter shapes its
      culture as much as it sabotages true discourse.
      Forgiveness and compassion are the antithesis of vicarious entertainment, and easily
      discarded in an arena where punches are thrown via slurs intended to pummel
      psychologically. Empathy, mercy, or mitigating factors are reserved only for “our”
      side, never our adversaries.
      Nothing I have ever done warrants the vicious attacks on my character or my right
      to exist in public. Nothing can justify my friends and supporters being scared on my
      behalf, and for themselves. The relentless surveillance, misrepresentation of my
      every move, the escalating harassment carried out physically and online by malicious
      or misguided individuals role-playing as revolutionaries, has irrevocably changed my
      perspective on anonymity.
      We cannot allow ourselves to be persuaded to accept secrecy as a legitimate practice.
      Doing so eschews accountability and any semblance of objectivity. Lies and
      misinformation spread by masked character assassins carry real-life consequences,
      both for those unfairly targeted by false accusations and those who are swayed by
      the lies. Pretending this is not happening is a disservice to the truth.
      81
      Our Stories Merge
      I lost my father to COVID-19 in March 2021. He was a pandemic skeptic, but that
      was not something we talked about. The unexpected loss propelled me to want to
      connect with similar people on a human level— not to persuade, but to try and
      understand. I was also interested in the discussion around balancing individual
      constitutional rights with emergency measures imposed upon the population.
      I started becoming methodical about documenting “freedom” rallies, mostly as a fly
      on the wall. I posted on social media because it felt like a matter of public interest
      that was not being tackled meaningfully by mainstream media. I documented an
      emerging political subculture with boots on the ground. Over time, I grew creative
      with the gimmicks and vignettes. My videographer and I showed up, were polite,
      and never concealed the camera. Our footage, as well as my commentary, has been
      used by national and international major broadcasters.
      In April 2021, I produced a comic featuring Chris Sky. He took offense and
      encouraged hundreds of thousands of his followers to brigade my account. The
      hateful messages kept coming and would not stop. Being piled on every few seconds
      was a surreal experience. The constant one-star Google reviews. The non-stop
      barrage of hostility. In response, I made more comics. I am not one to be silenced.
      The Canadian Anti-Hate Network reached out to me privately after the first comic.
      At the time, I thought the organization did good work. I was asked about producing
      comics on a regular basis for their website. We discussed it over the course of about
      a week, before I ultimately declined to provide content as CAHN had invited.
      And then, a strange thing happened. Positive messages started being mixed in with
      the hate mail. My feed was bringing people out of their respective echo chambers,
      and encouraging the exchange of ideas—to me, it does not matter if we disagree,
      just that we talk. I challenge deep seeded assumptions simply by being myself.
      A disheartening phenomenon during the pandemic was the normalization of
      dehumanization. Dialogue and common ground can change minds. The accusation
      of “platforming” is premised on paternalistic assumptions of gatekeeping access to
      ideas because people cannot be trusted to think for themselves. There is value in
      trying to forge a dialogue across the political divide, so we might figure out ways to
      live together in peace.
      In July 2021, I invited Chris Sky to a live podcast recording to be held outside my
      rented commercial unit in my neighbourhood. I deliberately scheduled the show at
      the tail end of the lockdown, before restrictions loosened up the following week, so
      I could purposely limit the audience to 25 invited guests. I was prepared to
      82
      accommodate uninvited spectators in the upstairs plaza overlooking the stage and
      hired private security as a precaution.
      What happened next changed the trajectory of my life. A group of masked strangers,
      dressed head to toe in black, blockaded the venue entrance. Their intention was to
      stop me from talking to Chris Sky. To stop me specifically—Sky had appeared at
      numerous rallies prior to my event, never with any resistance or counter protest. Nor
      was Chris Sky ever blockaded again in Toronto.
      Their target wasn’t the man they called a fascist, but the left-leaning, brown Muslim
      woman who dared to challenge him to an in-person interview. Me stepping outside
      the demarcation lines of my political affiliations was viewed as an existential threat
      to people I’d never engaged with before.
      What should have been a riveting and thought-provoking show quickly devolved
      into a street brawl. In the aftermath, I was blamed for two separate groups of adults
      cosplaying as revolutionaries on the street. This marked the beginning of a concerted
      smear campaign against me, justified by many as punishment for my audacity to host
      an unpopular event. Blockade participants soon retreated to mostly-anonymous
      Twitter accounts to misrepresent the situation.
      Within days, CAHN published an article chastising me for hosting the event,
      spotlighting an anonymous organizer who misrepresented the situation by
      exaggerating or inventing my missteps while downplaying their own contributions
      to violence. The article was authored by a man who had been surveilling and
      distributing photos of my unit. He was also part of the blockade. CAHN made some
      revisions to the article after I flagged serious issues, but the editor’s note lacks
      specifics. The article has been cited countless times to establish that I am a “danger
      to communities.” In other words, it was a hit piece.
      Things escalated from there. Over the next two years, the vitriol morphed into
      malicious attacks against my personal and professional reputation, amplified by other
      nameless accounts gleefully jumping on the bandwagon. I saw a lifetime of hard,
      honest work at risk of destruction by a handful of malevolent trolls using anonymity
      as a shield to harass and dehumanize me through derogatory lies and degrading
      memes and flyers targeting my race, my character, and my professional reputation.
      All arising from a single event that never actually took place.
      I don’t know how I made it through. There are battle scars, but I emerged stronger.
      If they had it their way, I would have quit documenting protests. I moved in the
      other direction, big time. Did I mention I hate being told what to do.
      83
      It was a fluke that I was able to attend the duration of the Freedom Convoy; it was
      only made possible because the relentless harassment pushed me to spend a season
      outside of Toronto. Using Perth, Ontario as a homebase allowed me closer access
      to the Ottawa region. I was there to watch the police wave the first trucks into place,
      and there to see the last ones get towed away. I was willing to go where others dared
      not. And I did it with a smile, even when I felt afraid.
      I was interviewed on the Fifth Estate episode about the convoy to share my
      observations; the interviewer focusing on my comments about the interactions
      between protesters and law enforcement. Kurt Phillips was also tapped as an expert.
      One segment of the final product was about Jeremy MacKenzie.
      A subset of the population got fed up with what they perceived as too much
      indulgence towards the convoy movement and inched towards vigilantism. An
      institutional failure by police led to ordinary citizens exercising arbitrary power
      against other citizens. The creation of a “convite” class was used to justify
      concerning behaviour, including gang-stalking and gang-harassment coordinated
      over Discord, Facebook, Twitter, and Twitch.
      On my part, I continued to attend and document public protests and fringe social
      movements. I covered the emergence of counter protests, sometimes to the chagrin
      of counter protesters. I began using the term “antifaux” to refer to antifascists more
      interested in performative activism than upholding progressive values.
      After enduring nearly a year of harassment from CAHN-adjacent accounts and
      individuals in silence, I tweeted an invitation to anyone with similar experiences to
      contact me. That is how I initially connected with Jeremy MacKenzie.
      It was April 2022. Everything I knew about him came from second-hand online
      sources, so I was apprehensive about being in contact. But I pushed past my
      assumptions and reservations and took a couple of hours to listen to his experiences.
      I spotted patterns that gave me food for thought. After the call, we continued our
      separate ways. I watched what looked like a downward spiral from afar. I noted the
      heat Jeremy attracted first-hand after posting a couple of comics.
      In October 2022 I travelled to Saskatchewan on my own initiative to observe
      Jeremy’s bail hearing. Watching the proceeding unfold, I saw a man being railroaded.
      It did not sit well with me. However unpopular a person or their cause, everyone
      deserves a fair shake. I have followed his legal proceedings closely since then,
      including reporting on a disclosure motion as it happened.
      Public hysteria thrives on a boogeyman. Emotions take precedence over evidence,
      especially if the bad guy makes it easy to dislike them. The court of public opinion
      can interfere with the rule of law, particularly where institutions are complicit
      84
      (wittingly or not) in spreading the smear and fomenting panic and outrage. Think of
      the Martensville Satanic Sex Scandal. Interestingly, the judge who denied Jeremy bail
      in Saskatchewan was one of the Martensville prosecutors.
      I have observed and documented people radicalize in real time, while others move
      in the opposite direction. Individual trajectories are influenced by personal life
      circumstances, mental health, loneliness, and the media they consume.
      Radicalization can happen at either end of the political spectrum.
      A 2022 ruling from Ontario’s Small Claims Court determined that CAHN has
      obtained financial support, assisted a violent political movement, used its financial
      support to influence a violent political movement, and that the violent political
      movement was “antifa”, so-named for its anti-fascist motivations.
      These findings came out of a defamation lawsuit filed by Richard Warman against
      journalists Jonathan and Barbara Kay over a handful of tweets that did not mention
      Warman by name. The judge characterized Warman as a controversial figure and
      accepted that he has used litigation to silence critics in the past. Ultimately, the
      statements were found not to be defamatory. The judge added that even if Warman
      had succeeded in his action, only nominal damages of $5,000 and $500 would have
      been awarded against Jonathan and Barbara Kay, respectively.
      The decision is being appealed.
      Although none of their writers seem to be on the ground to cover events as they
      unfold, CAHN published materials geared towards counter protesters, or self-
      appointed “community defenders” and “guardians.” CAHN specifically encouraged
      counter protesters to “ice out fake journalists” at events through noisemaking, and
      the use of banners and flags to create visual and physical barriers. I have been
      subjected to in-person harassment at rallies by counter protesters employing such
      tactics. I am suing CAHN in Federal Court for trade libel and unfair competition.
      The case is pending.
      85
      Conclusion
      Fundamentally, we are in a war of competing narratives. On one side, elites with
      connections to political leaders, mainstream media and law enforcement. On the
      other, people deemed expendable. A brash working-class man with conservative
      political views who criticizes the military and policing industrial complexes. A
      “wretched little immigrant girl” who destroyed an intelligence operation. A lawyer
      who refuses to play her assigned role.
      How can such an unbalanced battle result in truth or justice prevailing? It would take
      a miracle. But to Elisa, sometimes hope is all you have left. After they break you
      down and throw you in that gutter where they say you belong, all you have left is the
      choice to lift your head and look up at the stars:
      You know the truth because you lived it. Everything else you’ve heard
      about yourself and the world around you is a subjective interpretation
      filtered through someone else’s lens – which is shaped by their own
      biases, interests, (sub)conscious influences and value judgements, and
      the biases of those who, in turn, shaped them. The biggest fight is to not
      allow them to replace who you know you are, with their projections of
      who they think you are.
      The world is one gigantic courtroom – and everything is persuasion.
      Those who are born into privilege and can buy their way into positions
      of power and authority, most often get to decide the outcome of the
      external story. They can certify and endorse each other’s version of
      reality and impose it through brute force or majority-rule, but it does not
      make it the truth.
      Always trust yourself. You are the only first-person witness to your story.