ADAMS: We Must Stop Letting Radical Zionists Police Debate

On October 7th, 2023, the world was shaken by horrific violence in the Middle East. Three years later, it has become a rhetorical weapon. Every time Palestinian rights advocates demand justice, every time Canadians question our government's secret financial aid to Israel, someone will invoke October 7th to shut down debate.

The narrative goes like this: if you don't loudly condemn Hamas at every turn, you are somehow complicit in terrorism. If you criticize Israel's government, you're somehow fuelling antisemitism. And if you dare to defend the principle of free speech—even for views you personally dislike—you're accused of siding with terrorists. This toxic, censorious ideology is tearing apart our ability to debate foreign policy and our ability to function as a free society.

The Tyranny of Mandatory Condemnation

When Canadians speak about the right to protest, the right to free speech, or the right to criticize foreign governments, they are immediately cornered with demands:

“Do you condemn the October 7 attacks?”

“Do you support Israel's right to self defence?”

“Do you consider Hamas a terrorist organization? Yes or no?”

Whether you look at the wording, context, or the intent, these are not honest questions asked in good faith. It's a trap. A thought-stopping technique designed to delegitimize your argument before it even begins, no matter what your stance is.

Nobody asks if you condemn every war crime committed by America before you speak about NATO. Nobody asks if you condemn Saudi Arabia's atrocities before you discuss oil prices. But when it comes to Israel, the standard is different. You must perform a ritual denunciation, over and over again, or else your words are discarded. This is emotional blackmail, and I refuse to play this game any longer.

I did not take hostages. I did not kill anyone. I am not Hamas. I am a Canadian citizen exercising my legal right to free expression. Demanding I “condemn” something to be allowed to speak is not just unreasonable—it is authoritarian.

Radical Zionists and the Censorship Agenda

Let's be blunt. The loudest voices pushing this emotional blackmail are not ordinary Jewish Canadians who want to live in peace. They are radical Zionists who believe that protecting Israel means silencing critics everywhere.

They lobby universities to ban pro-Palestine groups. They pressure media outlets to fire journalists who tweet the wrong phrase. They attack ordinary demonstrators in the streets, labeling them terrorists simply for holding a flag.

And from the start, you had people like Kevin Vuong, who decided that instead of using his unique position as an independent MP to actually represent his constituents, he decided very early on he'd rather play the role of a Zionist grifter.

During his time in Parliament, he actually called for “from the river to the sea” to be condemned by parliament, claiming it's a “call for genocide.”

Give me a break. That's not what that means, and anyone who's done even five minutes of research knows it. The phrase is about liberation and equality for Palestinians, not wiping anyone off the map. What actually constitutes as a call for genocide would be when Zionists talk about turning Gaza into a parking lot. Did Vuong ever take a stand against that? No. No he did not.

Because people like Vuong would rather twist the meaning of peoples words to justify suppressing legal speech. By branding every form of Palestinian advocacy as hateful or dangerous, they can feel like righteous heroes while trampling on people's right to legal speech. It's dishonest, it's manipulative, and it's the exact kind of moral panic that has made genuine conversation on this topic impossible.

Ironically, by equating criticism of Israel with terrorism, these radicals cheapen the meaning of real antisemitism. When every protester is smeared as a terrorist sympathizer, actual antisemitic threats are lost in the noise. This isn't about protecting Jewish safety, it's about protecting a political ideology from scrutiny.

These talking points shape how our institutions respond to dissent, and sometimes, that response turns violent.

When Free Speech Becomes a Crime

Just last month at Ryerson, a student was violently slammed onto the ground and handcuffed by campus security. Their crime? Protesting a Liberal MP's speaking event, raising concerns about Mark Carney's secretive financial support for Israel.

The video, now widely circulated, doesn't even show the protest and only shows the takedown. A student, unarmed and engaged in the lawful act of peaceful protest, treated like a criminal. This is the textbook definition of excessive force. And here's a fact the censors don't want you to know: “rent-a-cops” are not legally empowered to handcuff you for peacefully exercising your right to free expression.

But because the protest touched the untouchable subject, the rules suddenly change. Criticizing Ottawa's funneling of our tax dollars to the war effort of a foreign military is not “terrorism.” It is legal, moral, and necessary dissent.

And where are the so-called “defenders of free speech” now? Where is the Conservative Party, with Pierre Poilievre's slogans about cancel culture? Where is the People's Party, with Maxime Bernier's endless posturing about liberty? Silent. Why? Because their pro-Israel hardline stance trumps their supposed principles. So we are left with a disturbing truth: in Canada today, your Charter-protected right to freedom of expression is not a universal right. It is conditional. If your protest targets the “wrong” foreign government, suddenly you have no rights at all.

The Canadian Tradition of Free Speech

Canada has a proud tradition of allowing unpopular speech. From opposition to the Vietnam War, to Indigenous land defenders, to one of our own Prime Ministers being a staunch anti-apartheid activist before it was popular, our democracy has been strengthened by people willing to speak out against global injustice.

Are those movements perfect? Of course not. No movement truly is. But silencing them would have been a mistake. In hindsight, we celebrate their courage.

Why should criticism of Israel be the exception?

The truth is simple: Israel is a foreign state. Its government, like any government, can be wrong. It's military, like any military, can commit crimes. As such, Israel is subject to the same criticism of other nations. To forbid Canadians from saying so is to erase the very essence of our democracy: the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Boomerang Effect: How Censorship Fuels Extremism

When peaceful, law-abiding Canadians are told they cannot march, cannot chant, cannot speak, they become angry. They see the double standards. They see that some political causes are tolerated, while others are demonized. And out of sheer spite, some push their rhetoric further, harder, and angrier.

This is not hypothetical. It is happening right now.

This is the self-defeating problem with censorship: Every time radical Zionists demand blanket bans on Palestinian flags or slogans, more young people decide that being louder and more provocative is the only way to be heard. The crackdown inflames tensions, & the long-term result is a more violent, more polarized culture.

A Dangerous Precedent/My Position

If radical Zionists succeed in redefining dissent as terrorism, the precedent will not stop at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Tomorrow, defending China may be labeled ‘communist sympathizing,’ while criticizing it may be branded ‘racism.’ Criticizing the U.S. may be branded ‘anti-American extremism.’ Criticizing Saudi Arabia may become ‘Islamophobia.’ Once the state & its allies gain the power to silence you by demanding ritual condemnations, the entire principle behind free expression is ruined.

So let me be clear: I condemn terrorism. I condemn the killing of civilians, whether by Hamas, the Israeli military, or anyone else. But I will not allow others to dictate the order or frequency of my condemnations before I am permitted to speak.

I will continue to defend every Canadian's right to freely & fearlessly criticize Israel, just as I would defend their right to criticize Palestine, or any other state. Freedom of expression is not conditional. It is not granted only to those who parrot the “approved” line. If you truly care about preventing extremism, you should be the loudest defender of free speech, not its enemy. And if radical Zionists want to smear this reasonable stance on the matter as “support for Hamas,” then so be it. I refuse to participate in this ridiculous, partisan nonsense any longer.

Moving Forward

On this third anniversary of October 7th, let us grieve for the lives lost. But let us also refuse to allow grief to be weaponized as censorship. The more we allow emotional blackmail to dictate what we can and cannot say, the more violent our culture will become. Suppression breeds resentment, resentment breeds extremism, and extremism breeds conflict. The only antidote is freedom.

The right to speak freely. The right to protest. The right to criticize powerful governments—whether in Ottawa, Washington, Beijing, Riyadh, or Tel Aviv. That right belongs to every Canadian. It is not conditional. It is not negotiable. And it is worth defending, especially when it is under attack.

Therefore, Canada must recommit itself to free speech. Universities must resist the pressure to ban student advocacy groups. Media outlets must defend journalists instead of caving to lobbyists. Politicians must stand firm against the culture of intimidation. And Canadians of all walks of life must refuse to be silenced.

This piece was written by an individual contributor and reflects the editorial position of The Provincial Times and Left Lane Media Group. Read our Content Policy here.