Greater effort needed to root out hate and extremism from the Canadian Armed Forces

The Canadian military’s struggle with hate and extremism is not new. For over 30 years, the military has grappled with right-wing ideologies infiltrating its ranks.

  
By Fareed Khan

  

The Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) have long been a symbol of national pride, tasked with defending the nation and upholding its values. Yet, recent events have exposed a deeply troubling undercurrent within the ranks—the persistence of hate, racism, and extremism. From soldiers charged with terrorism to others filmed giving Nazi salutes, these incidents reveal a systemic problem that demands urgent and more aggressive action. The Department of National Defence (DND) must intensify its efforts to eradicate these toxic elements, not only to restore public trust but also to ensure the CAF reflects the diverse, inclusive Canada it serves. 

In July 2025, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) arrested four men, including two active CAF members, Cpl. Marc-Aurèle Chabot and Cpl. Matthew Forbes, for allegedly plotting to form an anti-government militia and seize land near Quebec City. The group had amassed an arsenal of 16 explosive devices, 83 firearms and accessories, approximately 11,000 rounds of ammunition of various calibres, nearly 130 magazines, four pairs of night vision goggles and military equipment—the largest weapons cache ever recovered in a Canadian terrorism case. The RCMP labelled this plot as “ideologically motivated violent extremism,” highlighting the group’s military-style training in shooting, ambush, and survival tactics. 

This incident marks a chilling escalation, as it is reportedly the first time active CAF members have faced terrorism-related charges.  Just weeks later, another scandal rocked the CAF when a video surfaced showing five Quebec-based soldiers allegedly performing Nazi salutes at a 2023 party. The Canadian Army suspended the soldiers and launched an investigation, with Lt.-Gen. Mike Wright condemning the behaviour as “completely unacceptable”. These incidents are not isolated. They follow a disturbing pattern of hateful conduct within the CAF, with 54 incidents reported in 2024—nearly double the 31 reported in 2023—according to the Hateful Conduct Incident Tracking System (HCITS). 

The CAF’s struggle with hate and extremism is not new. For over 30 years, the military has grappled with right-wing ideologies infiltrating its ranks. In 1993, members of the Canadian Airborne Regiment tortured and killed 16-year-old Shidane Arone during a peacekeeping mission in what has come to be known as the “Somalia Affair”. An inquiry revealed neo-Nazi and Ku Klux Klan symbols displayed at CFB Petawawa, exposing a culture tolerant of white supremacy. More recently, former reservist Patrik Mathews was sentenced to nine years in a US prison in 2021 for his role in a neo-Nazi plot to incite a race war. These cases underscore a recurring issue—the CAF has been a fertile ground for white supremacy, Islamophobia, antisemitism, and other hateful ideologies.  

The dangers posed by extremism within the military are uniquely severe. Unlike civilians, CAF members receive extensive training in handling high-powered weapons and explosives, as evidenced by the Quebec militia plot. This expertise, combined with access to military resources, amplifies the threat to public safety. The Minister of National Defence’s Advisory Panel On Systemic Racism And Discrimination warned that extremist groups actively recruit military personnel to exploit their tactical skills, with groups like The Base encouraging members to enlist for training.

The CAF’s “brotherhood” culture, where loyalty to comrades often trumps accountability, further complicates efforts to root out these elements. Soldiers are reluctant to report peers, fostering a “don’t ask, don’t tell” attitude that allows hateful conduct to fester.  

The CAF’s diversity crisis exacerbates the problem. Canada’s population is increasingly diverse, yet the military struggles to attract and retain visible minorities, religious minorities, and members of the LGBTQ2+ community. A 2022 report by the advisory panel on systemic racism found that the CAF’s toxic environment, marked by rampant discrimination, is “repulsing” potential recruits. Political scientist Andy Knight’s 2024 study for the DND revealed a culture favouring white, male, Christian values, marginalizing women, people of colour, and 2SLGBTQ+ individuals. This misalignment with Canada’s demographic reality hinders recruitment, with the CAF facing a shortfall of nearly 10,000 personnel.  

The recent $900-million settlement of a class-action lawsuit against the CAF for systemic racism underscores the depth of the problem. Filed in 2016, the lawsuit alleged a culture where derogatory slurs, racial harassment, and violent threats were tolerated, causing psychological harm and lost career opportunities. The settlement, finalized in 2025, acknowledges the CAF’s failure to address discrimination effectively. Yet, despite this acknowledgement, the resurgence of hateful conduct in 2024 suggests that current measures are insufficient.  

The DND has taken steps to address extremism, but they fall short. In 2020, the CAF introduced a hateful conduct policy, defining such behaviour and requiring soldiers to report it. The Hateful Conduct Incident Tracking System (HCITS) was established to track incidents, and since 2020, 364 cases have been recorded, with 21 members released for hateful conduct.  

However, a 2022 report criticized the CAF’s detection efforts as “siloed and inefficient,” noting that leaders often lack training to recognize extremist symbols or behaviours. The counter-intelligence unit, tasked with identifying extremists, is under-resourced and operates in isolation, hampering proactive measures. Experts like Barbara Perry, director of the Centre on Hate, Bias and Extremism, argue that the CAF’s culture inadvertently nurtures extremism. The emphasis on loyalty and patriotism aligns with narratives exploited by far-right groups, who see military training as a means to advance their agendas. The re-election of Donald Trump in 2024 has emboldened far-right sentiments in Canada, with some CAF members expressing anti-immigrant views tied to a “white ethnostate”. This external political climate underscores the urgency of internal reform.  

To root out hate and extremism, the DND must adopt a multi-faceted approach. First, it should enhance screening processes to identify extremist affiliations before enlistment. Current measures are inadequate, as evidenced by cases like Erik Myggland, a reservist who supported far-right groups but continued serving until 2021. Second, the CAF must improve training for leaders to recognize and address hateful conduct, including symbols like tattoos or patches associated with extremist groups. Third, the counter-intelligence unit needs more resources and better integration with civilian law enforcement to share intelligence on extremist threats.  

Cultural reform is equally critical. The CAF must dismantle the “brotherhood” mentality that discourages reporting. Policies should incentivize whistle blowing, with clear protections for those who report hateful conduct. General Jennie Carignan, Chief of Defence Staff, has emphasized that there is “no room” for extremism, but those words must translate into action.  

The CAF should also prioritize diversity in recruitment and leadership, ensuring that visible minorities and marginalized groups are not only welcomed but protected from hateful elements. Knight’s 2024 study recommends reshaping the military’s culture to align with Canada’s inclusive values, a step that could boost morale and address the personnel shortage.  

Public trust in the CAF is at stake. The presence of extremists undermines the military’s role as a defender of Canadian values, particularly when those values include diversity and inclusion. The defence minister has called for “relentless action” against discrimination, but incremental changes are not enough. The CAF must act decisively, with transparent accountability measures to demonstrate progress. This includes public reporting on HCITS data and disciplinary outcomes to rebuild confidence.  

The recent arrests and the Nazi salute video are stark reminders that hate and extremism remain entrenched in the CAF. These incidents are not just internal failures. They pose a direct threat to public safety given the military’s access to lethal training and resources. The DND must move beyond reactive measures and commit to systemic change. By strengthening screening, enhancing training, bolstering intelligence, and fostering an inclusive culture, the CAF can reclaim its role as a force for good. Canada’s diverse population deserves a military that reflects its values, not one tainted by the shadow of hate.

© 2025 The View From Here. © 2025 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.

Pierre Poilievre is back as an MP, but a career politician is not what Canadians need in a potential prime minister

By compelling one of his own MPs to resign to run in his place, Poilievre undermines the will of his former constituents, raising questions about his commitment to accountability and democracy. 

  
By Fareed Khan 
  

After his easy victory in an Alberta by-election yesterday, Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre will return to the House of Commons this fall, despite the voters in his Ottawa-area riding rejecting him in the April 2025 federal election—a seat he held for 20 years. His calculated move to run in a safe Conservative riding to re-enter the House of Commons raises concerns about democratic accountability. By strategically exploiting election laws to run in a less competitive riding, he prioritized personal ambition over voters' desires, casting doubt on his commitment to fair representation, democracy, and the views of the overwhelming majority Canadians who voted against his party on April 28th.

Less than four months ago the voters of the Ottawa area riding of Carleton decisively rejected Poilievre, signalling dissatisfaction with him as an MP, while nationally a plurality of Canadians favoured Mark Carney’s Liberals. Yet, by orchestrating an Alberta MP’s resignation to secure a seat in a Conservative stronghold, Poilievre circumvented these democratic verdicts—a manoeuvre that reeks of political opportunism.

His lifelong career as a politician, untested by experiences outside the political sphere, is another red flag, further underscoring a profound disconnect from the realities faced by most Canadians. This, along with his divisive political style, his proclivity for name calling (in the style of Donald Trump), and his habit of boiling complex policy issues down to annoying sound bites (e.g. “Axe the tax”, “Stop the crime”, “Boots not suits”), render him ill-suited to lead the nation as a potential future prime minister.

Unlike Poilievre, current Prime Minister, Mark Carney, and former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, brought diverse career backgrounds outside of politics to their political career, grounding them in real-world challenges. 

Before entering politics, Carney built a distinguished career at global investment banking firm Goldman Sachs and served as the governor of the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England.  His experience navigating global financial markets and economic crises equipped him with a deep understanding of economic pressures that affect ordinary Canadians.  Similarly, Trudeau’s career before politics included roles as a teacher, community activist and advocate, exposing him to the struggles of diverse communities. 

In contrast, Poilievre’s career trajectory is strikingly narrow—straight from university to a staff position with Canadian Alliance party leader Stockwell Day, followed by his election as an MP at age 25.  His entire professional life has been funded by taxpayers, leaving him without the real world grounding that comes from working outside the political sphere.

Poilievre’s lack of experience outside politics is exacerbated by his elite financial status.  When he was elected as an MP for the first time in 2005 he was suddenly earning a substantial six-figure salary—$141,200 per year—which put him in the top three percent of income earners in the country.  As Opposition Leader, he earns $299,900 annually, placing him in the top 1% of Canadian income earners.  This salary far surpasses the average Canadian household income of approximately $74,200, insulating him from the financial pressures that define the lives of most Canadians.  He resides in Stornoway, the official residence of the Opposition Leader, where he incurs no personal costs for rent, utilities, or maintenance.  His household is supported by a publicly funded staff, including a chef, housekeeper, and groundskeeper, and he has access to a $166,000 annual entertainment budget—resources unimaginable to the average Canadian grappling with rising housing and grocery costs.  Poilievre’s additional perks, such as a government-provided SUV, chauffeur, and 24-hour security detail, further entrench him in a world of privilege that bears little resemblance to the realities of those Canadians who don’t share his elite lifestyle.

This privilege stands in stark contrast to the experiences of most Canadians, who face mounting economic challenges.  Housing affordability has become a crisis, with average home prices in major cities like Toronto and Vancouver exceeding $1 million, while median household incomes lag far behind.  Renters, too, struggle with skyrocketing costs, with average monthly rents for a one-bedroom apartment in urban centres surpassing $2,000.  In the face of this affordability crisis Poilievre lives for free in a 19 room mansion in one of the most exclusive neighbourhoods in Ottawa

Grocery prices have have also risen sharply, with food inflation outpacing wage growth for many families.  For low-income Canadians, these pressures are even more acute, with many relying on food banks to make ends meet.  Poilievre, cocooned in a taxpayer-funded elite bubble, has never faced these sorts of struggles.  His lack of exposure to the private sector or community-based work means he has not experienced the issue of job insecurity, the grind of a low-wage job, or the challenge of balancing a budget on a modest income.

Poilievre’s rhetoric has often invoked the struggles of “ordinary Canadians,” railing against “elites” and “gatekeepers” in impassioned speeches.  Yet, his lifestyle and career trajectory belie this populist narrative.  Receiving a taxpayer funded salary, residing in a publicly funded mansion and enjoying perks unavailable to to the vast majority, he is the epitome of the very elites he critiques.  The policy proposals that he presented to Canadians during the election, rooted in his time under Stephen Harper’s government, often prioritized fiscal austerity and support for corporate interests—approaches that historically favoured the wealthy and privileged over average Canadians he claims to champion.

Academic research underscores that politicians with diverse professional backgrounds bring a broader perspective to governance, enabling them to better address societal challenges.  Poilievre’s singular focus on politics, untested by the uncertainties outside the political arena, limits his ability to relate to those Canadians who navigate financial and social struggles on a daily basis.  His claims to understand the struggles of ordinary Canadians are political platitudes rooted in his desire to attain power. 

The Alberta by-election further highlights Poilievre’s disconnect from democratic principles.  His defeat in Ottawa was a democratic judgment on his leadership and representation.  By compelling one of his own recently elected Conservative MPs to resign and run in his place, he undermines the will of his former constituents, raising ethical questions about his commitment to accountability and democracy.  This maneuver, while legal, suggests a prioritization of personal ambition over democratic integrity, a trait ill-suited for a potential prime minister. 

In contrast, Carney’s entry into politics was marked by a competitive leadership race within the Liberal Party, while Trudeau built his leadership through grassroots engagement.  Poilievre’s decision to ignore the will of the voters in his Ottawa riding and seek a safer seat in Alberta can be seen as a form of political cheating, undermining the principle that elected officials should comply with the will of their constituents. 

The lavish benefits afforded to Poilievre as Opposition Leader further amplify his disconnect.  Unlike other parliamentary democracies, such as the United Kingdom or Australia, Canada provides its Opposition Leader with a publicly funded residence and extensive perks.  In the UK, the Leader of the Opposition receives a modest office budget and no official residence, while in Australia, similar roles are supported with far less extravagance.  

These benefits, while justified for a sitting prime minister due to security and representational demands, seem excessive for an opposition leader, particularly when there is no similar level of benefits provided to opposition party leaders in peer nations.  Canadians struggling to afford basic necessities might question why their tax dollars fund such luxuries for someone who claims to understand their plight.  This arrangement, unique among comparable democracies, underscores the systemic privilege that insulates Poilievre from the realities of ordinary Canadians. 

Poilievre’s ascent to political prominence raises broader concerns about the suitability of career politicians for leadership.  Unlike Carney, whose financial expertise informs his approach to economic policy, or Trudeau, whose community engagement shaped his social priorities, Poilievre lacks the experiential foundation to empathize with a vast majority of Canadians.  His policies, often cloaked in populist rhetoric, tend to align with the interests of the privileged.  For example, Conservative platforms under Harper, which Poilievre endorsed, prioritized corporate tax cuts and deregulation, measures that disproportionately benefited the wealthy and corporate elites, while doing little to alleviate the burdens of average citizens and those on the lower end of the income spectrum.  Recent analyses suggest that similar policies espoused by Poilievre during the federal election would likely continue this trend, offering little relief to struggling Canadians.

Canada deserves a potential prime minister who understands the weight of a grocery bill, the anxiety of a missed rent payment, or the struggle to secure stable employment.  Poilievre’s career, defined by taxpayer-funded roles and systemic privilege, offers no such understanding.  His rhetoric may appeal to those frustrated with the government, but his lack of real-world experience and elite lifestyle render him incapable of addressing the needs of most Canadians, even many of those who voted Conservative. 

Canadians must recognize the inherent risks of entrusting Pierre Poilievre with the keys to the prime minister’s office in future elections.  His career, confined to the insular world of politics without substantial real-world experience, raises serious doubts about his suitability for the job of prime minister. Career politicians, lacking exposure to the everyday struggles of ordinary citizens, often fail to grasp the practical perspectives needed to tackle complex policy challenges effectively.

Poilievre’s record, defined by political manoeuvring and manipulation rather than meaningful societal contributions, highlights his disconnect from the realities Canadians face. His decades within the political elite have shaped a lifestyle far removed from the average citizen’s, undermining his ability to bridge the growing divide between the elite and the public. 

 

The nation’s future demands leaders with diverse, grounded experiences to craft policies that address the needs of all Canadians. Poilievre’s lack of such experience renders him unfit to navigate these critical issues, and voters should not place their confidence in him or his party when the next general election takes place in a few years.

© 2025 The View From Here. © 2025 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.

Are we governed by sociopaths? The West’s complicity in the Gaza genocide says “yes”

The sociopathy of Western leaders is more insidious than that of Russian or Chinese leaders because it operates under the guise of democracy. It reveals a calculated indifference that mirrors authoritarian sociopathy but is cloaked in democratic legitimacy.

 

By Fareed Khan 

 

In an era marked by cascading global crises—climate change, extreme economic inequality, and escalating conflicts in different parts of the world—the question of whether the world’s major democratic nations are led by individuals exhibiting sociopathic traits is a question we must all ask ourselves.  

 

 

Sociopathy, clinically termed Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD), is defined by the Mayo Clinic in the United States as a consistent disregard for right and wrong, a profound lack of empathy, manipulative behaviour, and an absence of remorse, even when actions or inactions cause immense pain and suffering.  Authoritarian and dictatorial regimes have always had leaders with extreme sociopathic tendencies.  The leaders of China and Russia, and before that the Soviet Union, have certainly demonstrated that in their actions, as have many past and current leaders of various nations in Africa, Asian and Latin America.

 

More recently, Western leaders, particularly in the US, Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Germany and their allies, have demonstrated sociopathic traits through their complicity in the ongoing genocide in Gaza through weapons sales to Israel, their refusal to intervene and stop Israel’s slaughter of Palestinians, and despite Israel’s stated aim of ethnically cleansing almost two million people from Gaza.   This lack of action reveals a chilling and callous disregard for human suffering that aligns with clinical definitions of sociopathy.   

 

While authoritarian leaders like Russia’s Vladimir Putin or China’s Xi Jinping are often assumed to exhibit such traits, the presence of similar behaviours in leaders of Western democracies is deeply troubling.   Such conduct challenges the moral superiority that leaders of these nations often claim.  At this moment in history the Gaza genocide serves as a litmus test for the morality of the West, exposing how democratic leaders prioritize geopolitical agendas and economic gain over humanity and human lives, a hallmark of sociopathic behaviour.

 

Defining sociopathy in leadership 

 

Sociopathy, as outlined by the Mayo Clinic, involves a pattern of behaviour where individuals show no regard for ethical norms, manipulate others for personal gain, and lack remorse for the harm they cause or allow to happen.  Sociopaths have also been described as charming and intelligent, using these traits to deceive and exploit, justifying their actions with self-serving rationales.  In leadership and politics, these traits can manifest as prioritizing power, self-serving political agendas, or geopolitical alliances that devalue human lives.  

 

Historically, sociopathy and even psychopathy in leadership has been evident in figures like Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot, who collectively were responsible for the death of nearly 100 million people.  These leaders exhibited a callous indifference to human life and human suffering, a hallmark of sociopathy.

The West is descending into censorship, violence and authoritarianism in defence of Israel’s genocide

Western governments, from Washington to Berlin, have not only bankrolled Israel’s slaughter but have criminalized those daring to protest it, trampling free speech and assembly rights with authoritarian zeal.

By Fareed Khan 

The Western alliance, anchored by the United States and encompassing nations like the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Canada and their allies, has long positioned itself as a beacon of democratic values—free speech, freedom of assembly, and governmental accountability. Yet, a troubling shift has emerged, particularly since the escalation of Israel’s genocide in Gaza since October 8, 2023. 

These nations are increasingly resorting to censorship, violence, and measures more consistent with authoritarian regimes to suppress dissent against Israel’s brutal military assault against Palestinians in the enclave, which numerous human rights organizations, more than 800 genocide, human rights and Holocaust experts, and the United Nations have labeled as genocidal. Such actions not only erode the democratic principles these nations claim to uphold but also point to an alarming degree of Israeli influence over the Middle East policy of Western nations. The evidence lies in the silencing of pro-Palestinian voices, the aggressive (and at times violent) policing of protests, and the conspicuous omission of Israeli foreign interference from critical inquiries, such as Canada’s federal foreign interference inquiry.

The erosion of free speech

Across the Western alliance, the right to free expression, particularly criticism of Israel’s crimes in Gaza, is under unprecedented attack. In the United States, the return of Donald Trump to the presidency in 2025 has intensified efforts to stifle dissent. Alarmingly, American citizens and legal residents protesting Israel’s actions have faced violations of their constitutional rights, arrests and excessive use of force.

In April 2024, students at Emory University in Georgia and UCLA were arrested, tear-gassed, and hit with rubber bullets during peaceful pro-Palestinian demonstrations. In Chicago, police detained over 100 protesters in August 2024 outside the Democratic National Committee and the Israeli Consulate. According to Ben Meyer, a member of the Chicago chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, a mass arrest was declared around 30 minutes after the protest began, suggesting that it had been planned in advance, a tactic that has been deemed illegal. These incidents reflect a broader pattern of criminalizing dissent when it challenges US support for Israel.

Germany has adopted a draconian approach to Palestine solidarity demonstrations. Since the Gaza conflict escalated, the German government has banned Palestinian symbols like the keffiyeh and the Palestinian flag, as well as protests against Israel’s actions. These measures have been justified as efforts to combat antisemitism, and have disproportionately targeted pro-Palestinian voices. A Jewish Museum of Berlin employee was fired for describing Israel’s occupation of the West Bank as “apartheid,” a term supported by Amnesty International and Israeli human rights group B’Tselem. Furthermore, Germany’s continued arms exports to Israel, valued at over US$576.6 million from October 2023 to May 2025, underscoring its prioritization of geopolitical alliances over human rights.

However, Germans have boldly defied their government, joining thousands in protests against Israel’s actions in Gaza and their own government’s complicity in the crisis. Despite facing aggressive policing, including the use of tear gas and physical abuse during arrests of peaceful demonstrators, the protest, have grown despite the bans. The crackdowns have sparked widespread criticism of the German government, with the Council of Europe’s Human Rights Commissioner, Michael O’Flaherty, warning that Germany’s heavy-handed approach threatens freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. In a June 2025 letter to Germany’s Minister of the Interior, O’Flaherty urged German authorities to align their response to the protests with rights guaranteed under the European Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights, and case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, and the Council of Europe standards on freedom of expression.

In the United Kingdom, the suppression of pro-Palestinian activism has reached disturbing lows. Earlier this month Marianne Sorrell, an 80-year-old retired teacher, had her home in Wells, Somerset, raided by police, who confiscated her possessions and detained her for 27 hours. Her offence? Holding a sign at a protest that read, “I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.” This followed Home Secretary Yvette Cooper’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist organization, criminalizing expressions of support for the group. Over 500 activists, including elderly individuals, NHS workers, and a blind man in a wheelchair, were arrested during a peaceful protest outside Parliament, holding placards with similar messages. Many reported being denied water and exposed to harsh conditions during detention, highlighting the abuse accompanying this censorship. The UK’s actions suggest a willingness to sacrifice free speech to align with Israel’s narrative, undermining its democratic credentials.

In France, the government also adopted a harsh anti-democratic approach by banning pro-Palestinian protests at the onset of the Gaza conflict, with some municipalities prohibiting the display of the Palestinian flag. These measures, enacted despite France’s constitutional commitment to free speech, reveal a selective application of democratic principles when it comes to Israel. The crackdown has included arrests for minor infractions, such as wearing pro-Palestinian symbols, further demonstrating an assault on the basic rights of French citizens.

In Canada, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) has documented “systemic suppression” of Palestinian solidarity, including “bubble zone” municipal bylaws restricting protests near Israeli consulates and Jewish institutions. The Canadian government’s decision to blacklist Samidoun, a pro-Palestinian advocacy group, as a terrorist organization has further criminalized support for Palestinian causes. These actions align with a broader effort to silence and persecute voices critical of Israel, often under the guise of national security or preventing “antisemitism”.

Violence and authoritarian tactics

The use of excessive force to suppress pro-Palestinian protests is a hallmark of this authoritarian shift in Western societies. In the US, the deployment of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to New York and other states to quell anti-genocide protests, and singling out visa students and legal residents signals a readiness to use overwhelming federal resources against citizens exercising their constitutional rights. In Austin, Texas, police used pepper spray and tasers on students protesting at the University of Texas in April 2024, with over 50 arrests reported.

In the UK, the mass arrests of peaceful protesters in August 2025, many of whom were elderly or vulnerable, indicate a disregard for basic human rights. Detainees reported being denied basic necessities and held in harsh conditions, a tactic designed to deter future protests. In Germany, police have repeatedly used violence against pro-Palestinian demonstrators, with reports of injuries among peaceful protesters in Berlin. France’s response has been similarly heavy-handed, with police using tear gas and making arrests for minor infractions like displaying Palestinian flags. In Canada, the use of “bubble zone” bylaws has been accompanied by reports of police intimidating protesters, including those holding silent vigils for Gaza victims.

Israeli influence and unchecked interference

Perhaps the most insidious aspect of this suppression of legal protests is the apparent influence of Israel on the Middle East policies of Western governments, coupled with a refusal of these governments to investigate this influence, which can be deemed as foreign interference. In Canada, the federal foreign interference inquiry, launched to examine foreign influence in Canadian politics, conspicuously excluded Israel from its scope. A report by Justice for All Canada documents Israel’s efforts to shape Canadian policy through funding political campaigns, intimidating parliamentarians, and threatening media outlets that are critical of Israel.

In the US, pro-Israel lobbying groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) have spent hundreds of millions of dollars since 2020 to influence congressional elections, ensuring that candidates critical of Israel don’t get elected. In 2023 and 2024 AIPAC’s funding was instrumental in defeating progressive candidates who called for a Gaza ceasefire, such as Representatives Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush.

The UK has seen similar patterns, with groups like the Board of Deputies of British Jews and Conservative Friends of Israel pressuring policymakers to adopt pro-Israel stances regardless of that nation’s violation of international human rights laws. A 2025 report revealed that over 80% of Conservative MPs received funding or trips from pro-Israel groups, raising concerns about Israeli manipulation and undue influence.

In Germany, the close relationship between the government and Israel has led to policies prioritizing Israel’s security narrative over free expression and justice for Palestinians. The German government’s refusal to halt arms exports to Israel, even as the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Israeli leaders, underscores this alignment.

In France, former Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin has criticized the lack of condemnation or action of governments surrounding Israel’s actions, calling it a “historic scandal.” In a recent op-ed published in Le Monde, Villepin said, “I am forced to confront a tragic reality: A crime is taking place in Gaza, a crime of genocide. More and more voices, including among historians and Israeli NGOs, have risen to call it such, and I recognize and admire the courage it takes to do so, as seen in the examples of Omer Bartov, Amos Goldberg, B'Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights.”

The descent into censorship, violence, and repression in Western countries in defence of Israel’s genocidal actions represents a profound betrayal of democratic values. The silencing of pro-Palestinian voices undermines free speech, while the use of excessive force against protesters erodes their fundamental rights despite protections entrenched in law. Meanwhile the refusal to investigate Israeli foreign interference in Western governments raises serious questions not just about the sovereignty of Western democracies, but also whether a foreign power is in control of policies related to the Middle-East and the diaspora communities living in those Western nations. The actions of Western governments not only harms targeted individuals and communities, but also erodes public trust in institutions meant to protect everyone’s democratic freedoms.

The international community is increasingly acknowledging Israel’s actions as crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide, as evidenced by reports from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, in addition to statements by hundreds of genocide and human rights scholars, underscoring the urgency of this issue. The International Criminal Court’s arrest warrants for Israeli leaders further highlight the need for accountability. Yet, Western nations continue to shield Israel, often at the expense of their own citizens’ rights and their standing in the global community. This complicity risks normalizing repressive tactics, as Western governments prioritize their relationship with a genocidal regime over democratic principles, to which they claim they are committed.

Media complicity and public perception

The mainstream media in Western nations has often played a complicit role in this authoritarian drift by framing pro-Palestinian activism as inherently antisemitic or threatening. In the US, major outlets like CNN and The New York Times have been criticized for downplaying Israel’s actions in Gaza while amplifying narratives that justify crackdowns on pro-Palestinian protests. In Canada, the Globe and Mail and the Postmedia chain of newspapers have been shown to be inherently anti-Palestinian. 

 

Coverage of the 2024 student protests on university campuses was heavily critical of the protesters, repeating accusations of antisemitism,  overshadowing the broader demand for a ceasefire and accountability for Israel’s criminal actions. In the UK, tabloids sensationalized pro-Palestinian protests to justify police crackdowns, further eroding public support for free expression. In Canada this media bias distorts public perception and emboldens governments to escalate censorship and repression without fear of widespread backlash.

The chilling effect on civil society

The crackdowns on pro-Palestinian activism have created a chilling effect on civil society, intimidating individuals and organizations to prevent them from speaking out. In Canada, grassroots groups advocating for Palestinian rights have reported increased harassment, including doxxing and threats, often amplified by Zionist and pro-Israel advocacy groups. In Germany, cultural institutions and universities have cancelled events featuring Palestinian speakers, citing concerns about “antisemitism,” effectively silencing critical voices. This climate of repression stifles open debate, a cornerstone of democratic societies, and signals to citizens that dissent on the issue of Israel comes at a high personal cost.

Israel’s influence extends beyond lobbying to economic and diplomatic leverage. In the US, defence contractors like Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, which supply weapons to Israel, have significant sway over policy decisions, as their contracts are tied to US military aid to Israel, exceeding US$3.8 billion annually. In Germany, Israel’s role as a key partner in intelligence-sharing and counter-terrorism has solidified its influence, with German officials citing “historical responsibility” to justify unwavering support. In Canada, trade agreements and investments with Israel, particularly in technology and cybersecurity, have created a dependency that discourages scrutiny of Israeli influence.

The Western alliance’s selective outrage over human rights abuses in other nations exposes its hypocrisy. While nations like China and Russia face sanctions for their authoritarian practices, Israel’s actions in Gaza—documented as causing over 70,000 civilian deaths by July 2025—receive minimal criticism from Western leaders. Additionally, the US has consistently vetoed multiple UN Security Council resolutions calling for a Gaza ceasefire, and shielded Israel from accountability. This double standard undermines the West’s moral credibility and fuels global perceptions of complicity in Israel’s actions, further eroding trust.

The path forward

The West’s unwavering support for Israel’s genocidal campaign in Gaza stands as the moral catastrophe of our era, echoing the shameful lack of action by the US and Europe when Nazi Germany began committing atrocities against Jews and other German minorities in the 1930s. This complicity—marked by billions in arms sales, diplomatic cover, and suppression of dissent—exposes a grotesque betrayal of democratic principles. Western governments, from Washington to Berlin, have not only bankrolled Israel’s slaughter but have criminalized those daring to protest it, trampling free speech and assembly rights with authoritarian zeal.

To halt this descent into tyranny, Western leaders must unequivocally condemn Israel’s war crimes, dismantle draconian bans on pro-Palestinian symbols and protests, and end the brutal policing of demonstrators. They must also investigate Israeli foreign interference, including its documented influence over Western policies, as seen in lobbying scandals reported by Al Jazeera in 2024.

Civil society is rising, with groups like Defend Our Juries in the UK and the BCCLA in Canada spearheading campaigns to overturn unjust laws. Citizens must demand accountability, forcing foreign policy to reflect justice, not geopolitical cowardice. The West’s alignment with Israel’s carnage—over 70,000 Palestinian deaths by mid-2025—has gutted its moral credibility. To redeem itself, the West must confront its complicity, halt arms shipments, and restore the democratic values it hypocritically claims to champion, lest history judge it as it does those who appeased the Nazis in 1930s.

© 2025 The View From Here. © 2025 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.