Antifa Canada (see the emerging consensus on how that first word is pronounced) is a ragtag batch of anarchists that makes the capital mistake of organizing via Facebook. (Its Web site doesn’t resolve, for example.) As such, Antifa Canada recapitulates the habits of every right-wing-asshole group that also organizes by Facebook and that is followed by our friends at Anti-Racist Canada, the latter of whom delude themselves that screencapping Facebook comments in some way counters white supremacy.

In the last week, Antifa Canada has posted or reposted quite a few statements that indisputably mean the group officially condones violence. I’d say Antifa Canada was egging on its members to violence. Antifa Canada’s only limit is murder, I determined by asking open questions on Facebook.

These kids eventually figured out it was unwise to answer such questions honestly and deleted the relevant postings. Yet after ragging at Anti-Racist Canada that screencapping Facebook is the wrong way to archive Facebook, it turns out most of my methods worked even less well. But here’s what Antifa Canada published, and the questions I asked that they did and did not answer.

  1. In relation to activities of an ostensibly unrelated group in a different country: “This is Antifa. Not nice, not peaceful and refusing to be quiet[.]” It continued thus (no copy-edits; markup added; elisions noted).

    On December 6th, 2008, Greek Police Officer Epaminondas Korkoneas, shot and killed 15 year-old Alexandros Grigoropoulos in Athens, Greece. 8 years later, Greek anarchists still commemorate this infamous day in their history with violent clashes with the police at the site of the murder. […]

    My Q&A with Antifa Canada:

    Again: “violent clashes” you describe as part and parcel of being “not peaceful.”

    Why precisely does your group refuse to condemn violence? Why does your group refuse to pledge to remain nonviolent at all times?

    Incidentally, doesn’t your group believe that words are violence, e.g., calling somebody a tranny is as bad as actually kicking that person? If so, will you also pledge not to scream invective at your purported enemies?

    In short, will your group ever develop ethics?

    Calling someone a tranny is transphobic and could deeply bother the person to not be who they truly feel comfortable with in public spaces. We’re violent to get to where we believe we need to be, with little to no racisms, little to no sexism, transphobia, homophobia, islamphobia etc etc. that’s why we don’t promise to be violent all the time nor do we promise to never be peaceful in the future. note; when i say peaceful i mean no riots etc, not become homies with the people we’re going against.

    You seem very concerned with, say, transgender or Mohammedan feelings, but not those of anyone you deem the enemy. You have ruled violence in, not out.

    Can you justify calling yourselves anti-fascist while proudly availing yourselves of the tools of fascism?

    Supplementary question: Is it justifiable for you and your group to murder your enemies?

    Not murder, for this isn’t the war times. But fight back and intimidate them back into the shadows with violent protests, groups and flyers yes, we will intimidate (or try to lol) them. We don’t care about the alt-right and the nazis feelings whatsoever. end of.
  2. Later questions, which went unanswered, except inasmuch as deleting the entire posing amounts to an answer:

    I’m going to do what Michael Moore says we should all do to Donald Trump: Take you at your word.

    For publication, I need a comment on what I intend to report, namely that Antifa Canada:

    • not only refuses to disavow violence of its own accord, it refused to disavow violence when directly challenged to do so

    • refused to concede that words are not violence, and in fact specifically dehumanized its enemies by prioritizing any action, including a violent action, that yields “no racisms, little to no sexism, transphobia, homophobia, islamphobia etc etc.” (sic)

    • vows to do anything it needs to do, including inflicting actual violence as a first-strike measure

    • views as the sole limit of its responsibilities the commission of actual murder; “no riots etc.” is too ambiguous to be interpreted here except as synonymous with “We will commit violence if we deem fit to do so”

    Again, do please comment.

  3. Antifa Canada reposted a bit of invective from a user named Vellum and Vinyl, who separately and elsewhere argued that it is OK to punch a Nazi. I asked Antifa Canada this question, which quoted Vellum and Vinyl’s words that Antifa Canada had reposted. (Small edits for more readable copy.)

    Let’s be crystal clear about what Antifa Canada is communicating via this reposting. It seems obvious that this is not a case of “republishing [retweeting] does not mean endorsement,” as they say; it’s obvious you are endorsing the post by Vellum and Vinyl. Her words were:

    • Nazis do not get the benefit of the doubt.

    • Nazis do not get compassion & understanding.

    • Nazis do not get “safe spaces.”

    • Nazis do not get a platform to spread their hate.


    Can you attest (for attribution) that it is Antifa Canada’s policy that anyone it deems Nazis cannot expect to be safe around Antifa Canada members and allies, and that anyone Antifa Canada deems Nazis will be physically assaulted?

    Additionally, explain why Antifa Canada quoted these words if in fact it does not believe exactly what they say and mean.

    No response.

Antifa Canada is an activist group that rules violence in

And they won’t rule violence out even when asked.

In the current era, it is extreme-left-wing groups who carry out vandalism and physical violence at demonstrations. Those groups also follow victims around at demonstrations and scream at them, all the while insisting that words are violence (calling someone a tranny is exactly the same as hitting that person, they believe).

Isn’t it possible that white supremacy and left-wing activists’ violence both are problems to be solved? Can’t we oppose more than one ill at the same time?

The foregoing posting appeared on Joe Clark’s personal Weblog on 2017.03.31 12:24. This presentation was designed for printing and omits components that make sense only onscreen. (If you are seeing this on a screen, then the page stylesheet was not loaded or not loaded properly.) The permanent link is:

(Values you enter are stored and may be published)



None. I quit.

Copyright © 2004–2024