Recent leaks circulating on social media about alleged exchanges between Hicham Jerando, a Canada-based figure associated with digital campaigns of defamation, smear tactics, and harassment, and Mehdi Hijaouy, a former official of Morocco’s DGED intelligence service, raise a question that goes far beyond the conduct of two individuals.
At this stage, the issue is not to confirm the exact nature of their relationship. That is a matter for the competent authorities, investigators, and, if necessary, the courts. But the material now circulating points to a deeply troubling pattern: targeted digital campaigns, personal attacks, insinuations, accusations against Moroccan officials, and the systematic use of rumor as a tool of pressure.
The real issue, therefore, is not only Mehdi Hijaouy. It is not only Hicham Jerando. The real issue is the territory from which these campaigns are conducted, tolerated, amplified, and at times presented as a form of political opposition.
Let us be clear: we are not dealing here with persecuted thinkers, silenced intellectuals, or courageous voices of universal freedom. One only needs to translate some of these conversations and public statements into French or English to understand the level at which they operate: insults, slander, invasions of privacy, sordid insinuations, barely veiled threats, a striking absence of serious evidence, and a clear intent to destroy reputations rather than inform the public.
This is not journalism. It is not opposition. It is not even legitimate controversy. It is a machine of moral destruction, fueled by rumor, insult, and impunity.
The question is now simple: why does Canada allow such practices to flourish on its soil? Is it negligence? Administrative naïveté? An inability to grasp the seriousness of these campaigns? Or do some, in the gray zones of its institutions, believe that Morocco can be treated as an acceptable target?
No one is asking Canada to censor opinion. But no serious democracy can confuse freedom of expression with impunity.
Freedom of expression does not protect defamation. It does not protect harassment. It does not protect attacks on private life. It does not protect the industrial production of rumors designed to destroy reputations, intimidate families, or weaken public institutions.
Canada, which rightly presents itself as a state governed by the rule of law and committed to civil liberties, cannot ignore this fundamental distinction. When an individual uses Canadian territory as a rear base to target a partner country through campaigns of denigration, the matter is no longer merely digital. It becomes political. It becomes diplomatic. It becomes moral.
Canadian authorities must therefore clarify their position.
Are they protecting freedom, or are they turning a blind eye to its abuse? Are they defending free expression, or tolerating its weaponization by actors who thrive on insult, slander, and manipulation? Are they simply overwhelmed by these digital practices, or do they believe such abuses do not deserve scrutiny when Morocco is the target?
Silence, in such matters, is never neutral. Over time, it begins to look like tolerance. And such ambiguity, in a relationship that should be built on trust, mutual respect, and cooperation, is neither healthy nor acceptable.
Any country can be criticized. Its officials can be questioned. But no partner state should be subjected, from the territory of an allied country, to permanent campaigns of defamation carried out by individuals whose methods have nothing to do with democratic accountability.
It is time for Ottawa to answer a simple question: is Canada a refuge for responsible freedom, or is it becoming, despite itself, a platform of impunity for those who confuse opposition with blackmail, defamation, and destabilization?
