Montreal was rocked Monday as a shooter opened fire in its Côte-des-Neiges neighbourhood. Three were left dead, including the shooter. Canada’s right-wing mouthpieces were quick to label the attack as being fuelled by left wing ideology or antisemitism—or both.
On the morning of June 22, Côte-des-Neiges residents reported a man with a long gun sticking out of a window of a Hilton Hotel. Media outlets have speculated that the man, who is being identified as Seth Hatfield of Lethbridge, Alberta, was firing at the head office of Aylo, the parent company of the pornographic website Pornhub, which sat directly opposite the hotel.
In the ensuing minutes, police engaged the shooter outside of the hotel. The exchange of fire left officer Mohamed Lamine Benredouane dead, as well as one civilian, Michel Mizrahi, who appears to have been shot mistakenly by another officer in a moment of confusion. The shooter was killed by police shortly after.
The motive behind the shooting seemed to be established by a 104-page manifesto released by the shooter shortly before his attack, a document which has already made the rounds online. In the manifesto, written in the style of an academic paper and replete with citations, the shooter rails against the “hypergamy state”—a term used by some in the “incel” community to describe a society in which women are encouraged to date or marry only the most successful or attractive men.
A quick read of the longwinded manifesto finds the author supporting his views with references to Marx and Lenin, as well as various Greek philosophers and academic studies. The document blames capitalism and liberalism for creating a situation in which women have been handed too much independence—a development which, in the author’s view, is to the detriment of society. The porn industry is singled out as a particularly pernicious actor, seeming to explain why he chose the offices of Aylo as his target.
The author proposes as a solution the eradication of capitalism, which can only be achieved through acts of “revolutionary terror” and the formation of a highly secretive “vanguard”—a role which he no doubt saw himself as playing during the attack. The document encourages its readers to follow in his footsteps, identifying potential targets (CEOs, politicians and plastic surgeons make the top of the list) and various methods for inflicting violence. The manifesto ends with the ominous call to “KILL THEM ALL.”
Never let a tragedy go to waste
Canada’s mainstream press was quick to exploit the attack for its own ends. In Quebec, La Presse described the shooter as a “Marxist incel” in the headline of one of its articles. Not to be outdone, the right-wing National Post published an op-ed titled “Montreal shooter was a revolutionary communist”. The message was clear: Hatfield was a leftist, and his actions proved that the left was out for blood.
In fact, while Hatfield’s manifesto made reference to capitalism and featured Marxist quotations, his ideas held little in common with what any intelligent person would describe as left-wing beliefs.
Marx and Engels wrote extensively on how class society led to the oppression of women (a “world historic defeat” to use Engels’ words) and subscribed wholeheartedly to the cause of women’s liberation—a fact which even a cursory glance at their writings would reveal. Lenin’s writings consistently denounce the methods of individual terror, which he saw as harmful to the interests of the working class.
In its actual content, Hatfield’s manifesto draws far more from the ideas espoused by the political right than it does from the left. This includes various talking points lifted directly from the “manosphere” popular in right-wing circles, as well as comments denouncing “mass immigration” to western countries. The author purposely distances himself from modern left-wing parties, which he accuses of promoting “degenerate” behaviours in society—an argument which could have been torn out at random from any given edition of the National Post.
Unsurprisingly, these sections of Hatfield’s manifesto have received scant attention by Canada’s right-wing rabble—and probably never will.
An antisemitic attack?
Other commentators have attempted to frame the attack as an act of terror against Montreal’s Jewish community. This includes outlets like Rebel News, as well as public figures like Ben Mulroney. Dahlia Kurtz, a Zionist influencer, posted shortly after the shooting that “The intifada has indeed been globalized”—a not-so-thinly veiled attempt to link the shooting to the pro-Palestine movement.
They cite as evidence that the shooting took place in a “Jewish neighbourhood,” as well as the fact that Hatfield expressed seemingly antisemitic views in his manifesto—among many other deranged views. However, their claims fall apart when faced with the least bit of scrutiny.
Notably, most of the commentary framing Monday’s events as an antisemitic attack have been directed at an English Canadian audience outside of Montreal. Why? Possibly because anyone who lives in Montreal would know that Côte-des-Neiges is not an exclusively “Jewish neighbourhood” at all—but a multi-ethnic immigrant neighbourhood in which Jewish people form one small part.
Moreover, if Hatfield’s aim was to target members of the Jewish community, why would he need to travel from Alberta to Quebec to do so? And why in this particular neighbourhood, when there are so many others associated with Montreal’s Jewish community? In fact, Hatfield’s choice of location likely had nothing to do with targeting Jews, but its proximity to Aylo’s head office—which was no doubt his intended target.
Others have pointed to the shooting of Michel Mizrahi, a Jewish man, as proof of the antisemitic nature of the attack. However, Mizrahi was shot not by Hatfield, but by one of the police officers on the scene. The only person shot by Hatfield, officer Mohamed Lamine Benredouane, actually happened to be Muslim, at least according to some early reports.
Finally, while Hatfield’s manifesto does include negative references to Jews (among many other groups, it should be noted), it makes no mention whatsoever of Palestine, “intifada,” or any other term which could in any way link him even tenuously to the pro-Palestine movement.
The idea that Hatfield was inspired by the pro-Palestine movement to carry out his attack is therefore nothing but pure invention. If Monday’s events reveal anything, it is only this: that there is no tragedy that Israel’s boosters will not twist and weaponize to peddle their odious and unpopular views.
Individual terror: A product of capitalism
From the little we know, Hatfield’s worldview was shaped by an eclectic mix of reactionary manosphere-type politics, distrust towards capitalism and, above all, a feeling of detachment from the people around him—in particular women. The attempt to mark out a coherent logic to his thinking, or to try and ascribe his actions to a single source of inspiration, is nothing but a fool’s errand—though fools will still try, especially if they have trashy newspapers to sell.
In truth, Hatfield was a deranged individual shaped by a deranged system. Capitalism has robbed Canada’s youth of its future, destroyed the social bonds that make life tolerable, and offers no other solution but individual self-improvement. In response, some have taken to extreme ideas and actions as a way to right the wrongs they see in the world. Hatfield was not the first—nor will he be the last.
Individual outbursts of political terror and violence are the symptoms of a society in its death throes. The only way to end it is to eradicate the system which created it—and this can only be accomplished through the collective power of the working class.
