Toronto Sun claim that Palestinian Protestors are being paid
Executive summary
The Toronto Sun has run multiple opinion pieces asserting that some pro‑Palestinian demonstrations have been funded and that organizers or outside actors have paid participants — naming Victoria’s Plenty Collective and alleging funding ties in the U.S. to billionaire Neville Roy Singham — with specific claims that “thousands have been paid out … typically close to $20,000 every month” [1] [2]. Independent reporting and regulatory outcomes show contested facts: student protesters and experts dispute “paid‑protester” narratives [3], and a media‑watch ruling found the Toronto Sun published inaccurate, misleading claims in at least one case [4].
1. What the Toronto Sun actually reported
The Sun’s columns by Warren Kinsella and other Sun opinion pieces state that a Victoria group called the Plenty Collective established a “Solidarity Fund” to cover costs for “supporting or organizing actions in solidarity with Palestine” and say priority was given to Palestinian, Black or Indigenous applicants and that “thousands have been paid out … typically close to $20,000 every month” [1]. The paper also asserted that in the U.S. millionaire Neville Roy Singham has bankrolled pro‑Palestinian protests [2].
2. What those claims amount to — funding versus “paid protesters”
The Sun frames payments as direct compensation for people to show up and protest. The cited Plenty Collective material, as relayed by the Sun, describes a solidarity fund for “folks or groups” incurring costs related to organizing actions — which can include logistics, legal aid, supplies or other expenses — and the Sun interprets or presents those outlays as payments to protesters [1]. The distinction between reimbursing organizers or covering costs and paying individuals as demonstrators is not settled in the Sun’s reporting as excerpted here [1].
3. Pushback from protesters, students and experts
Students and campus participants have rejected “paid‑protester” narratives as attempts to delegitimize the movement. University students involved in encampments say the accusations are false and that many have made personal and professional sacrifices to protest; experts and students told CBC that claims of outside agitators and paid demonstrators are part of a familiar skeptical frame and are disputed by those on the ground [3].
4. Media accountability and corrections
There is evidence of oversight pushing back on at least some Sun coverage: the National NewsMedia Council ruled that the Toronto Sun published inaccurate and misleading claims about pro‑Palestine protesters in a separate complaint, requiring a correction and summary of the decision — an outcome that directly challenges the paper’s accuracy in portraying protesters as “Nazis” and misrepresenting the movement [4]. That ruling indicates that some of the Sun’s sweeping accusations about protest actors have been found unsupported by the NNC [4].
5. Broader reporting and amplification
The Sun’s columns have been amplified by other outlets and opinion sites repeating the “paid protester” line and connecting funders across borders [5]. Some pieces and aggregators treat the Sun’s opinion reporting as confirmation of long‑suspected paid mobilization and link it to other alleged funders and organizations without independent documentary proof in the material provided here [5] [6].
6. What the available sources do not establish
Available sources do not provide independent, verifiable evidence that protesters across Canada were systematically paid per person to show up at demonstrations as a coordinated, commercial “for‑hire” operation. The Sun’s pieces cite the Plenty Collective fund and allege totals but the documents excerpted here do not include detailed transaction records or direct testimony proving individuals were paid to act as protesters rather than organizers or recipients of cost support [1]. Available sources do not mention definitive law‑enforcement confirmations that individuals were being paid to protest as a general practice [7] [3].
7. How to interpret competing narratives
There are two competing takeaways in the record: one, the Toronto Sun argues that outside money and solidarity funds have materially supported protests and, in some pieces, equates that support to paying protesters [1] [2]. Two, participants, student organizers and at least one media‑oversight ruling warn that such claims can be misleading, used to delegitimize grassroots activism, and in some circumstances have been judged inaccurate [3] [4]. Readers should distinguish between funding for logistics/organizing and proof of paid-for attendance by demonstrators — the Sun’s opinion pieces assert the latter, while other sources dispute or require more evidence [1] [3] [4].
8. Bottom line for readers
The Toronto Sun published assertive claims that some pro‑Palestinian activity was financed and that payments were made; those claims have been influential and widely cited [1] [2]. However, pushback from participants and a formal media‑council finding signal that the strongest versions of the “paid protester” story are contested and, in some cases, judged inaccurate by a complaints body [3] [4]. Readers should treat the Sun’s characterization as a reported allegation and seek primary documents (payment records, statements from organizers, or independent audits) before accepting the claim that protesters were broadly paid to attend demonstrations — available sources do not provide that conclusive evidence here [1] [3] [4].