Hicham Jerando turns to extremist incitement, urging violence, sabotage and the targeting of officials at their homes
Over the course of two consecutive broadcasts streamed on his Facebook page, “tahadi.info”, Hicham Jerando crossed into a more dangerous phase of public incitement, moving from threats against public officials and civil servants to explicit calls for violent confrontation, sabotage and the targeting of state representatives in their own homes.
Aired on February 26 and 27, 2026, the two broadcasts showed a clear escalation in tone, content and intent, pushing his rhetoric well beyond political invective or inflammatory commentary and into open incitement against state institutions and those who serve them.
In the first broadcast, on February 26, Jerando openly raised the prospect of targeting state officials and public employees by referring to their home addresses and personal information. He claimed to possess such details and pointed viewers back to the archives of his Facebook page, where, according to his own account, names, addresses and identifying information had already been posted about individuals he portrays as legitimate targets for revenge.
The message did not stop at denunciation or insult. It was embedded in a broader pattern of vilification, abuse and moral dehumanization, with those targeted subjected to language designed to strip them of dignity and make retaliation against them appear justified.
That method carries an unmistakably dangerous logic. When personal information is inserted into a discourse of hatred and revenge, it ceases to be mere data and becomes a weapon of intimidation. The underlying mechanism is familiar from extremist playbooks in which names, addresses and workplace identities are used to expose individuals to harassment, attack or worse.
In that sense, Jerando’s remarks cannot be reduced to defamation or online abuse alone. They amount to the weaponization of personal data inside a broader inciting framework built on menace, exposure and the encouragement of retaliatory violence.
The following day, on February 27, the rhetoric hardened further. In a new broadcast on the same Facebook page, Jerando openly urged confrontation in the street, encouraging followers to bring whatever they had with them and to engage directly in violent unrest. He did not frame this as metaphor or emotional outburst.
He presented sabotage, street violence and direct confrontation with public authority as part of a path toward bringing down the monarchy. He also called for refusing to pay taxes, fines and other legal obligations tied to public order, broadening the message from targeted intimidation to a more general call for violent defiance of the state.
Taken together, the two broadcasts reveal more than a passing outburst or a radicalized protest posture. They form a coherent sequence in which identifiable individuals are exposed, retaliation is normalized, violence is encouraged and defiance of the legal order is openly promoted.
The significance of this sequence lies precisely in its cumulative structure. This is not a single reckless phrase detached from context. It is an escalation built through repeated themes: naming targets, legitimizing revenge, encouraging destruction and framing violent confrontation as a political tool.
This development is all the more serious because it does not emerge in isolation. It follows earlier episodes in which Jerando had already circulated rhetoric endorsing violent action, invoking the need to “change evil by hand,” hinting at the targeting of officials and promoting the destruction of public offices when administrative demands were not met. What now appears is the continuation of that trajectory, but at a more explicit and dangerous level. The shift is not simply one of tone. It is a shift toward a discourse that increasingly presents violence as both legitimate and necessary.
Perhaps the most alarming feature of the latest broadcasts is that Jerando no longer appears merely as an online agitator seeking attention through provocation. He now presents confrontation itself as a central line of action. The movement from inciting language to an openly stated willingness to support, organize or energize destructive action marks a significant threshold. When such messages are repeated, public and structured, and when they are delivered from abroad, they begin to resemble a transnational destabilization effort rather than an instance of overheated political speech.
That transnational dimension cannot be ignored. These calls were broadcast from Canadian territory through Jerando’s Facebook page, raising the question of how far democratic space can be exploited as a base for repeated appeals to violence directed against another state, its institutions, its personnel and its public stability. The issue is no longer one of harsh opposition rhetoric or extreme political hostility. It is one of public discourse that combines the exposure of private information, the justification of reprisals, the targeting of officials and explicit encouragement of violent unrest.
The sequence also highlights a striking contradiction. When speaking about Morocco, Jerando calls for disobedience, disorder and confrontation with public authority. Yet when he himself faced the authority of the Canadian courts in proceedings tied to defiance of judicial orders, he was forced to submit to the law. That contrast is revealing.
The same individual who now urges others to break the legal order of his country of origin complied, under compulsion, with the legal order of his country of residence when his own interests were at stake. The inconsistency is more than personal. It exposes a deeply opportunistic relationship with the rule of law, accepted when it constrains him and rejected when it constrains the cause he seeks to inflame.
What the February 26 and 27 broadcasts on “tahadi.info” ultimately show is a clear change of scale. Jerando is no longer operating solely in the register of insult, defamation or online provocation. He is publicly constructing a politics of intimidation and violence directed at identifiable individuals, public servants, security personnel and the institutional architecture of the state itself.
At that point, it becomes increasingly difficult to dismiss such statements as mere excess or digital theatre. What emerges instead is a sustained and increasingly explicit pattern of incitement, made more dangerous by repetition, by the specificity of the targets invoked and by the apparent sense of impunity surrounding it.