Antisemitic Protest Conviction, Holocaust Denial Charges, and Arrest in Ottawa Memorial Desecration
- Mark Sandler
- Jun 29
- 8 min read
Updated: Jul 6
Hate Crime & Legal Update – Week of June 23, 2025.
On June 17, 2025, Justice Leslie Chapin of the Ontario Court of Justice delivered her judgment in R. v. Razaali Bahadur.
Bahadur, 45, was charged by the Toronto Police with public incitement of hatred and failure to comply with a probation order on April 11, 2024 in relation to his conduct directed against a vigil held on April 7, 2024, at Nathan Phillips Square commemorating the 6-month anniversary of Hamas’s attack on Israel.
The allegations against Bahadur were that he communicated a number of statements in public that incited hatred against the Jewish people, where such incitement was likely to lead to a breach of the peace. At the time, he was bound by a probation order, so he was also charged with breaching that order by failing to keep the peace and be of good behaviour (a statutory condition of all probation orders).
The prosecution alleged that Bahadur was the individual speaking into an electronic megaphone among a group of pro-Palestinian counter-protestors. His comments were directed at the Jewish community and supporters, many of whom were children, attending the vigil.
Bahadur was alleged to have uttered four statements that were the focus of the hate speech charge. They were:
Jews are collectively responsible for the death of Jesus Christ and that guilt passes from one generation to the other (also known as the blood libel).
“Ask your parents about your moms and dads to give a history lesson about how they raped and murdered children” (also known as the lust libel).
"Ask your parents about your moms and dads to give you a history lesson about how they liked to murder children." (also a form of blood libel).
"You guys all originating from Khazar, this little area, you had no religion, you were not Judaism. You're not Israeli. Hey, you guys are from Khazar. You guys crawled out of there. Tell them to crawl back in. That is where you belong" (also known as the Khazar lie).
Professor Jan Grabowski, a professor specializing in the history of the Holocaust and antisemitism, was called by the prosecution as an expert witness to explain the significance of the above statements and how they amount to antisemitic hate speech.
Professor Grabowski explained that the first statement, holding Jews collectively responsible for the death of Jesus Christ is a blood libel that was originally propagated by Christian churches and spread throughout the world. The anti-Jewish sentiment built on that false accusation has had particularly horrifying consequences for entire communities where hundreds of thousands of people were murdered during the modern era. The false accusation also resulted in the murder of close to 100,000 Jews in the mid 17th century and contributed to the explosion of anti-Jewish violence through pogroms at the hands of the Cossacks.
The second and third statements, the lust and blood libels, have their roots in the 19th and 20th centuries. The blood libel involved accusations that Jews were kidnapping Christian children and draining their blood to be used to make matzoh. Since the mid 19th century, the lust libel portrayed Jews as sexual predators, whose goal was to undermine the moral foundations of the non-Jewish majority. Jews were depicted as sexual predators whose aim was to soil white women through narcotics, debauchery, or financial enticement.
Eventually, Jews were portrayed as masterminds of white slavery, selling white women and children into prostitution on an international scale. During the 1930s, the Nazi education system reinforced and spread this terrible lie to millions of German children. Professor Grabowski provided several examples of how those libels were used as excuses to bring about mass violence and pogroms against Jewish communities in Europe, Russia, and North America.
The fourth statement, known as the Khazar lie, is based upon the premise that Ashkenazi Jews are not descended of Jews of ancient Israel, but in fact are imposters and colonizers with no link to the Middle East and therefore with no legitimate right to establish themselves in Israel. Proponents of the Khazar theory posit that today's European Jews are descendants of a Turkish tribe originating from the Caucasus area that converted to Judaism. Recently, a study based on extensive genetic testing proved conclusively that Ashkenazi Jews have no genetic links to the Caucasus area and has helped to debunk the Khazar theory.
This expert evidence was admitted largely unchallenged. Instead, the defence position (ultimately unsuccessful) was twofold:
The prosecution failed to prove that it was the defendant who uttered these statements, especially in light of the fact that Razaali Bahadur and Naveed Bahadur (Razaali’s older brother) have similar physical characteristics, and
In any event, the prosecution failed to prove that the statements actually incited hatred against Jews, or that such incitement likely led to a breach of the peace.
On the first point, the prosecution called a Toronto police officer who was familiar with both the defendant, Razaali Bahadur and his brother, Naveed Bahadur. Both were active, to the officer’s knowledge, in protest activities in Toronto and could easily be distinguished. Interestingly, the defendant attempted to alter his appearance in court to avoid criminal accountability. Justice Chapin had no difficulty concluding beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, Razaali Bahadur, was the perpetrator based both on the officer’s testimony and her own examination of the videotapes available from the vigil.
On the second point, Justice Chapin carefully reviewed the evidence as well as the existing case law. She found, without question, that the statements made by Bahadur constituted hate speech against Jews, who were referred to as murderers, rapists, filth, and godless.
Even more despicable was the appeal to children in the crowd to ask their parents how they raped and murdered children. Her Honour found that these statements fit within the Supreme Court of Canada’s definition of hate in the leading cases of Keegstra and Mugasera, that is, “an emotion that is both intense and extreme,” clearly associated with detestation and vilification and when viewed objectively, speech that has no place in civilized society.
Her Honour also found that the statements involved incitement likely to lead to a breach of the peace. The defendant’s statements, such as “there would be no more happy days for the Jewish people”, constituted a call to action for others, including the counter-protesters, to promote this type of hatred, demonstrating a likelihood to lead to a breach of the peace.
While there were barriers separating the counter-protestors from vigil's participants, there were gaps in the barriers and attempts by both sides to breach the separation. Her Honour found a risk of harm resulting from despicable and horrific allegations being hurled at the pro-Israeli attendees in this heated environment. As a result of Her Honour’s findings, Bahadur was convicted.
This is an important decision. It condemns the use of antisemitic rhetoric in the context of anti-Israel protests. Hate speech is not immunized from criminal liability because the protest has “political” dimensions. Unfortunately, we have seen too many instances in which similar speech has not resulted in criminal charges.
The case has been adjourned for the purpose of preparing a pre-sentence report, and community impact and victim impact statements for use at the sentencing hearing. Stay tuned for further reports.
Arrest in North Bay
On June 20, 2025, Kenneth Paulin, 51, of North Bay was arrested and charged with wilful promotion of hatred and wilful promotion of antisemitism (condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust) after a 7-month criminal investigation. Police had received several reports regarding the online content produced by the accused.
Numerous search warrants were executed as part of the investigation, after which investigators sought and obtained the consent of the Attorney General (as required by the Criminal Code) before the charges were laid. His next court appearance is July 16, 2025 in North Bay.
National Holocaust Monument in Ottawa
Also, on June 27, 2025, Iain Aspenlieder, 46, was arrested and charged by the Ottawa Police Service in relation to the June 9, 2025 desecration of the National Holocaust Monument in Ottawa.
The accused has been charged with:
Mischief to a War Memorial
Mischief exceeding $5000
Criminal harassment of the Jewish community by threatening conduct
The accused was held for a bail hearing which took place on June 28. The presiding justice of the peace has reserved judgment on whether the accused will be released pending his trial and if so, on what terms.
There is an existing publication ban in effect (as is ordinarily the case) preventing the publication of the evidence taken, information given, representations made and any reasons provided by the justice of the peace relating to the bail hearing. The publication ban ends once the accused has been tried.
He returns to court on Wednesday, July 2 in courtroom 6, 9:00 AM for judgment.
Boulder, Colorado Hate Crime Charges
Mohamed Sabry Soliman, the man indicted on 12 federal hate crime charges for hurling Molotov cocktails at those demonstrating in Boulder, Colorado in support of hostages being held in Gaza, recently pled not guilty to the charges during a brief hearing. It is alleged that he admitted to investigators that he intended to kill the demonstration’s participants, throwing the Molotov cocktails while yelling, “Free Palestine.”
Soliman also faces state charges. At a hearing last week, his defence counsel argued that the alleged attack was not a hate crime. It was motivated by opposition to Zionism, that is, by his political views, exempt from characterization as a hate crime.
Although Canada’s hate crimes are different, in significant ways, from U.S. federal hate crimes, we continue to see this distinction made between politically motivated crimes and crimes motivated by hatred against Jews or Israelis, both protected classes under our legislation. This distinction is often based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the connection between anti-Zionism and antisemitism.
For example, it constitutes antisemitism to attribute collective responsibility to diaspora Jews for the alleged conduct of the Israeli government. Moreover, the term “Zionist” is too frequently deliberately substituted for “Jew” as an effort to immunize criminal offenders from culpability. One must differentiate between those who robustly criticize the conduct of Israel and those who demonize all Zionists without distinction (including the vast majority of Jews who support Israel’s right to exist).
Moreover, it is often forgotten that Israelis are entitled to protection under our Criminal Code and human rights legislation as people distinguished by their national origin. Conduct and speech that vilifies all Israelis without distinction is undeserving of constitutional protection or of characterization as merely political speech.
In a recent article entitled, “A Jewish College Kid’s Warning About the Left’s Antisemitism Problem,” Jacob Silver, a 20-year-old Jewish student from Manhattan said this:
To every well-meaning liberal reading this who’s thinking, “But I support Jews! I’m just angry about Gaza!”—then show it. Speak out against the hate. Stop tolerating chants that call for the destruction of Israel. Don’t look the other way when your progressive heroes amplify Hamas talking points. Because if you keep walking down this path and tell yourself it’s just about politics, one day you’ll wake up and realize you built a movement that has no room for Jews. Never again isn’t just a slogan. It’s a responsibility. It’s a warning. And it’s starting to feel a little too familiar.
--
We will continue to monitor legal developments that impact our community and provide timely updates and analysis as these cases progress.
About the Author
Mark Sandler, LL.B., LL.D. (honoris causa), ALCCA’s Chair, is widely recognized as one of Canada’s leading criminal lawyers and pro bono advocates. He has been involved in combatting antisemitism for over 40 years. He has lectured extensively on legal remedies to combat hate and has promoted respectful Muslim-Jewish, Sikh-Jewish and Black-Jewish dialogues. He has appeared before Parliamentary committees and in the Supreme Court of Canada on multiple occasions on issues relating to antisemitism and hate activities. He is a former member of the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, a three-time elected Bencher of the Law Society of Ontario, and recipient of the criminal profession’s highest honour, the G. Arthur Martin Medal, for his contributions to the administration of criminal justice.