Combatting Antisemitic Hate Crimes: Progress, Accountability and the Road Ahead
On September 28, 2026, Arthur Colin Roberts was sentenced by a Victoria B.C. judge to a jail term after pleading guilty to one count of mischief respecting religious property and one count of uttering threats contrary to the Criminal Code. The court’s reasons represent a textbook example of how crimes motivated by antisemitic hate should be addressed.
Mischief to Religious Property
In August 2025, the Victoria Police Department was notified about the following graffiti written on a column at the front entrance of the Congregation Emanu-El synagogue.
JEWS ARE EVIL!
BECAUSE GENOCIDE IS EVIL!
STOP GENOCIDE
STOP THE JEWS!
JEWS ARE
MURDERING THOUSANDS
OF GENTILE CHILDREN
IN THE FUTURE PALESTINIANS WILL GET THEIR REVENGE
AGAINST YOU
CHILD KILLING JEW – MONSTERS!
The Congregation Emanu-El synagogue is located on one of the busiest streets in downtown Victoria. The synagogue was founded in 1859, is designated a National Historic Site, and is the oldest continually operating synagogue on the west coast of North America.
CCTV recordings led to the identification of Roberts as the perpetrator.
Roberts told police that his actions were not premeditated and that he regretted them. When he passed by the synagogue, he became angry while thinking about things he had read in the news. He told police that he was writing to raise awareness that a genocide was occurring. He said to police that 60,000 people had been murdered in Gaza and that the population was starving. He had read in the news that commanding officers had been ordered to shoot Palestinians seeking food. He told police that he was willing to apologize, but only to those who do not support genocide. However, he said that he believed that most Jewish people support genocide.
Uttering Threats
The second charge related to a text message Roberts sent in June 2026 threatening to kill police. The text message referred to the then-recent fatal shooting in Montreal perpetrated by Seth Scott Hatfield. Hatfield published a lengthy manifesto containing misogynistic themes associated with the INCEL movement, as well as antizionist messaging. Roberts’ text message included the following:
I will start the process of applying for disability welfare as soon as I get out of jail. I hate the courts. I hate the police. I hate the financial system. I hate society. I hate the government. I hate my life. I have read the entire 104-page manifesto written by the angry Incel shooter who killed that pig in Montreal this week. There is much in that document I disagree with, but I’m pleased he killed the pig. I’m also angry enough to kill. I want to kill as many pigs as I possibly can. More than one!
Roberts’ Personal History
Roberts has a history of mental health problems extending back to his teenage years. The psychological assessment diagnosed him with cannabis use disorder, moderate to severe, and persistent depressive disorder with superimposed episodes of major depression. It also identified narcissistic personality traits.
The psychological report also reflected that Roberts claimed that he regretted that his actions cast a shadow over a bar mitzvah that was being held at the synagogue the next morning. He claimed that he thought the graffiti would be easy to remove and that his intention had simply been to “piss off the congregation.” He also described his actions as “wrong,” but this description was qualified by the phrase “for the sake of the minority of Jewish people who were not Zionist.”
Roberts also maintained that he developed the intention to write a message only moments before doing so. He denied having any intention to turn to violence to advance his anti-genocidal political views.
Roberts had no prior criminal record or history of affiliation with hate groups.
Principles of Sentencing
The court carefully outlined the relevant principles that inform what sentence should be imposed. (I will focus exclusively on the mischief charge, noting that Roberts received additional jail time for the uttering threats conviction.) These principles include that a crime should be treated more seriously when motivated by bias, prejudice or hatred against certain groups, including Jews. The court also emphasized, as an aggravating factor, the serious impact of a crime on those affected (regardless of the perpetrator’s motivation).
The court relied heavily on the victim and community impact statements that were provided. In its reasons, the court compassionately described the substantial impact of the crime on both the immediate victims and on the broader Jewish community in Victoria. The crime not only converted a day of anticipated celebration to sadness, but caused members of the congregation to no longer feel safe in Victoria. They also expressed concern about their ability to participate freely in religious and communal life. The court held that this impact must be viewed in the broader context of increasing antisemitic incidents across Canada.
Roberts denied that he was motivated by hatred against Jews.
The court recognized that hate motivation is confined, in law, to the “most extreme emotion that belies reason; an emotion that, if exercised against members of an identifiable group, implies that those individuals are to be despised, scorned, denied respect and made subject to ill-treatment on the basis of group affiliation.” Despite that high standard, the court was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that this crime was motivated by hatred against Jews. His reasons are instructive and of particular importance when perpetrators seek to shelter behind political protest about the war in the Middle East:
First, in my view, the language on the synagogue itself is unquestionably hateful. The words effectively pronounce a sort of sinister antisemitic syllogism: all Jews are evil, because Jews support Genocide, and Genocide is evil. The words describe Jewish people as a whole as “evil”, as “monsters”, and as murderers of children.
In addition, the statement that “Jews are murdering thousands of gentile children” reflects a particularly longstanding and pernicious antisemitic trope: the historical accusation that Jews murder non-Jewish children: see e.g., Keegstra at 714. The reference to future revenge against “child killing Jew-monsters” carries the same collective attribution one step further, as well as an implied call to violence, or at least an endorsement of an eventual violent reckoning.
Mr. Roberts may have subjectively been motivated by the events in Gaza; however, the words “Stop the Jews” identify Jews themselves, rather than the State of Israel, its government, or its military, as the object of condemnation. To be clear, criticism of the State of Israel, even extremely harsh criticism, is not itself necessarily antisemitic. It is the collective attribution of responsibility to all Jews for the actions of Israel that renders the words antisemitic.
Second, the location of the message is itself telling. While the words used by Mr. Roberts arguably speak for themselves, the location of the words supports the conclusion that this was a hate-motivated offence, and that it was intended to expose Jewish people to a hateful message. … This was not a message to the public; it was a message to the Jewish congregation entering their house of worship …
Third, based on the agreed facts, I do not accept that Mr. Roberts’ actions were quite so spontaneous as he has urged the Court to conclude … [H]is actions on the day in question point to a sufficiently deliberate act. The CCTV footage revealed that he spent time writing the message, stopped when he thought he was being observed, returned to writing the message, and then paused to gaze with approval on his work.
Finally, I turn to the relevance that Mr. Roberts may not himself subjectively hate Jewish people. Mr. Roberts’ counsel advised that he does not personally hold any animosity toward Jewish people. Instead, it was the circumstances in Gaza that prompted him to take the actions he did. He was, in other words, trying to prompt debate about Gaza and send a message condemning genocide.
Based on the evidence, I am left uncertain about Mr. Roberts true intentions. He has continued to express remorse but only for the minority of Jews who are not Zionists. However, even if Mr. Roberts does not subjectively hate Jewish people or wish them harm, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to engage in conduct that he knew would expose Jewish people to hatred and vilification …
…[A]n individual’s actions can be hateful toward a group even if they do not subjectively wish or desire physical harm toward the targeted group. Here, Mr. Roberts may not personally wish harm or hate upon Jewish people though, as I have said, I have limited information about his true motivations. But even if his ultimate purpose was merely to draw attention to events in Gaza, rather than to cause actual harm to Jewish people, he nevertheless intentionally wrote words that were hateful toward Jewish people and deliberately placed those words on a synagogue where they would be encountered by members of the Jewish community. In my view, the inescapable inference is that he intended actions that he knew or foresaw would expose and stimulate hatred against Jewish people.
The court concluded that the crime clearly calls for a sentence that gives paramount consideration to the principles of denunciation and deterrence, typically requiring a significant jail sentence. The fact that this offence involved damage to a religious edifice, coupled with antisemitic hate speech, is highly aggravating.
The court accepted the prosecution’s position that this offence required a jail sentence of six months imprisonment, despite the existence of multiple mitigating factors (guilty plea, some remorse, no prior criminal record, willingness to be involved in restorative activities etc.). It specifically rejected the defence position that “time served” was adequate in the circumstances. The court imposed additional jail time for the uttering threat conviction, followed by two years probation with significant terms.
Relevance of Increased Antisemitism in Canada
The court’s reasons reflected that hate motivation takes on even greater significance in the context of recent events in Canada:
It is open to sentencing courts to take judicial notice of increasing levels of criminal activity when crafting an appropriate sentence: Lacasse, at para 95. In this regard, I take judicial notice of the reality that Canada is currently experiencing a significant increase in antisemitic incidents and crimes. There is a rising tide of antisemitism across the country that cannot be ignored. Jewish people, Jewish communities, and Jewish religious institutions have been subjected to numerous threats and attacks. It has become an almost daily occurrence that synagogues and other Jewish institutions are vandalized and, in some cases, subjected to shootings.
Relevance of Political Motivation
The court also stated that it attached “little significance to Mr. Roberts' political motivation, other than insofar as it provides some context for what might otherwise appear to be an inexplicable hateful act:”
Courts have repeatedly recognized that political motives do not excuse the commission of criminal offences. A person's sincere conviction that a political cause is just does not provide a licence to damage property, threaten others, or otherwise engage in criminal conduct in pursuit of that cause. As recently explained in R v Soranno, 2024 BCCA 230 [Soranno], "judges in Canada are required to apply the law in an independent, unbiased way, and they cannot decrease or increase a sentence depending on whether the political cause of an offender is one they agree with": Soranno at para 56.
I would add that Mr. Roberts was never prohibited from expressing his views about the conflict in Gaza. He was and remains free to express his disagreement with the Israeli government and its actions. Nothing about the offences before me arises from the expression of political views on that topic. The problem is that he chose to express those views by defacing property with a message specifically targeting Jewish people and a Jewish place of worship.
Relevance of Mental Health Issues
The court underscored the potential relevance of mental illness as a mitigating factor in cases that are also, ostensibly, motivated by bias, prejudice or hate. However, it concluded as follows:
Our Court of Appeal has explained that where mental disorder is invoked as a true mitigating consideration that significantly reduces moral culpability, there must be evidence that demonstrates, on a balance of probabilities, that “mental illness caused or contributed to the commission of the offence”: R v Glossop, 2026 BCCA 225, at para 50. In this case, Mr. Roberts has not been diagnosed with a major mental illness, such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. He was not experiencing delusions at the time that prompted his behaviour. While I do not suggest that only delusional disorders would be sufficient, the evidence does not satisfy me that any mental disorder played a role in contributing to the offence.
On the other hand, I readily accept that Mr. Roberts is a person with mental health challenges and that these circumstances help explain aspects of his decision-making and are relevant to a fit and appropriate disposition.
My Analysis
Recently, Public Safety Canada issued its second progress report on the extent to which federal, provincial and territorial governments have met their National Commitments to combat antisemitism. These commitments were made after the 2025 National Forum on Combatting Antisemitism.
At the National Forum, I identified in my verbal presentation and an accompanying Discussion Paper a number of deficiencies on the part of police and prosecutors preventing robust and consistent enforcement of existing laws to combat antisemitic crimes. These included:
a lack of understanding by law enforcement and prosecutors of the full range of criminal law measures available to them – measures since enhanced by passage of Bill C-9 (the Combatting Hate Act).
a lack of understanding of contemporary antisemitism, manifested by attacks on Jews held collectively responsible for Israel’s actions and on those of us who are Zionists – namely, those who support Jewish self-determination in our ancestral lands.
capitulation to unlawful protest activities that interfere with the rights of others, intimidate or harass or support violence and domestic or international terror.
Over the last year, we have seen improvement in how some police services are enforcing Canada’s hate laws. We are witnessing an unprecedented number of charges of public incitement of hatred and wilful promotion of hatred targeting Jews, greater use of intimidation, unlawful assembly, mischief and wearing disguise charges. Multiple charges have been laid by several police services based on the new hate-motivated crime created by Bill C-9.
Recently, terrorism charges were laid against a protest leader for participating in or contributing to the activities of Hamas, a designated terrorist group. Eight accused were charged with hate propaganda offences arising out of their activities at Bathurst and Sheppard in Toronto. A public incitement of hatred charge was also laid in Toronto that named Israelis as the targeted identifiable group. It is often overlooked that Israelis (like everyone else distinguished by their national origin) are entitled to legal protection against hate speech.
Several convictions over the last year have been particularly significant.
In R. v. Amor, the accused was convicted (and sentenced to imprisonment of two years less one day) in Windsor, Ontario for public incitement of hatred against Jews. Public Safety Canada said in its progress report that this represents the first jurisprudential finding in Canada (in accordance with IHRA) that holding Jews collectively responsible for the policies/actions of Israel meets the criminal threshold for hate.
Equally important, Public Safety Canada described Amor as the first judicial finding in Canada where the term “Zionists” was used as a pejorative proxy for Jews, stating “This is particularly important because Ontario is increasingly seeing the use of this term by protestors who try to shield otherwise hateful speech from criminal liability.” This is a point already familiar to those who read our newsletter. The government’s recognition of these illicit efforts is appropriate and will hopefully spur greater attention to this issue.
In R. v. Paulin, the accused pled guilty in North Bay to wilful promotion of hatred and wilful promotion of antisemitism and was sentenced to nine months imprisonment. This was the first conviction relating to Holocaust denial or minimization.
In R. v. Bory, a Brantford jury found the accused guilty of wilful promotion of hatred, advocating genocide and uttering threats. The prosecution is appealing the sentence imposed. This was the first conviction by a jury for advocating genocide against the Jewish people.
In R. v. Althorpe, the accused received a 20-year jail sentence for multiple terrorism offences involving the distribution of hate manifestos worldwide targeting not only Jews but other identifiable groups. Althorpe’s manifestos were proven to have inspired six terror attacks around the world.
I do not wish to overstate this progress. Too often, hate speech targeting Jews and Israelis is mislabelled as protected speech; crimes are excused or sentences mitigated because they are said to be rooted in political protest. Complainants are not told about the proposed dispositions of cases until after the key decisions have been made or until the entire case is over. Cases are withdrawn ostensibly in the public interest in circumstances that required a denunciatory approach. This is particularly so, as the court stated in the Roberts decision, when the justice system must respond to the heightened levels of hate crimes targeting our community.
I also understand why it can be difficult to recognize progress when it takes place – especially when the number of antisemitic hate crimes continues to outpace crimes against other targeted communities by a large margin, and disproportionately so, and when deadly terror plots against Jews continue to be discovered and thwarted by law enforcement, sometimes by the slimmest of margins. Nonetheless, there are at least five encouraging signs that should not be ignored but must be built upon.
Antizionism and the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism
First, Public Safety Canada’s second progress report unequivocally states, as it should, that antisemitism includes antizionism. The report adds that, “while some incidents involve explicit threats, violence or hate speech, others may take the form of conspiracy theories, Holocaust denial, coded language, stereotypes, or the collective blaming of Jewish people."
Second, the progress report also doubles down on the federal government’s commitment to promote and use the International Holocaust Remembrance Association (IHRA) Working Definition of Antisemitism and the Canadian Handbook as an educational tool to support understanding of historical and contemporary manifestations of antisemitism. The report states that the IHRA Working Definition assists governments, educators, law enforcement agencies, and institutions in applying this understanding in practical settings.
Training for Police and Prosecutors
Third, the police interest in and commitment across Canada to training and education on antisemitism and the use of the criminal law to combat it and other forms of hatred has never been greater. ALCCA’s training programs for police and prosecutors have been in high demand. Our training modules were initially approved by the Office of the Special Envoy on Preserving Holocaust Remembrance and Combatting Antisemitism and recently formally endorsed by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. These modules will soon be available to all police services across the country, accompanied, upon request, by individualized training that includes:
Detailed explanations of the full range of legal measures available to police and prosecutors to combat antisemitism and other forms of hatred. This includes training on Bill C-9.
Case scenario training that addresses activities targeting the full range of targeted communities, not only the Jewish community. It also discusses the distinction, poorly understood, between constitutionally protected speech and hate speech.
The IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism and Canadian Handbook, and its use as a non-binding tool to assist law enforcement and prosecutors.
Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center is also very active in providing education to police and prosecutors and many others on the antisemitism experienced historically and currently in Canada and its impact on our community. FSWC also educates on the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism. I am pleased that ALCCA and FSWC work collaboratively on training and education. We are advocating to ensure that other training and education on antisemitism represent best practices.
Jurisprudence
Fourth, several recent decisions, including the Roberts decision summarized earlier, reinforce important themes already incorporated into ALCCA’s training modules:
The recognition that the prevalence of antisemitic hate crimes must inform prosecutorial and judicial decision-making, and the heightened need for sentences that emphasize deterrence and denunciation
The recognition that crimes that take place in the context of political protests focused on Gaza are not immunized from being characterized as hate-motivated crimes when they target Canadian Jews collectively for Israel’s perceived conduct
The recognition that these hate-motivated crimes significantly impact not only their direct victims but our community as a whole – indeed, our society more generally. The court in Roberts relied heavily on community impact statements. ALCCA has curated many of these community impact statements, in partnership with other Jewish and non-Jewish organizations. We are gratified that these statements have figured prominently in judicial reasons for sentence in virtually all of the cases.
In another recent decision in R. v. King, the Ontario Court of Appeal substituted, on appeal, a conviction for intimidation respecting the accused who orchestrated the blocking of roads in Ottawa during the Freedom Convoy. The Court of Appeal made the critically important point, too frequently ignored in relation to anti-Israel protest activity, that the blocking of roads does not constitute peaceful protest but undermines the rule of law. It interferes with the lawful rights of others. The effort to undermine the rule of law should not mitigate the sentence to be imposed but constitute an aggravating factor.
Collaboration
Finally, as ALCCA’s members and subscribers already know, our organization’s rationale is tied closely to the need for collaboration with Jewish and non-Jewish organizations alike. It is encouraging that, in the context of criminal cases, we are seeing a high level of collaboration between organizations, in partnership with ALCCA.
The Canadian Criminal Law Working Group, chaired by ALCCA’s Senior Criminal Counsel, Rochelle Direnfeld, is one of those partnerships. That partnership extends to joint community impact statements, triaging and monitoring of criminal complaints and cases, and representation of complainants. Forty-five organizations formally endorsed ALCCA’s submissions to the House of Commons and Senate committees that examined Bill C-9, incorporating most of the proposed amendments.
Conclusion
I admit that I am perhaps the most optimistic person working in the antisemitism space. Although there is much to be angered or saddened by, we are all capable of making a difference. The criminal law is merely one tool to be used in carefully circumscribed circumstances. Education, respectful dialogue, non-criminal litigation, and allyships with non-Jewish organizations must figure prominently in reversing the poisoned environment being experienced by our community. I will discuss each of these tools in upcoming editorials.
-30-
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.