Correcting the Record: Addressing Misstatements About IHRA and Antisemitism in Canada
- ALCCA Staff
- Nov 27
- 6 min read
Recent testimony before the Senate Standing Committee on Human Rights included inaccurate and misleading statements from witnesses representing or aligned with Independent Jewish Voices (IJV). These statements related to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition of Antisemitism and the current realities of antisemitism in Canada.
ALCCA Chair Mark Sandler provided supplementary submissions to correct these inaccuracies and misstatements. The supplementary submissions also alerted the Senate Committee to the misuse of Anti-Palestinian racism (APR) as a vehicle for demonizing Zionists and discussed the disturbing levels of antisemitic and anti-Western extremism and terror activities in Canada.
Read Mr. Sandler’s full submissions here. This article focuses on responding to the misstatements made by IJV and related witnesses at the November 3, 2025 hearing.
Misstatements at the November 3 Senate Hearing: Setting the Record Straight
Overview
Witnesses representing or aligned with Independent Jewish Voices (IJV) made a number of misstatements or inaccurate claims during their appearance before the Committee. They challenged the use and legitimacy of the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism based on flawed and misleading premises and attempted to minimize the unprecedented levels of existing antisemitism in Canada. Although they represent a fringe element within the Canadian Jewish community, the attention frequently given to them compels an evidence-based response.
Claim: The IHRA definition has been “authoritatively rejected.”
FALSE.
THE FACTS: The IHRA definition has been adopted or endorsed by 43 countries, including Canada, as well as by the European Union, the Organization of American States, and several UN-affiliated bodies. It represents the broadest international consensus on defining antisemitism and has become a practical tool for education, training, and policy development.
Since its adoption in 2019, a number of federal and provincial agencies, municipal governments, and academic institutions have used IHRA:
The definition informs federal training modules and public education efforts through the Canada Anti-Racism Strategy (2024–2028).
Provincial and municipal governments (including Ontario, British Columbia, and New Brunswick) have formally recognized IHRA.
Over thirty Canadian universities reference IHRA in their human rights or EDI frameworks (NECA and IHRA Final, 2024).
Claim: IHRA’s examples were never formally adopted.
FALSE.
THE FACTS: IHRA’s plenary endorsed both the definition and its examples together, describing the latter as illustrations that may serve as guidance. Every country that has since adopted IHRA – including Canada – did so with both components. The suggestion that governments “added” the examples later is false.
Claim: IHRA suppresses criticism of Israel and mischaracterizes Palestinian human rights as antisemitic.
FALSE.
THE FACTS: IHRA explicitly states that “criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”
IHRA also specifies that contemporary antisemitism “could” (not must) include the examples that follow, taking into account the overall context – language designed to prevent automatic or overbroad application.
The assertion that IHRA mischaracterizes the assertion of Palestinian human rights as antisemitic is also false. Criticism of Israel for alleged violations of Palestinian human rights is not only covered by IHRA’s exemption, but the Canadian Handbook explicitly observes that “Zionism is not incompatible with Palestinian self-determination.”
Claim: Antisemitism and anti-Zionism can be fully separated.
FALSE.
THE FACTS: Contemporary antisemitism is often manifested through anti-Zionism, despite claims to the contrary from IJV and others.
To be precise, when referring to anti-Zionists, this discussion does not refer to those who criticize Israel’s conduct, government, or policies. It refers to those who:
call for the elimination of the State of Israel,
deny the right of Jews to self-determination, and
distort the meaning of Zionism to demonize all Zionists without distinction.
It was troubling that one IJV witness previously stated that organizations supporting Israel should be “destroyed” – at best staggeringly inflammatory language – and refused to condemn Samidoun or Hamas, both prohibited in Canada as terror groups.
It is hardly surprising that antisemitic hate crimes have grown exponentially in Canada when, all too often, all Zionists are labelled “evil, genocidal and racist,” Canadian Jews are held collectively responsible for the actions, real or perceived, of a foreign state, and the October 7 atrocities are celebrated, glorified, excused or denied. These points were elaborated on in NECA’s supplementary submissions to the Committee.
Claim: The Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA) supports IJV’s position
FALSE.
THE FACTS: Some of the November 3 witnesses ostensibly expressed support for the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism. The Jerusalem Declaration has not received global or institutional support comparable to IHRA and contains significant flaws. However, it too has been criticized by anti-Zionists because it explicitly recognizes examples of activities that are, on their face, antisemitic although relating to Israel and Palestine:
applying the symbols, images, and negative stereotypes of classical antisemitism to the State of Israel,
holding Jews collectively responsible for Israel’s conduct,
requiring people, because they are Jewish, publicly to condemn Israel or Zionism,
denying the right of Jews in the State of Israel to exist and flourish, collectively and individually, as Jews, in accordance with the principle of equality.
Anti-Zionists reject even the Jerusalem Declaration because it gives legitimacy to Israel’s existence – an intolerable acknowledgement to those who advocate for its elimination.
Claim: Antisemitic hate crime levels are being exaggerated.
FALSE.
THE FACTS: The minimization by witnesses at the Committee’s November 3 hearing as to the nature and extent of antisemitic hate crimes in Canada was troubling. It was inconsistent with law enforcement data from multiple sources and research on hate crimes and other antisemitic activities. It also appeared to contain an element of victim-blaming (i.e., Jews bringing it on themselves by supporting Israel).
It is cold comfort to an Ontario synagogue which was recently vandalized for the tenth time to be told that the Jewish community is being “overpoliced” or that some congregations do not need a security guard.
The number of unequivocally antisemitic hate crimes in Canada is staggeringly high and well-documented.
Claim: IHRA undermines academic freedom.
FALSE.
THE FACTS: The IHRA Working Definition, adopted by Canada in 2019 and reaffirmed in Canada’s Anti-Racism Strategy (2024–2028), is a non-legally binding working definition that should be used by governments, educators, and law enforcement agencies to improve understanding of antisemitism in its modern forms. IHRA is not a law and carries no enforcement mechanism.
The Canadian Handbook provides interpretative guidance that is respectful of freedom of expression and academic freedom and is carefully tailored.
Independent reviews support this. The UK Department for Education Report (2022) confirmed that IHRA “provides clarity and consistency without constraining academic freedom or political expression,” and the United Kingdom’s Parliamentary Task Force on Antisemitism in Higher Education (2023) found “no substantiated cases of IHRA’s adoption leading to suppression of legitimate academic discourse.”
IHRA helps practitioners recognize antisemitic patterns in real-world contexts – such as conspiracy theories, Holocaust denial, and certain double standards applied uniquely to Jews – without imposing penalties or limiting free speech.
Claim: The Canadian Association of University Teachers’ opposition to IHRA reflects a principled stance based on academic freedom.
FALSE.
THE FACTS: The Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) has voiced opposition to IHRA, and several of the November 3 witnesses cited its position with approval. However, CAUT’s credibility on this issue is called into serious question by its own conduct.
CAUT’s 2025 Report on Academic Freedom in Canada after October 7, 2023 purports to defend free expression but presents a one-sided view of academic freedom – minimizing the October 7 atrocities and downplaying hate incidents directed at Jews or pro-Israel academics.
CAUT’s report also redefines academic freedom so broadly that it treats acts of vandalism and harassment as protected “extramural” expression while ignoring or downplaying the growing suppression of Jewish and Zionist voices on campus. In doing so, it undermines the very principles of institutional neutrality and research integrity it claims to uphold.
Most strikingly, CAUT has endorsed the Arab Canadian Lawyers Association’s definition of “anti-Palestinian racism,” which labels anyone as racist who fails to affirm specific Palestinian narratives. This definition, unlike IHRA, contains no contextual safeguards and effectively classifies the vast majority of Canadian Jews as “racist” for supporting Israel’s existence.
The contradiction is glaring: CAUT rejects IHRA because it allegedly restricts speech but embraces a definition that suppresses Jewish self-expression and silences dissenting viewpoints. It is a case study in selective academic freedom – one that perfectly illustrates the misstatements voiced in the November 3 Senate hearing.
Closing
As Canada continues to grapple with rising antisemitism, it is vital that parliamentary committees receive accurate information. Correcting factual inaccuracies presented in public forums supports an informed understanding of antisemitism and strengthens efforts to address it effectively.