In the 1976 movie, Network, Academy Award winning actor, Peter Finch plays a veteran news anchorman, Howard Beale. Beale, mentally unbalanced and upset that the network is letting him go, utters his famous on-air tirade, “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore.” At his urging, viewers express their own built-up anger by repeating his mantra.
Not surprisingly, many Canadian Jews are feeling “mad as hell” – as well as frightened by a Canada they barely recognize anymore. They are tired of hearing political figures respond to antisemitic hate crimes with “this is not who we are” or “this is not what Canada stands for.”
Right now, absent effective leadership from government, police, university administrations, and school boards, the community and like-minded Canadians are questioning what it is that Canada does stand for. Beale’s admonition that “I’m not going to take it anymore” also captures the mood of our community and our strongest allies that we cannot remain silent in the face of what has become normalized hatred.
A few illustrations over the past month alone illustrate the depth of the problem. Sadly, I could have chosen many others.
This past Friday, six gunshots were fired at Bais Chaya Mushka Elementary School in North York, representing the third time this year the Jewish girls’ school was targeted by gunfire.
Several days ago, a firebomb was thrown through a window of Congregation Beth Tikvah in Montreal, causing smoke and fire damage to the interior. The same synagogue was targeted by a Molotov cocktail in November 2023. This represented the seventh incident targeting a Montreal Jewish institution in the last 14 months.
Last month, anti-Israel and anti-NATO protests in Montreal turned to riots, as cars were torched, windows of businesses and a convention centre were smashed. That week, a demonstrator was filmed performing a Nazi salute and telling pro-Israelis that “the final solution is coming your way.” Smoke bombs were set off in streets blocked off by demonstrators. Protestors burned Israeli flags and Prime Minister Netanyahu was hung in effigy. Police told a rabbi to leave the scene of a protest he was observing rather than provoke demonstrators by his obvious Jewish identity. A New York Post article described Montreal as North American’s antisemitism capital. Montreal university campuses have also been described as “cesspools of anti-Jewish harassment.”
Last month, at Queen’s University, anti-Israel masked protestors temporarily took over the administration offices, Their signs included, “All the Zionists are Racists” and Glory to our Martyrs” followed by an inverted red triangle, the symbol used by Hamas to target Israelis to be killed and now banned in Germany. At TMU in Toronto, a demonstrator stood guard in one of the school’s public spaces, dressed up to resemble a masked terrorist. And yet, we witnessed Theatre of the Absurd in action when a coalition of advocacy groups denounced the purported over-policing of pro-Palestinian protestors in Ontario (a stunningly false inversion of the facts) and noted the disproportionately low number of charges laid against pro-Israel demonstrators (as if charges should be evenly distributed like lottery tickets regardless of the peaceful nature of virtually all pro-Israel activities).
Data released by the Jewish Medical Association of Ontario (JMAO) showed that more than 80% of doctors in Ontario have faced antisemitism at work, most widely reported in academic spaces and hospitals. Over 30% of Jewish doctors in Ontario are contemplating whether to leave Canada. Jewish doctors have also faced coordinated doxing campaigns and other targeted harassment.
In Toronto, charges were dropped against individuals who disrupted the Giller Prize ceremonies to protest against Israel. Despite allegations that they obtained access to the event through forged documents, and despite interfering with the lawful use and enjoyment of the property where the event was taking place (a criminal mischief), the prosecution dropped the case, celebrated as a vindication of the protestors’ actions, including their description of Israel’s complicity in genocide.
Several weeks ago, the Palestinian Youth Movement announced a fund-raising gala dinner for Gaza. This transnational organization has regularly co-organized events with Samidoun, now a banned terrorist group, and its leadership has been strongly supportive of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PLFP), another banned terrorist group. In August 2021, its Montreal spokesperson tweeted, “Death to America is the first option on our table.”
Guest speakers for the event in Canada included Shatha Mahmoud who tweeted “whenever anyone sends me a photo of their copy of the PFLP [strategy book], my entire heart bursts of my chest”, and Dr. Tarek Loubani, whose charges of vandalizing the constituency office of a London, Ontario politician were dropped, to immediately be followed by Loubani re-vandalizing the office.
An investigative report was released (with little mainstream media attention) on how a coalition of about 40 Wikipedia editors had systematically changed thousands of articles to tilt public opinion against Israel. It is alleged that, acting in concert, these editors executed about 850,000 edits on nearly 10,000 articles on the conflict, subtly shifting the ideological foundation of content relating to Israel, the Palestinians and Middle Eastern politics.
And then there is Bathurst and Sheppard. Every Sunday, pro-Hamas demonstrators at Sheppard and Bathurst in Toronto, protest in the heart of a predominantly Jewish neighborhood and across the road from a peaceful Bring the Hostages Home vigil that has continued well over a year.
Several Sundays ago, the pro-Hamas demonstrators displayed their support for Hamas and its former leader, Yahya Sinwar by reenacting his death in a blood-stained chair, inviting Jews across the street to fly to Amsterdam (in reference to the recent pogrom against Jews there) and displaying the inverted red triangle.
The following Sunday, one of these masked demonstrators wore a cape containing Hamas’s emblem, and a sign that said that “Israel’s only friend is the gharqad tree”, a reference understood by reading Hamas’s founding charter:
“The Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) aspires to realize the promise of Allah, no matter how long it takes. The Prophet …. Says: The hour of judgment shall not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, so that the Jews hide behind trees and stones, and each tree and stone will say: ‘Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him – except for the gharqad tree, for it is the tree of the Jews.”
Since the October 7 massacres, we have seen protestors block roads and intersections with impunity. Chant for the elimination of Israel by any means necessary. Chant that all Zionists (which include 91% of Canadian Jews) are racist, evil and genocidal. Celebrate the activities of designated terrorist groups. Chant their support for terrorist leader Yahya Sinwar (when he was alive), offering him bullets, and then seek to martyr him after he died. Chant “From the River to the Sea – Palestine Shall be Free”, “From Water to Water – Palestine Shall Be Arab,” “From Water to Water, Palestine Shall be Jew-Free.” Call for a global intifada. Burn Israeli, Canadian and American flags.
Robust criticism of Israel, in the same way other countries are criticized, constitutes protected speech, even where such criticism may be regarded as offensive or hopelessly one-sided. But demonizing all Zionists without distinction, and calling for the destruction of Israel, its citizens and supporters by any means necessary, including of course violence, is not protected speech. It is hate speech.
Mayor Olivia Chow addressed the latest shooting at Bais Chaya Mushka by saying, “Enough is enough. Antisemitism and antisemitic attacks have no place in Toronto…. Every single antisemitic act is one too many in Toronto.” Police indicated that they are committed to doing everything they can to find those responsible. One of the previous shootings did result in two arrests.
The inaction that enrages the Jewish community is sometimes misdescribed. It isn’t about government or police indifference to shootings, firebombings and vandalism. It is about the seeming indifference to the hate speech and unlawful protest activities that influence and embolden the shooters, arsonists and vandals. The community sees a lack of commitment by the authorities to properly investigate and prosecute antisemitic hate speech and other offences relating to protests, demonstrations and occupations. As a result, antisemitic hate speech has now been normalized on the streets of Toronto and Montreal. And the Jewish community and society more generally are paying the price.
In the 1990 Keegstra decision, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the constitutionality of the offence criminalizing the wilful promotion of hatred. In doing so, the Chief Justice explained that there are two types of harms caused by hate propaganda: first, there is the harm done to members of the targeted groups, including emotional damage, undermining their human dignity and sense of belonging to the community at large. This might result, for example, in the targeted community avoiding activities with others, and attempting to blend in – a phenomenon now being experienced in schools and on campuses. But the second harm of hate speech is its ability to attract individuals to its cause or gain some credence, resulting in discrimination, and potential violence against the targeted groups.
The Chief Justice wrote those words 34 years ago, well before the exponential growth of antisemitic hate crime in Canada. Shooting up a Jewish girls' school and firebombing a synagogue do not happen in a vacuum. They are inspired by the normalization of hate on our streets which provide motivation for these crimes. This is of course doubly true when the authorities in Toronto and Montreal fail to crack down on unequivocal hate speech and hate-fests, signalling that extremists can largely act with impunity in Canada.
Early in the aftermath of October 7, Montreal anti-Israel demonstrators were led by someone who prayed for the violent eradication of the “Zionist aggressors.” “Allah, count every one of them, and kill them all, and do not exempt even one of them.” No legal consequences or accountability came from it. This signaled, early on, a fundamental misunderstanding of the law and/or a lack of will. These issues persist. Why would extremists not feel emboldened?
The answer is not merely to say “enough is enough” to shootings and firebombings, as they continue to take place unabated. This changes nothing. Nor is the answer to merely condemn each such event as antisemitic. This changes nothing. It reminds me of the outrage that accompanies every mass shooting in the United States, followed by no meaningful action.
The answer, instead, to say “enough is enough” to protests, demonstrations and occupations that include antisemitic hate speech, that are designed to intimidate predominantly Jewish neighborhoods, that illegally block roads and intersections, and that interfere with the lawful use and enjoyment of public and private spaces by others. We cannot accept statements that the fault lies in inadequate laws or that the police are powerless to act. Although I have suggested some improvements to existing laws, the current criminal and municipal laws are more than adequate to enable the authorities to act decisively if they choose to do so.
So why have the authorities in Toronto and Montreal largely failed to do so?
Based on my own observations and interactions with authorities, there are quite a few reasons. A number of these points have been shared with me, as well, by former and current senior police officers, prosecutors, and government officials:
Lack of knowledge as to the law (police) – Officers are generally unfamiliar with the full range of criminal and municipal enforcement measures available to combat hate. To their credit, they welcome training in this area, and some of it has already taken place in Toronto. It should be provided to all police officers expected to deal with hate crime allegations (either as members of the hate crime unit or as persons in command or with seniority at protest scenes). The training should include concrete case scenarios to enable them to consider how to apply the law to hypothetical situations they will likely face. Some of the legal tools available to the police have never been used. In Ontario, this training should also be captured in the province's policing adequacy standards, and form part of a larger initiative to roll it out nationally, through the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.
Lack of knowledge as to the law (prosecutors) – Some prosecutors who have dealt with hate allegations are insufficiently familiar with the existing law and how it can be reasonably applied. The same or similar training and education described above should be provided to all prosecutors who will decide on whether a case will proceed to trial or recommend to the Attorney General whether he should consent to prosecution, where his consent is required.
Lack of knowledge about antisemitism – Officers and prosecutors, with notable exceptions, are generally unfamiliar with antisemitism, its history and modern manifestations. This includes a lack of understanding of what Zionism does and does not mean and how anti-Zionism is used to demonize Jews and Israelis. All police officers, civilian employees and prosecutors should receive antisemitism education. The level of education should depend on the officer’s particular responsibilities. The education should be offered by experts, representative of mainstream Jewish understanding and should be informed, in part, by the IHRA working definition of antisemitism, adopted by Canada and Ontario, and by the recently released handbook prepared by the Government of Canada and Special Envoy Deborah Lyons’ office that provides further guidance on the definition’s use. Education should also refer to the House of Commons Justice and Human Rights Committee’s report on antisemitism, released this month.
In my experience, police and prosecutors frequently mistakenly believe that substituting “Zionist” for “Jew” immunizes protestors from any criminal accountability, regardless of context or circumstances. Again, education can enable them to distinguish between the full latitude to be given to criticism of Israel, and criminalizing speech that unequivocally demonizes all Zionists (and therefore 91% of Jews) and all Israelis without distinction or that calls for their destruction.
Lack of knowledge about the symbols of hate – In a number of instances, the authorities are unaware of the symbols of hate, resulting in uninformed decision-making. Police and prosecutors should have access to expertise on hate symbols and language, extremist ideologies, and terrorist groups operating domestically in Canada, as may be needed. My earlier reference to the significance of the gharqad tree in the Hamas founding charter is an example of important information that would generally not be known to officers on scene or prosecutors.
I also observe that investigations into extremist hate propaganda sometimes (and often should) intersect with terrorism-related investigations. There are some differences across the country as to how terrorism offences are investigated, and there will be different approaches and assessments to how the same events are regarded through two different lenses. The overlap between hate propaganda and terrorism investigations is substantial and requires a high level of coordination. This issue should be examined at the upcoming National Forum on Combatting Antisemitism, recently announced by the federal government.
Disconnect between police and prosecutors – There have been instances in which the police lay charges, and the prosecutors withdraw or stay those same charges, even in the absence of changed circumstances.
For some time, I have advocated for a unit of dedicated hate crime prosecutors, with specialty training, who have sole responsibility for advising the police, if necessary, when these cases arise, for recommending whether cases should proceed, including those that require the Attorney General’s consent, and for the conduct of any prosecution that follows. Although I am aware that some expert prosecutors In Ontario are designated to address hate related criminal allegations, it is unclear to me whether they now have exclusive authority to address hate motivated allegations, which should include not only those relating to hate propaganda, but those that potentially rely on conventional criminal offences to address hate.
The lack of consistency in approach to these cases as between police and prosecutors concerns me, and signals that the relationship is not seamless. Based on my own experience, I know that the withdrawal of charges, after they have been fully investigated, based on conflicting interpretations of the law, undermines police morale and should be avoided through greater coordination.
Hate Crime Unit delays – The public has been told that hate crimes, particularly relating to hate speech, take time, sometimes weeks to investigate. They require legal analysis and intervention. That is true. But in Toronto, some cases are mired in investigations for many months -- even where the evidence is readily available, and the legal options clear. There continue to be cases in the system that relate to events many months ago. The Chief of Police should report to the Board on the delays within the unit and how they will be addressed, as well as the performance and needs of the unit more generally.
Failure to adhere to best practices – Some other Canadian police services (such as in Ottawa) are showing a much better understanding of the tools available to them to address protests, demonstrations and occupations involving hate activities. When charges have been laid (using provisions not utilized to date in Toronto), appropriate steps have also been taken (including bail restrictions) to prevent continued hate activity pending trial.
Misunderstanding of what true de-escalation entails – At the risk of oversimplification, police appear to be content, in both Toronto and Montreal, to separate pro-Hamas and pro-Israeli groups, and prevent or address immediate acts of violence. They appear to see this as a successful “de-escalation” technique, particularly when outnumbered by agitators.
I take no issue with the importance of de-escalation. However, when dealing with extremists and hate activities, de-escalation cannot simply mean non-enforcement or inaction. Non-enforcement or inaction emboldens extremists and explains, in part, heightened criminal activity in Toronto and riots in Montreal.
There are alternatives to both non-enforcement and immediate enforcement. For example, there are policing techniques designed to collect evidence to make deferred arrests, without amplifying tensions on scene.
In my view, the Toronto police’s interpretation of their role in addressing such protests, when hate speech is taking place, shows a lack of appreciation of the intrinsic harm caused by such speech, regardless of whether it involves immediate violence. This interpretation explains, in part, the paucity of charges relating to the content of speech at anti-Israel pro-Hamas protests.
Ministry of Attorney General processes – Three of the four hate propaganda offences that currently exist can only be prosecuted with the personal consent of the Attorney General. Of course, it is critically important to get Ministerial decisions right but the process appears to be a lengthy one at times. Decision-making on hate crime allegations should be prioritized, especially when investigations have taken too long to complete. Deterrence and public safety are undermined when, to take one example, complaints made last spring in uncomplicated matters remain unaddressed.
Lack of Political Will – For many members of the community, the real issue is a lack of political will to prosecute antisemitic hate offences. Even if all the issues I have identified above are solved, there must be the will to act. There must be an understanding that society pays too heavy a price by normalizing hate speech and related activities.
What does the political will to act mean? After all, politicians are not permitted, in law, to direct the day-to-day operations of the police, including what charges should be laid, and against whom. But these limitations miss the point. The day-to-day operations of the police are informed – as they must be – by existing policies set by municipalities and by civilian oversight police service boards.
In Toronto, there is no current policy on policing public order events, that is, protests, demonstrations and occupations. It is being worked on. Its absence is problematic. Recognizing that the development of policy must be accompanied by consultation with stakeholders, the Board must address this policy issue on an urgent basis.
We must start with a policy that demonstrates zero tolerance for antisemitism and other forms of hatred, not simply pay lip service to this fundamental principle. A policing public order policy must signal the expectation that the full range of criminal law and municipal enforcement tools will be used to combat hate on our streets. As well, the police must be accountable when they fail to implement such a policy. I have made submissions to the Toronto Police Service Board as to what such a policy would look like.
However, the need for political will also extends to the municipal government. The Toronto police are a municipal police service. Their approach to policing is also guided by municipal policies, and the city’s overarching strategies to address, among other things, hatred and discrimination. These strategies include the content of and use to be made of municipal bylaws.
Without directing the day-to-day operations of the police, the city provides leadership. Or it doesn’t. In my opinion, the City of Toronto has failed to provide the leadership required in the face of unprecedented antisemitism in our city. Toronto is illustrative of the problem.
I will focus on four areas where its leadership could dramatically change the way antisemitism is responded to in our city.
First, I am uninterested in persuading the City of Toronto to take a position on the rights and wrongs in the Middle East conflict. But the Mayor and City Council could make a huge difference if they not only condemn antisemitism, but unequivocally state that antisemitism includes the demonization of all Jews who are Zionists simply because they are Zionists. This should be uncontroversial. The Mayor and City Council could do so by making two simple statements:
We adopt Recommendation 19 of the House of Commons Justice and Human Rights Committee’s report on antisemitism as equally applicable to the city's government. Recommendation 19 states:
“That the Government of Canada reiterate that, under section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which states that “[e]veryone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of conscience and religion; freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; freedom of peaceful assembly; and freedom of association,” Canadians have the right to be Zionists, and that it is unacceptable in Canadian society to target Zionists or to deny them fair and equitable access to public spaces for the sole reason that they are Zionists.”
Chants that say that All Zionists are evil, racist and/or genocidal constitute hate and will not be tolerated.
Second, the city should modify existing policies on combatting hatred and discrimination, including antisemitism, by recognizing that anti-Zionist rhetoric may rise to the level of hatred or discrimination in circumstances described in the IHRA working definition of antisemitism. Or the city could adopt similar language to that employed in the New York University’s Non-Discrimination and Anti-Harassment policy on discrimination.
For example, the NYU policy includes the following:
Using code words, like “Zionist,” does not eliminate the possibility that your speech violates the Nondiscrimination and Anti-Harassment (“NDAH”) Policy. For many Jewish people, Zionism is a part of their Jewish identity. Speech and conduct that would violate the NDAH if targeting Jewish or Israeli people can also violate the NDAH if directed toward Zionists. For example, excluding Zionists from an open event, calling for the death of Zionists, applying a “no Zionist” litmus test for participation in any NYU activity, using or disseminating tropes, stereotypes, and conspiracies about Zionists (e.g., “Zionists control the media”), demanding a person who is or is perceived to be Jewish or Israeli to state a position on Israel or Zionism, minimizing or denying the Holocaust, or invoking Holocaust imagery or symbols to harass or discriminate.
Expressing views regarding a particular country's policies or practices does not violate University policy, but if conduct that otherwise appears to be based on views about a country’s policies or practices is targeted at or infused with discriminatory comments, such as in the examples above, then it would implicate the NDAH.
Third, the City of Toronto does not require protest organizers to obtain a licence. A municipality is entitled, in a manner consistent with freedom of speech and assembly, to regulate protest activities. It should investigate the creation of a licensing regime for protests. In the alternative, it should utilize the Toronto Municipal Code to require approvals for protest activities that will temporary close city streets and/or intersections. Conditions of approval should address disruptions, damage to or misuse of city property, noise restrictions (in addition to the existing noise bylaw), restrictions on use of flares and similar devices (in addition to the existing bylaw), and the identification of organizers to ensure accountability for non-compliance with the law.
Fourth, the city should create a policy on protests, demonstrations and occupations on city property, informed by the same considerations outlined throughout this opinion. The policy should include a prohibition against protests taking place in close proximity to certain vulnerable locations (otherwise known as bubble legislation).
Conclusion
At the outset, I said that the Jewish community is mad as hell and won’t take it anymore. I believe that is true. The answer is not taking law enforcement into our own hands but insisting that the authorities fulfill their statutory responsibilities to a community in need of protection.
I want the police in Toronto and Montreal – indeed, all Canadian police services – to succeed in addressing public safety and the safety and security of the Jewish community. I and others have attempted to work with police services to accomplish that goal. I have also been candid in describing to Toronto police, the Toronto Police Service Board and governments at all levels what I regard as serious deficiencies in how antisemitic hate activities are currently being policed. The time for a new approach is long overdue. The Jewish community, its allies, and all Canadians of good will are entitled to no less.
In a follow-up editorial, I will outline what the community can do, other than getting angry, and describe some positive developments in the fight against antisemitism.
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.