The Government of Canada Reaffirms its Commitment to IHRA and the Connection Between Antisemitism and Antizionism
Recently, the Minister of Public Safety, the Honourable Gary Anandasangaree, wrote to the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM) to respond to its concerns about Public Safety Canada’s recent progress report on how governments are meeting their prior commitments to combat antisemitism. The progress report states, as it should have, 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."
The 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.
The Minister’s letter to NCCM reconfirmed the government’s commitment to the IHRA definition of antisemitism and its position that, in accordance with the IHRA definition and illustrative examples, “denying the Jewish people the right to self-determination may, depending on the context, be considered a manifestation of antisemitism.”
Here is what the Minister said in his response to NCCM:
I would like to reassure you that Canada's position has not changed. Canada continues to support open, respectful, and lawful debate on issues related to Israel, Palestine, the Middle East, and international affairs. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition of Antisemitism (or IHRA Definition) explicitly recognizes that criticism of Israel, similar to that levelled against any other country, is not in itself antisemitic.
Canada adopted the IHRA Definition in 2019 as part of Canada’s Anti-Racism Strategy and continues to be used in Canada’s Anti-Racism Strategy (2024-2028). The Canadian Handbook on the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism was published by the Department of Canadian Heritage in 2024 as non-prescriptive guidance for how the IHRA Definition can be practically used.
In the Progress Report, the reference to anti-Zionism reflects the understanding contained within the IHRA Definition and the Canadian Handbook, including recognition that denying the Jewish people the right to self-determination may, depending on the context, be considered a manifestation of antisemitism. The report was not, and is not, intended to suggest that all criticism of Zionism, Israeli government policies, or the State of Israel is antisemitic, nor is it intended to limit or discourage lawful political expression or public debate. (emphasis added.)
The IHRA Definition has informed educational and awareness-building efforts in a variety of sectors, including some law enforcement contexts. Decisions regarding police training and operational practices are often made by individual police services or provincial and territorial authorities as this is under their jurisdiction and the Government of Canada does not direct or oversee all such activities across the country.
The IHRA Definition does not create criminal offences, establish legal prohibitions, or restrict Charter-protected freedoms, including freedom of expression. Rather, it serves as a tool to help identify, understand, and respond to antisemitism and anti-Jewish hatred in its various forms. Its application does not alter existing rights, laws, policies, or protections afforded to Canadians.
I have quoted the Minister’s letter at length because it has been reported in some circles that the Minister retreated from the government’s position on the undoubted connection between antisemitism and antizionism or from its support for the IHRA definition of antisemitism. Indeed, the NCCM circulated as “Breaking News” a social media post featuring the headline: GOVERNMENT OF CANADA CLARIFIES: ANTI-ZIONISM IS NOT ANTI-SEMITISM
This is a seriously inaccurate characterization of what the Minister said. And it highlights, as well, how IHRA’s opponents frequently mischaracterize what it says. As the Minister correctly noted, it explicitly states that criticism of Israel, of the same kind that may be levelled against any country, is not antisemitic. This wasn’t a concession extracted from the Minister. This is what IHRA says. It also explicitly states that its illustrative examples could (not must) constitute antisemitism, taking into account the overall context.
As the Minister noted, again accurately citing IHRA and the Canadian Handbook, denying the Jewish people the right to self-determination may, depending on the context, be considered a manifestation of antisemitism. Zionism, properly understood (and defined in the Canadian Handbook) merely refers to the “belief that the Jewish people have the right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland.”
The Minister indicated that the Canadian government continues to support open, respectful, and lawful debate on issues related to Israel, Palestine, the Middle East, and international affairs.
However, all too frequently, attacks on Jews and Zionists are neither respectful nor lawful. Chanting “All Zionists” are “racist,” “evil,” “genocidal” or “terrorists” demonizes, without distinction, the vast majority of Jews and holds Canadian Jews collectively responsible for events in the Middle East.
Protest leader and agitator Naveed Bahadur’s advice to followers that “You can call Zionists roaches, rats, scum” inevitably incites hatred. Indeed, Public Safety Canada’s progress report acknowledges that protestors in Ontario “are increasingly using the term [Zionist] in an effort to shield otherwise hateful speech from criminal liability.” A recent court case in Windsor confirmed, in the context of a successful hate speech prosecution, that Zionist was being used by the convicted defendant as a pejorative proxy for Jew.
NCCM’s commentary on the Minister’s letter reflects that “many Canadians have lost their jobs for innocuous statements critiquing Israel.” NCCM states that Palestinian Canadians have the right to critique Zionism as a discriminatory ideology, “just as Canadians have every constitutional right to disagree with those who hold that perspective.”
I defend the right of any Canadian, regardless of whether I agree or vehemently disagree with their positions, to make “innocuous statements critiquing Israel,” although NCCM’s perspective on what amounts to “innocuous statements” is highly questionable. A wholesale attack on Zionism as a discriminatory ideology, as opposed to an attack on how it is interpreted by some followers, commonly morphs into the demonization, marginalization and targeting of Zionists (who include the vast majority of Jews) without distinction. This is what contemporary antisemitism looks like.
As already indicated, NCCM states that Canadians have the constitutional right to disagree with anti-Israel critics. Fair enough. However, let’s have a reality check here. Anti-Zionist voices all too frequently have no difficulty attempting to suppress any pro-Israel perspectives or promoting a toxic definition of Anti-Palestinian racism, put forward by the Arab Canadian Lawyers Association, that characterizes everyone as a racist who disputes Palestinian narratives about Israel’s creation or who fails to acknowledge that the entirety of Israel represents occupied lands. So much for respecting diversity of opinion. Anti-Palestinian racism, so defined, is not confined to addressing true anti-Palestinian discrimination, which we should all reject, but to advancing a political agenda under the guise of promoting human rights.
As hate crimes against Jews skyrocket, and plots for mass casualty events are constantly detected and fortunately (to date) thwarted, perhaps NCCM should be more attentive to the hatred being promoted in the name of antizionism, and to that ideology’s role in radicalizing those who engage in violence, intimidation or harassment. And the Jewish community should recognize that, despite serious disagreements with the federal government on foreign policy, the government has recommitted itself to the IHRA definition and Canadian Handbook, including its recognition as to how antisemitism may be manifested by antizionism.
Of course, this commitment represents only one part of the effort needed to combat this hatred. The government must be held accountable by our community and all right-minded Canadians for the steps it takes to combat antisemitism, including antizionism.
-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.