Responding to the Senate’s Report on Antisemitism – Part 1: What the Report Failed to Say
- Mark Sandler
- May 7
- 8 min read
Updated: May 8
On April 21, 2026, the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights released its report on antisemitism, entitled “Standing United Against Antisemitism – Protecting Communities and Strengthening Canadian Democracy.” The report details the sharp rise in antisemitism in Canada, as demonstrated in hate crime statistics and the lived experiences of Jews across the country. The Committee ultimately made 22 recommendations. Several recommendations are commendable; some recommendations duplicate prior commitments made or actions taken by the federal government. Part 2 of this editorial will address the recommendations; Part 1 focuses on the report itself.
The Jewish community’s response to the report has varied from strong praise to qualified support to disappointment or anger.
I acknowledge that the report sets out many examples of antisemitism that Canadian Jews have experienced, particularly after October 7, 2023. In this regard, the report cites the evidence of a number of ALCCA organizations and their representatives. The report condemns attacks on Jews and Jewish institutions and denounces those who attempt to hold Canadian Jews collectively responsible for the events taking place in the Middle East.
Nonetheless, the report on the whole is deeply disappointing.
What the report does and does not do:
1. The report declines to recognize the critical role that antizionism plays in demonizing Jews and Israelis.
At the Senate press conference that followed the report’s release, the Committee’s Chair stated that “I think this is part of the crux of how difficult this issue is, and I know that as a committee member, I was not interested in taking a position on Zionism or any other “ism” than standing to support Jewish Canadians to address antisemitism. And that’s where my focus was … it’s not on deciding on the value or not of Zionism.”
The Chair – and the report – miss the key point. Jews are being attacked and delegitimized because they support Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state in their ancestral lands. That is what Zionism means to the vast majority of Jews. Contemporary antisemitism is inextricably tied to antizionism, a movement that denies Israel’s very right to exist. It is unfathomable that a Canadian Senate Committee studying antisemitism effectively takes no position on whether Israel has a right to exist.
Contemporary antisemitism is not merely about holding Canadian Jews collectively responsible for Israel’s alleged conduct. It is also about demonizing everyone, without distinction, who supports Israel’s right to exist.
Compare this report to the House Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights’ earlier report on antisemitism, “Heightened Antisemitism in Canada and How to Confront It.” Chapter 2.2.2 of that report, entitled “Anti-Zionism as the New Antisemitism” includes the following passages (citations omitted):
To understand the link between anti-Zionism and antisemitism, it is critical to begin with a clear understanding of what Zionism actually means. In her testimony, Nicole Nashen, a law student at McGill, offered the following helpful definition: “Zionism should not be controversial. It is simply the belief in Jewish self-determination in our indigenous homeland, and it does not preclude the existence of a Palestinian state too.” Nor, as several witnesses pointed out, does Zionism preclude criticism of Israel’s policies and conduct. In Ms. Nashen’s words: “The right to peaceful protest is a fundamental tenet of democracy, and criticizing the policies and actions of the Israeli government is not inherently antisemitic.” Rather, it is when Israel’s very existence is challenged that the line between legitimate criticism and antisemitism is crossed. As Mr. Sandler explained:
[I]f someone wants to criticize Israel's policies, its practices, the conduct of its government and so on and so forth, that's contemplated by the IHRA definition as not being antisemitic. A democracy should welcome that.
I can tell you as a member of the Jewish community that I've been sharply critical of the Israeli government where it's appropriate. The difference is when one says that all Zionists are racist, all Zionists are evil, and Israel should be wiped off the map. That transcends protected speech, and now we're in the realm of hate speech.
Dr. Cary Kogan, a professor at the University of Ottawa and member of the Network of Engaged Canadian Academics, articulated the boundary this way:
Many on campuses say they're not antisemitic but merely anti-Zionist. You will even hear that a small minority of Jewish students and faculty share this view. Do not be fooled. Political criticism of Israel is absolutely acceptable and appropriate. Spend time in Israel and you will hear similar criticisms. A willingness to engage in criticism is core to Jewish values. However, this is not what we're seeing. Rather, calls for the violent erasure of the only Jewish state in the world and of the long history of Jewish people in this place and claims that Israel is uniquely evil or categorically unfit to determine its own destiny are racist.
…
While recognizing that the views of the Jewish community are not monolithic, the committee heard persuasive evidence and analysis suggesting that anti-Zionism is but a more recent form of antisemitism. It agrees, furthermore, that the IHRA definition is “the best definition on antisemitism available as it captures the shifting nature of this unique and pervasive form of hatred.”
The House Committee Recommendation 19 unequivocally states that “Canadians have the right to be Zionists and 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.”
Although Senate Committee members might contend that their report is consistent with the same principles, combatting antisemitism in an effective way required the Committee to unequivocally say so.
The report summarizes the evidence of witnesses, whether Zionist or antizionist, Jewish mainstream or marginal, often without clarity of where the Committee stands. For example, it quotes a witness who says that the government should make it clear that supporting Zionism or opposing it are equally protected by freedom of speech, followed by the Committee underscoring the importance of upholding Charter values and the rule of law.
However, we have seen too many instances in Canada (identified in my submissions) of opposition to Zionism that clearly crossed the threshold into hate speech which I and others looked to the Committee to specifically condemn. The divergent views within the Committee may explain the often ambivalent messages conveyed by this report.
This apparent tension was particularly manifest when the Committee called a limited number of witnesses,¹ but chose to include those, such as Independent Jewish Voices and Professor Joshua Sealy-Harrington, all of whose evidence was riddled with inaccurate or misleading statements. The Committee heard, for example, from IJV’s Rabbi David Mivasair, who refused to condemn designated terror entities, Hamas or Samidoun, and had previously advocated for the “destruction” of Zionist organizations. That the Senate report cites these witnesses without critical analysis of their more outrageous statements does not inspire confidence in the Committee’s work. (See also Independent Jewish Voices and the Normalization of Antisemitism)
It is also troubling that the report, which purports to document the history of antisemitism up to and including the 20th century, is silent about how and why the antizionist movement was created in the Soviet Union and then weaponized against Jews.
The report justifiably emphasizes the importance of education in combatting antisemitism. But in doing so, it quotes in highlighted text, Independent Jewish Voices’ argument that “antisemitism should never be fought in isolation, nor privileged above other forms of racism and discrimination. It must always be situated within a broader commitment to anti-racism, decolonization, and solidarity among communities facing discrimination…”
Too often, antisemitism education is being given by unrepresentative members of our community who deny the connection between antizionism and antisemitism. Here, the Committee is quoting an organization that enables contemporary antisemitism and that patently contemplates that antisemitism education must include a narrative of decolonization that regards Israel as an illegitimate settler/colonizer.
2. The report fails to mention Anti-Palestinian racism (APR), misused to demonize all Zionists as racist.
The Committee was told that Anti-Palestinian racism is being used as a weapon to demonize all Zionists and Israelis as racist. Its proponents seek to introduce it into all anti-racist strategies. But the definition generally adopted by its proponents (originating with the Arab Canadians Lawyers Association) characterizes anyone who disputes Palestinian narratives about the creation of Israel as racist. It characterizes anyone who fails to acknowledge that Israel, in its entirety, represents occupied lands as a racist. In other words, under the guise of addressing Palestinian discrimination (which would be a worthy objective), it advances a political, racist ideology. Although APR plays a central role in antisemitism in Canada, it is not even mentioned in a report on antisemitism.
3. The report fails to mention radical Islamism as a major source of antisemitism in Canada.
The report refers to the dangers of foreign interference without a single word about the influence within Canada of radical Islamism, a major source of antisemitic hatred and an existential threat to Canadian Jews and Muslims alike, as well as Western society. This critical omission exists despite evidence of pro-terror Islamist incitement on our streets, in public discourse and online, and multiple Islamist-inspired or directed terror attacks thwarted by law enforcement, including an IRGC plot to kill the Honourable Irwin Cotler. See Part IV of the Supplementary Submissions to the Committee by Mark Sandler, Chair, ALCCA, “High Levels of Extremism and Terrorist Activities in Canada,” which outlines the scope of the problem, including the need for the federal government to address the influence of Muslim Brotherhood and its partnerships in Canada and its national security implications.
4. The report treated the debate over the use of the IHRA definition as an exercise in semantics.
The report summarizes the conflicting views expressed about the IHRA definition of antisemitism before concluding that:
The committee wishes to underscore that the various definitions provided to the committee are tools for understanding the phenomenon of antisemitism, not rules to be enforced. Regardless of one’s preferred definition, the underlying reality of antisemitism remains the same, as do the legal standards for hate speech and discrimination.
…
Excessive focus on defining antisemitism can be counterproductive. Definitions, whatever their source, do not protect Jewish people from harassment, violence or exclusion in Canada. While terminology can be important, semantic debates must not distract from the urgent need to effectively address the very real hostility that Jews encounter in Canadian society.
There are scholars who question whether the IHRA definition and illustrative examples adequately prevent suppression of criticism of Israel – even though the definition:
(a) specifically excludes such criticism of Israel of the same type as may be levelled against any other country,
(b) clarifies that it is a non-binding tool only and
(c) states that its illustrative examples may (not must) amount to antisemitism, depending on the circumstances.
Nonetheless, the language may reasonably be the subject of debate. However, the more germane challenge to the IHRA definition and illustrative examples is by those antizionists who reject IHRA precisely because it recognizes Israel’s right to exist. If their view prevails, they succeed in decoupling antizionism and antisemitism, and thereby “writing off” the contemporary antisemitism the Jewish community is experiencing. Contrary to the report, the “underlying reality of antisemitism” will not be assessed in the same way, “regardless of one’s preferred definition.” This is no mere debate in semantics.
See my submissions to the Senate Committee which address many of the issues identified above.
In Part 2 of this analysis, I will examine the Senate Committee’s recommendations. Although some are duplicative of earlier efforts, several are commendable and should be implemented. However, there are some important recommendations that were not made, although raised, that would have materially enhanced the quality of the report.
-30-
Endnotes
1. 42 witnesses were heard over 7 days of hearings. The same Committee’s study on Islamophobia heard 138 witnesses, and travelled to 8 locations within Canada.
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.