What Ontario Can Do Now: A Wishlist to Address Antisemitism
- ALCCA Staff
- 4 days ago
- 11 min read
Priority actions for the Premier and Ontario ministries
Many community members and our allies know that they want their governments (federal, provincial, or municipal) to do more to combat the scourge of antisemitism in Canada, but don’t know precisely what they should be asking each level of government to do.
Many have publicly called out governments for their failure to act, or their failures to act in a timely way, a necessary step to drive change. However, we must also provide governments with concrete, actionable steps they should now take to address pervasive antisemitism. Our advocacy requires no less, especially when governments blame each other for the crisis facing our community and Canadian society.
Today, we focus on the provincial government in Ontario. The Premier, Ministers and MPPs have voiced their support for our community and denounced antisemitism and antizionism. Several MPPs have championed our cause.
But we now need the Province of Ontario to lead the fight against antisemitism and hatred. Not just because it is the right thing to do. But because antisemitism in Ontario has become normalized in our institutions, schools and universities and on our streets. This is not just a Jewish issue. This is a societal issue.
What follows is a wishlist for the Premier and the Ontario government. It provides concrete, detailed, actionable steps the Ontario government can take now – across post-secondary institutions, K–12 education, and public order policing – to address antisemitism effectively, uphold fundamental rights, and ensure that public institutions meet their obligations to keep us safe.
Readers are encouraged to share this wishlist with elected officials, policymakers, and institutional leaders and to bring it to community townhalls and meetings with their elected provincial officials. We will issue similar wishlists for our federal and municipal leaders as well as law enforcement agencies as we mobilize to promote accountability and measurable outcomes.
Colleges & Universities
Ministerial Directives (Colleges and Universities)
Create a Ministerial directive that provides that funding is conditional upon university and college administrations or programs adequately addressing campus antisemitism, as measured against criteria set by the government and informed by the IHRA definition of antisemitism adopted by Canada and Ontario.¹
Create a Ministerial directive to define academic freedom, institutional neutrality, and research integrity in order to affirm that boycott efforts that prohibit relationships with Israeli institutions and academics violate these core values – as do universities making foreign policy statements at the urging of radicalized student or faculty associations.
NOTE: The Province has already mandated that universities develop free speech policies. This directive would explicitly require an academic freedom policy and would name institutional neutrality as an animating principle.
Create a Ministerial directive to prohibit the inclusion of anti-Palestinian racism into university policies. The government should be addressing this issue directly, noting that the Chief Commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission has already confirmed that the existing Human Rights Code is adequate to address any such form of discrimination or hatred. More importantly, Anti-Palestinian racism is defined by its proponents to demonize anyone as a racist who disputes Palestinian narratives on how Israel was created or refuses to acknowledge that Israel is, in its entirety, on occupied land. APR is thereby violative of freedom of speech and academic freedom, and inconsistent with human rights codes.
Create a Ministerial directive to require institutions to update their antidiscrimination and harassment policies to reflect, at a minimum, the following (adapted from NYU):
Using code words, like “Zionist,” does not eliminate the possibility that your speech violates the Policy. For many Jewish people, Zionism is a part of their Jewish identity. Speech and conduct that would violate the policy if targeting Jewish or Israeli people can also violate the policy 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 campus 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.
Institutions should be required to report on whether their institution is applying anti-harassment and anti-discrimination policies consistently, just as they would for other forms of hate. Experience indicates that complaints made by Jewish faculty, students and staff are being summarily dismissed prior to the investigation stage for a range of reasons.
Institutions, including government agencies, should be mandated to implement the IHRA working definition, already adopted by the federal government (as part of Canada’s Anti-Racism Strategy) and by the provincial government, as a non-binding tool to assist institutions to recognize and address antisemitic incidents effectively. This ensures a common, evidence-based understanding of when critique of Israel crosses the line into antisemitic bias, prejudice or hate.
Institutions should be required to commit to implementing educational programs for all students, faculty, and staff about the history of modern (i.e., antizionism) and historical antisemitism, Jewish identity and culture, in partnership with mainstream Jewish organizations. Where there are existing EDI-D/DEI initiatives and professional development training, this education should be included. Jews cannot be excluded as identified victims of racism and discrimination in anti-racism and discrimination strategies.
Institutions should establish clear, easily accessible, and confidential reporting mechanisms for bias incidents, along with transparent processes for investigation and follow-up. If the policies themselves are inappropriate for the complaint or investigation, universities should be mandated to have alternative methods of investigation or resolution, including where the complainant wishes to remain anonymous and that anonymity does not compromise the ability to investigate (e.g. in relation to conduct in public or online which is accessible to investigators, independent of the complainant).
Institutions should be encouraged to seek out and partner with mainstream Jewish organizations, student groups and the broader community (not token groups such as Independent Jewish Voices or the Jewish Faculty Network, which work against the consensus of the community and represent 1% of Canadian Jewish voices but are given disproportionate attention) to create a welcoming and inclusive environment. This includes practical accommodations for religious observances (e.g., avoiding scheduling mandatory events or exams on Jewish holidays) and promoting initiatives that encourage civil dialogue, interfaith understanding, and allyship across diverse groups.
Minister of Education
Mandate province-wide professional development/training for teachers, board members, directors of education, supervisory officers and superintendents on contemporary antisemitism taught or facilitated by mainstream organizations.
Create clear province-wide codes of conduct for students and educators on antisemitism and other forms of hatred or discrimination.
Utilize the IHRA definition of antisemitism as a tool/resource for these professional development/training activities and codes of conduct.
Ensure province-wide robust reporting mechanisms (whether by policy, legislation or directive) for complaints about antisemitic incidents. This should include whistleblower protections, and transparency and accountability respecting actions taken or not taken in relation to such complaints.
Develop a province-wide tool for data collection of non-criminal hate incidents.
Require directors of education to publicly report on a regular basis as to the increased actions taken to combat the rise of antisemitism.
Appoint a dedicated full-time staff member for school boards prominently featured in the Brym Report to lead the effort to combat antisemitism.
Commit to rejecting the introduction of anti-Palestinian racism into strategies developed by Ontario school boards. Address this issue directly, noting that the Chief Commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission has already confirmed that the existing Human Rights Code is adequate to address such discrimination or hatred. Anti-Palestinian racism is defined by its proponents to demonize anyone as a racist who disputes Palestinian narratives on how Israel was created or refuses to acknowledge that Israel is, in its entirety, on occupied land. APR is thereby violative of freedom of speech and academic freedom, and inconsistent with human rights codes.
Recognize the importance of moving forward on mandatory Holocaust education curriculum as soon as possible, particularly given the persistence of Holocaust denial and minimization and the use of Nazi symbols and ideology by young children as confirmed by the Brym report.
Take steps to address the findings of the Brym report as to the number of antisemitic incidents initiated by teachers
Ensure that the K-12 curriculum is free from inappropriate political commentary incompatible with provincial expectations, and that teachers adhere to curriculum.
Of course, we are also interested in the extent to which the Minister will substantively overhaul the existing governance model for public schools.
Minister of Citizenship and Multiculturalism
Commit to rejecting the introduction of anti-Palestinian racism into the Ontario government’s anti-racism strategy and into strategies developed by institutions within the Minister’s jurisdiction. Address this issue directly, noting that the Chief Commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission has already confirmed that the existing Human Rights Code is adequate to address these forms of discrimination or hatred.
Evolve DEI frameworks in both language and structure so that antisemitism is recognized as a form of racism deserving of inclusion in anti-racism strategies.
Expand required data collection and demographic frameworks to reflect the full dimensions of Jewish identity: religious, ethnic and cultural.
Support complementary initiatives that can be taken by the Minister of Colleges and Universities to make funding conditional upon university and college administrations or programs adequately addressing campus antisemitism, as measured against criteria set by the government.
Support a Ministerial directive to outlaw boycott, divestment and sanction programs and end the efforts to compel institutions of learning to take positions incompatible with academic freedom, institutional neutrality and research integrity.
Solicitor General and Attorney General
Insist that police service boards create or update Police Board Policies on How to Police Public Order Events
Police Board policies on policing public order events are necessary – indeed, they are required under provincial legislation. Toronto still has an inadequate policy despite the call for public consultation over one year ago.
Such policies should be created where they don’t exist and updated where they do. They should identify the following elements that are of importance in determining how police respond to specific protests, demonstrations or occupations:
Whether any or all of the protestors are engaged in crimes motivated by hate, bias or prejudice.
The existence of hate activities (already defined in existing police procedures), short of criminality, should also inform which law enforcement responses are appropriate when protests are unlawful for other reasons.
Whether protestors are in violation of provincial offences, such as the Highway Traffic Act, or municipal bylaws, such as the restriction on discharge of fireworks. Police have the powers of municipal bylaw enforcement officers and greater attention should be given to the exercise of these powers as part of a zero tolerance for hate policy;
Whether an event has obtained a permit, when required, or otherwise complied with municipal requirements for the use of public spaces;
Whether a protest, demonstration or occupation interferes with the lawful use and enjoyment of property, both public and private, by others, or improperly excludes others from their entitlement to use and enjoy such property, roads and highways;
Whether a protest, demonstration or occupation is likely to result in damage to or interference with critical infrastructure or may bring about significant public safety, social, economic or environmental consequences to the city;
Whether a protest, demonstration or occupation impacts on the availability of emergency services;
Whether the location chosen by protestors to march or otherwise demonstrate is likely to intimidate or place others at risk, including those targeted or affected by the protests;
Whether the protest appears to be designed to “take over" or “shut down” the city or significant portions of the city;
Whether the protest effectively prevents or excludes others from exercising their freedom of expression;
Whether it is appropriate to create “bubble zones” (subject to legislation) which restrict protests’ proximity to vulnerable or at-risk places, without meaningfully diminishing protected freedom of speech;
Whether it is appropriate to create safety zones for a protest, demonstration or occupation to take place;
Whether protesters, particularly those who may be engaged in hate-motivated crimes, are disguised;
In relation to protests or occupations on private lands, whether they are accompanied by criminal offences;
Whether occupiers are trespassing;
Whether the protest, demonstration or occupation is likely short in duration or expected to extend indefinitely;
Whether non-enforcement or minimal enforcement respecting illegality is likely to embolden participants or like-minded others to engage in similar unlawful conduct;
Whether protest leaders have cooperated with police liaison officers employing de-escalation techniques;
Whether delayed enforcement is likely to contribute to officer safety or the safety of others; and whether delayed enforcement will prevent the identification of alleged offenders wearing a disguise;
Whether the protest is likely to result in violence, destruction of property or place the protestors or others at risk or in fear of physical safety; and
The extent to which the protests or occupations are antithetical to the desired use of traditional lands by the applicable Indigenous government or authority.
Support a Province-wide Strategy on Hate Crimes
In addition to ensuring that police service boards create robust public order policing policies, the province, led by the Attorney General and Solicitor General should support a new province-wide strategy for getting tough on hate-motivated crimes. Regardless of the group targeted, this strategy should include:
Additional human and financial resources provided to hate crime police units in Toronto and across the province;
Mandatory training for dedicated hate crime police officers, public order unit, liaison and related officers (as well as basic training for front-line officers) that addresses prevalent forms of hate, including contemporary antisemitism, the full range of criminal offences available to address hate, and case scenario exercises to ensure that officers understand the distinction between protected and hate speech or activities and the measures available to them;
A dedicated unit of prosecutors, properly resourced and trained, to advise on, and where appropriate, prosecute alleged hate crimes. Their training may take place in conjunction with the police training identified above;
Clear province-wide direction and guidance to law enforcement on the robust use of existing criminal law measures to combat antisemitism and other forms of hate;
As a feature of greater public accountability and transparency, the police services should regularly release, as aggregated data, the number and nature of hate-motivated crimes that are the subject of charges. Greater attention to such charges should also serve as a deterrent to lawlessness;
Provincial bubble legislation should be introduced as soon as possible. This legislation will protect vulnerable or at risk institutions, community centres and places of worship through Charter-compliant limits on protests, demonstrations and occupations;
In accordance with the adoption by Canada and by Ontario of the IHRA definition of antisemitism, the police are to be guided by that definition in determining whether hate related charges should be laid.
A number of these points should be addressed through policing adequacy standards
We commend MPP Michelle Cooper for her leadership in advocating, through her Private Member’s Motion, that the government of Ontario establish a special prosecution unit for hate crimes.
We also commend Councillors Colle and Pasternak for their initiative, adopted by Council, to request the Government of Canada and the Province of Ontario to work with the City of Toronto to establish a combined Federal, Provincial and Municipal law enforcement joint task force to plan for, combat and prevent acts of antisemitic hate and violence directed at Toronto’s Jewish Community.
Police Resources
Additional police resources should be directed to extremist money laundering and financing and Ontario should also advocate for the immediate creation of a national task force on extremist financing and money laundering that includes relevant Ministries, law enforcement, national security, intelligence and counter-terrorism agencies, including but not limited to the OPP, RCMP (and INSET), CSIS, Global Affairs Canada, FINTRAC and CRA to coordinate and prioritize investigations into extremist financing and money laundering.
Consideration should also be given to the role to be played by the Foreign Investment Review Board and other bodies mandated to examine foreign investment in Canada.
Take Action: Who to Contact
Readers are encouraged to share this wishlist and to raise these recommendations directly with Ontario’s elected officials and relevant ministries.
Wishlist link (for copying and referencing in correspondences): https://www.alcca.ca/post/what-ontario-can-do-now-a-wishlist-to-address-antisemitism
Premier of Ontario
Contact the Premier’s Office to urge provincial leadership to implement the actions outlined in this wishlist. Contact the Premier online. Or write him a letter via this address:
Premier of Ontario
Legislative Building
Queen's Park
Toronto ON M7A 1A1
Your Local Member of Provincial Parliament (MPP)
Constituent outreach is one of the most effective ways to advance policy change. Contact your local MPP and ask them to support and advance the recommendations set out in this wishlist. Access the Find My MPP Tool
Minister of Citizenship and Multiculturalism
For issues related to Ontario’s anti-racism strategy, multiculturalism policy, DEI frameworks, demographic data collection, and the treatment of antisemitism within government-wide policies, readers are encouraged to contact the Minister of Citizenship and Multiculturalism regarding the recommendations outlined above. Contact the Minister
Minister of Colleges and Universities
For issues related to post-secondary institutions, including campus antisemitism, academic freedom, and institutional accountability, readers are encouraged to contact the Minister of Colleges and Universities. Contact the Minister
Minister of Education
For issues related to K–12 education, curriculum, educator conduct, reporting mechanisms, and Holocaust education, readers are encouraged to contact the Minister of Education.
Solicitor General and Attorney General of Ontario
For matters related to public order policing, hate-motivated crime, enforcement of existing laws, and police accountability, readers are encouraged to contact the Solicitor General and the Attorney General of Ontario. Contact the Solicitor General or Contact the Attorney General
--
Endnotes
1. It is important to note that a 2025 study showed that approximately 94% of Canadian Jews believe that Jews have the right to self-determination in some part of their ancestral homeland, Israel. Only 1% are antizionist Jews. The demonization of all Zionists without distinction, as opposed to criticism of Israel of the kind levelled against any other country, is antisemitic.