Rempel Garner: Without national identity, integration is impossible and collapse is inevitable.

Always worth reading the Conservative take on immigration policy even when overly partisan and exaggerated in places. Some of her critiques have some merit but are weakened by being overstated. And to ignore broader trends on belonging and pinning everything on the Trudeau government is shallow at best:

…For example, on immigration, the Trudeau Liberals narrowed the age range for mandatory language and knowledge requirements in citizenship applications from 14-64 to 18-54, thus diminishing shared language’s role in Canadian identity for newcomers. They eliminated the in-person citizenship oath requirement. They sought to erase references to practices like female genital mutilation as abhorrent in the citizenship study guide, and in so doing, arguably normalized their importation into Canada. They turned a blind eye to judicial rulings allowing immigration status to factor into sentencing violent criminals, valuing the process of entry into the country over the responsibility associated with citizenship. They allowed Canada’s compassionate asylum system to be abused into a mockery.

The Trudeau Liberals also normalized the practice of the importation of conflicts from newcomer’s countries of origin, rather than primarily encouraging the shedding of these quarrels in favour of a pluralistic, unified Canadian identity rooted in Western democratic values. This phenomenon is best exemplified via the Trudeau government’s tolerance of diasporic lobby groups’ influence in elections and Canadian institutions, while simultaneously turning a blind eye to groups who sought to plant international conflicts and even terrorist principles in Canadian soil. And despite clear evidence of rising foreign interference in elections, the Liberals have yet to implement a foreign agent registry.

The Trudeau Liberals also prioritized cultural and ethnic differences over a shared ethos of equality in hiring and storytelling. For example, they embedded divisive, quasi-racist hiring policies into federal funding for educational institutions. They allowed Canada’s publicly funded national broadcaster to consider abandoning objectivity for racialized narratives, and now allocate news funding based on whether or not outlets sufficiently highlight ethnic, religious, and other group differences.

And rather than enlisting newcomers to help strengthen a cohesive Canadian national identity, such as by constructively addressing the nation’s historic injustices while simultaneously celebrating its positive achievements, the Trudeau Liberals actively erased symbols of shared historic Canadian identity from public view. They redesigned the Canadian passport to replace images of Canadian national heroes like Terry Fox with inert objects like a wheelbarrow. They supported activities that established the Canadian flag as a symbol of shame as opposed to a representation of patriotism. They worked to erase Canada’s founders from places of prominence.

Thus, Canada’s political left has profoundly succeeded in transforming Canada into a post-national no-nation, free from the trappings of a cohesive national identity.

For those who might argue that this is a good thing, they are very wrong. 

What Justin Trudeau overlooked in his Liberal government’s zealous pursuit of post-nationalism is that his father’s multicultural vision could only thrive under robust Western democratic institutions. Without a government prioritizing above all else, especially over partisan ideology, the safeguarding of principles like freedom of speech, secularism, and equality of opportunity, multiculturalism will inevitably destroy a peaceful, democratic pluralism.

The proof is in the pudding. Today in Canada, after decades of post-national, national identity-destroying policies, less than half of Canadian youth say they would fight for the country. This marks a startling shift from generations ago, when Canadians fought for what seemed to be immutable freedoms in the Great Wars. Diasporic conflicts now erupt on Canadian streetshate crimes against ethnic and religious groups have surged, and the once-strong Canadian consensus on immigration is solidly broken.

If Canadians want to reverse the pluralism-destroying course post-nationalism has set us on, everyone, regardless of political stripe, must acknowledge that post-nationalism has eroded Canada’s national identity to point of non-existence. That state of affairs is likely the biggest threat to Canada’s sovereignty today.

History proves this conclusion correct. For a civilization to survive the test of history it needs some sort of cohesive shared identity. Without it, collapse occurs. There’s even examples to be found within Canada’s own evolution in the 20th century. In the early 1900s a Canadian national identity had taken root in spite of high levels of immigration. Forged in the crucibles of battlefields like Vimy Ridge, peoples of many backgrounds fought together as Canadians, united by shared values of democracy, rule of law, bilingualism, and loyalty to the Crown. To be Canadian then was to embrace English or French as a primary language, respect parliamentary institutions, and demonstrate civic duty through collective efforts in war and nation-building. 

Fast forward to today. Our domestic efforts fail to build critical national infrastructure and have allowed our military to atrophy to the point of near non-functionalityOur foreign policy rewards the tactics of terrorist organizations and abandons Western allies in times of crisis. Logic dictates that if the Liberal government continues eroding the Western democratic values that once, but arguably no longer, underpin Canada’s rapidly disappearing pluralistic national identity (freedom of speechfreedom of worship, and equality in the rule of law’s application), then collapse is what should be expected of Canada’s once-vaunted pluralism.

Those looking for remedy from new Liberal Prime Minister Mark Carney will likely be sorely disappointed. Long an adherent to the World Economic Forum’s globalist brand of post-nationalism, the best definition of Canada’s national identity he has mustered is that we’re not the United States. His new “Minister of National Identity” Stephen Guilbeault managed an arguably worse response, offering pithiness like “I won’t stand here and pretend that I can tell you what Canadian identity is or should be,” while arguing there is “no one way to be Canadian.” That neither could define Canadian identity as rooted in shared respect for things like the rule of Western-based law, freedom of speech, freedom to worship, and equality of opportunity is telling.

The reality for Mr. Carney is that his government must reverse the many changes Mr. Trudeau made under his aggressive post-national doctrine to order to rebuild Canada’s national identity, prevent pluralism’s collapse, and retain our sovereignty.

If he fails, the effect will be the same as if he were to tip over Cardiff’s speakers in the National Gallery: a shameful and purposeful squandering of an intricate, delicate masterpiece.

Source: Without national identity, integration is impossible and collapse is inevitable.

ICYMI: Temporary foreign workers may get more flexibility to move jobs as Ottawa eyes changes to program

Not getting much support from worker organizations but policy is always a balance between different stakeholders:

The federal government is exploring changes to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program that would give workers more freedom to move jobs within their industry, rather than have their permits tied to a single employer.

Internal documents from Employment and Social Development Canada – the ministry in charge of the program – detail proposals to introduce a new sector-specific permit for workers in the agricultural and fish processing industries. 

The work permit, issued for two years, would allow workers to move between employers in the same sector as long as they have a new job offer from an employer. Currently, if workers lose their jobs, they also lose their permits.

The ESDC documents consist of six proposals to change aspects of the TFW program, including guidelines related to housing, wages, access to health care and transportation for workers. They were based on feedback from employer associations and labour groups and written over the past year.

The documents were provided to The Globe and Mail from Migrant Rights Network, a national advocacy organization that has long campaigned to abolish the closed work permit system and grant temporary foreign workers a direct path to permanent residency. The organization obtained the documents as part of the government’s consultation process.

On Wednesday, the group released a report criticizing the new federal proposals, characterizing the sector-specific work permits as a cosmetic change that would maintain employer control while creating an illusion of freedom and mobility for workers. The report says this is because employers would still have the ability to blacklist workers who leave their jobs. …

In November, 2024, a parliamentary committee on citizenship and immigration recommended that Ottawa get rid of the closed-work-permit system entirely, and introduce regional or sector-specific work permits that would define sectors broadly, and provide workers with access to a wide range of employers. 

The proposed changes from ESDC appear to build on recommendations from the parliamentary committee and a 2023 report from the United Nations, which branded the TFW program as a “breeding ground for contemporary forms of slavery.”

Beyond the stream-specific work permit, ESDC is proposing a redesigned LMIA process, in which employers obtain a Temporary Foreign Worker Employer Authorization (TFWEA) that they apply for every two years. A TFWEA, according to ESDC documents, will allow an employer to be approved to hire numerous foreign workers every two years, instead of the current system of applying for an LMIA approval each time employers need to fill a position with a foreign worker. “The TFWEA would be refillable, meaning that employers could re-fill a position that a TFW left with a qualified TFW who has a valid stream-specific work permit,” the document states. 

The government is touting the changes as measures that will benefit both workers and employers. The latter group, according to ESDC, would have more flexibility to replace workers. Meanwhile, those who find themselves out of work would be able to start a job more quickly with a new employer. …

Source: Temporary foreign workers may get more flexibility to move jobs as Ottawa eyes changes to program

Trump Administration Releases New Plans to Enforce Birthright Citizenship Order

Good overview:

Current Birthright Citizenship Rules vs. Proposed Changes

While the executive order is not yet in effect, recent documents from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the State Department, and the Social Security Administration (SSA) outline the administration’s intended approach. The proposed strategy involves implementing stricter requirements for parents to obtain U.S. passportsSocial Security numbers (SSNs), and federal benefits for their U.S.-born children.

How It Currently Works

  • A child’s U.S. birth certificate is considered sufficient proof of U.S. citizenship, and parents can present it to the government to get a passport, SSN, and federal benefits for their child.
  • Parents don’t need to prove their own citizenship or immigration status when applying for these documents or benefits on their U.S.-born child’s behalf (except in cases involving foreign diplomats, who aren’t considered under U.S. jurisdiction).

How It Would Work Under the Proposed Plan

  • For any child born in the U.S. after the executive order’s effective date, their U.S. birth certificate alone is not considered sufficient proof of U.S. citizenship, and parents will need to provide additional documentation to obtain a passport, SSN, or federal benefits for their child.
  • At least one parent would need to prove their own citizenship or eligible immigration status when applying for these documents or benefits on their U.S.-born child’s behalf.
  • Federal agencies would verify parental status during or after birth registration.
  • Federal documents recognizing U.S. citizenship are not issued to children whose parents lack qualifying status.

“Ending birthright citizenship by fiat in contravention of several existing court challenges is an effort destined for failure. In the meantime, it will only create chaos and confusion in many households already struggling to navigate our broken immigration system.” — Erik Finch | Director of Global Operations, Boundless Immigration | Former USCIS Officer

Implications for Individuals and Families

Restricted birthright citizenship would have profound consequences on individuals and families:

  • Family Planning and Uncertainty: Legal ambiguities would likely deter many immigrant and mixed-status families from having children in the U.S., leading some to delay or reconsider building their families there.
  • Risk of Statelessness: Children denied citizenship at birth — especially if their parents’ home countries cannot confer nationality — could become stateless, facing lifelong barriers to educationhealthcaretravel, and legal protection.
  • Reduced Access to Services: Even the threat of this policy’s implementation is likely to discourage families from seeking healthcare or essential public services, worsening health and welfare outcomes.
  • Bureaucratic and Legal Challenges: Stricter documentation rules could cause errors, delays, or denials, increasing stress and potential legal limbo for families.

Implications for Employers

Employers that depend on global talent could face serious challenges:

  • Recruitment and Retention: Uncertainty around children’s citizenship may deter skilled foreign professionals from working in or staying in the U.S.
  • HR Complexity and Compliance: Varied state laws could complicate HR, payroll, and benefits administration, requiring greater investment in immigration support for employees and their families.
  • Risk of Discrimination: Increased scrutiny of family and citizenship status raises the risk of accidental anti-discrimination violations and workplace unfairness.
  • Employee Wellbeing and Productivity: Ongoing anxiety about family status can lower morale, productivity, and long-term workforce stability, ultimately impacting company competitiveness.

Broader Social and Economic Implications

Fewer foreign-born residents and their U.S.-citizen children would reduce population diversity, shrink the workforce, and limit innovation. Communities of color — especially Latino families — would be disproportionately affected, deepening existing inequalities and creating long-term disparities. Over time, this could lead to a rise in U.S.-born individuals without legal status or statehood, increasing poverty, exclusion, and instability.

In addition, the proposed policy could expand the undocumented immigrant population, strain the U.S. immigration system, and fuel long-term political tension. Denying birthright citizenship risks alienating immigrant communities, weakening social cohesion, and creating a stateless underclass with limited access to education, jobs, and stability.

Even as a proposal, the policy has already sparked confusion and anxiety, leading some families to avoid essential services and underscoring the urgent need for clear guidance and community support.

Multiple court rulings have blocked the executive order, and it’s unclear if or when the administration’s plans will take effect. However, the government’s ongoing preparations suggests the issue will remain a priority for the Trump administration.


The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and state attorneys general have called the order unconstitutional and vowed to continue fighting it in court. Immigration advocates have reassured families that, for now, children born in the U.S. remain U.S. citizens regardless of their parents’ status, and no immediate action is required.

Source: Trump Administration Releases New Plans to Enforce Birthright Citizenship Order

Éditorial | Qui doit fixer les limites de la liberté d’expression?

Sensible approach rather than simply cancelling:

…Il n’y a pas de place pour le discours haineux dans le début public. Quiconque incite à la haine contre un groupe identifiable est passible d’accusations criminelles. Il existe une exception — et non la moindre — protégeant de poursuites une personne qui a exprimé de bonne foi une opinion sur un sujet religieux ou en se fondant sur un texte religieux auquel il croit. Cette exemption a suscité de vives critiques du chef du Bloc québécois, Yves-François Blanchet, qui n’a pas été en mesure de convaincre Ottawa d’agir pour refermer cette « brèche complaisante ».

Le cadre juridique canadien résiste à la tentation de faire une hiérarchie des droits constitutionnels ; ils sont plutôt en concurrence permanente les uns par rapport aux autres. En matière de liberté d’expression, les tribunaux ont reconnu à maintes reprises que ce droit englobait les idées impopulaires ou offensantes, et les propos qui choquent ou qui dérangent. La barre est très haute pour entrer dans la catégorie du discours haineux.

Peut-être que Sean Feucht a dépassé les limites. Si c’est le cas, il faudra agir aussi contre les rappeurs et les influenceurs masculinistes qui véhiculent les pires clichés misogynes. Il faudra sans doute inspecter les églises, les mosquées et les synagogues pour y débusquer les prêcheurs outranciers qui pourraient cracher contre le vent de la modernité. Il nous faudra une police de la pensée, bien rodée et bien financée, car l’ouvrage ne manquera pas.

Il y avait une autre façon de gérer le dossier de Sean Feucht, en utilisant les outils en place : porter plainte à la police, faire une enquête en bonne et due forme, s’en remettre à la norme du contrôle judiciaire pour séparer ce qui relève de la liberté d’expression et du discours haineux. En se faisant à la fois juges et parties de la situation, les autorités municipales et policières ont foulé ces principes d’une façon dérangeante, qui a plus à voir avec la culture de l’annulation qu’avec la protection des libertés civiles.

Source: Éditorial | Qui doit fixer les limites de la liberté d’expression?

… There is no place for hate speech in the public opening. Anyone who incites hatred against an identifiable group is liable to criminal charges. There is an exception – and not the least – protecting from prosecution a person who has expressed a good faith opinion on a religious subject or based on a religious text in which he believes. This exemption was strongly criticized by the leader of the Bloc Québécois, Yves-François Blanchet, who was unable to convince Ottawa to take action to close this “complacent breach”.

The Canadian legal framework resists the temptation to make a hierarchy of constitutional rights; rather, they are in permanent competition with each other. In terms of freedom of expression, the courts have repeatedly recognized that this right encompasses unpopular or offensive ideas, and remarks that shock or disturb. The bar is very high to enter the category of hate speech.

Maybe Sean Feucht has crossed the line. If this is the case, it will also be necessary to act against rappers and masculinist influencers who convey the worst misogynistic clichés. It will probably be necessary to inspect churches, mosques and synagogues to flush out the outrageous preachers who could spit against the wind of modernity. We will need a police of thought, well-honed and well-funded, because the work will not be lacking.

There was another way to manage Sean Feucht’s case, using the tools in place: file a complaint with the police, make a proper investigation, rely on the norm of judicial control to separate what is freedom of expression and hate speech. By making themselves both judges and parties to the situation, the municipal and police authorities have trampled on these principles in a disturbing way, which has more to do with the culture of annulment than with the protection of civil liberties.

Canadian immigration refusal letters will now come with officers’ notes

Overdue and hopefully will reduce need for time consuming ATIP requests. But to be seen in terms of how informative these notes will be and the degree they satisfy applicants (IRCC also has the largest number of court proceedings):

The Immigration Department has started to include officers’ notes in refusal letters to failed immigration applicants, who have long complained of insufficient information about the reasons they’re refused.

The change is a response to the soaring immigration applications and refusals, which have led to a significant growth in the number of access-to-information requests over the years, clogging up the Access to Information and Privacy system, as it was the only way applicants and counsel could obtain their case notes. 

“As part of our ongoing efforts to improve our services, on July 29, 2025, we started proactively providing officer decision notes along with refusal letters for certain applications,” the department says on its website.

“These notes come from the officer who made the final decision on the application. This change makes it easier for clients to get their personal information on their application. This supports our commitment to delivering our services with greater transparency.”

The change will cover applications for extensions for temporary resident visas (excluding electronic travel authorizations and temporary resident permits), visitor records, study permits and work permits.

The department said that over time, more application types will be added to the list. However, as of now, those who applied using the new version of the department’s online portal won’t benefit from the move. 

“We may decide to exclude certain portions of the notes on a case-by-case basis due to security, privacy or other concerns,” said the department notice.

According to an Information Commissioner of Canada report to the Parliament last year, 78 per cent of federal access-to-information requests were directed to the Immigration Department in 2022-2023, with eight per cent going to the Canada Border Services Agency. The rest were for all other federal government institutions.  

Source: Canadian immigration refusal letters will now come with officers’ notes

Islamophobia envoy says Mideast war is bringing back anti-Muslim tropes from 9/11

Hard not to disagree but she is silent on whether the nature of some of the demonstrations, their locations and the carrying Hamas related symbols likely also has played a role in reinforcing anti-Muslim tropes:

…Elghawaby spoke to The Canadian Press after the sudden retirement this month of Deborah Lyons, Canada’s special envoy on preserving Holocaust remembrance and combating antisemitism.

Lyons left her post early, saying she felt “despair” over of a growing gulf in Canadian society related to violence in the Middle East, and the failure of many Canadians to find common ground against hate.

Elghawaby said that she and Lyons worked to reinforce “the soul of Canada — a Canada where all of us, with all of our diversities, can belong and fulfil our fullest potential and feel safe to do so.”

Elghawaby said she shares Lyons’s fear that Canadians have “a sense of concern about appearing to be, for example, favouring one community over another.”

She said fighting hate means advancing the shared principle that everyone in Canada should feel safe to express their faith or political views without retribution.

“We do have rules and policies, and we have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and we have human-rights codes that should help be our North Star on how we navigate a time of deep social challenge, when it comes to the rise of hate toward any community,” she said.

But Elghawaby pushed back on Lyons’s claim that some Muslims have been uneasy with seeing her work to combat anti-Jewish hate.

Lyons told the Canadian Jewish News that she and Elghawaby tried to work together to counter hate, and had plans to visit provincial education ministers together.

“Neither my community, nor her community, were happy all the time to see us in pictures together,” Lyons said of Elghawaby.

Elghawaby said she’s not aware of Muslims opposing any of her work against anti-Jewish hate.

“I have had no pushback on condemning antisemitism. I have had very good conversations with members of Canadian Jewish communities,” she said.

Elghawaby said many Canadians’ discomfort with confronting the reality on the ground in Gaza is making it impossible to engage in “good faith” dialogue about a path forward.

“Many Canadians of all backgrounds do believe that there is terrible oppression happening in Palestine, that there’s an occupation,” she said. “It’s been described by human rights organizations as apartheid. Genocide scholars, and organizations have called what’s happening now a genocide.

“If we are to have true dialogue, not being able to actually name the situation as it’s being described … by human-rights organizations and experts, it means that it’s a discussion that can’t be had in in fully good faith, because of the effort to almost make invisible or erase what various Canadians are seeing or describing for themselves.”

While Elghawaby said she has no plans to quit before her term ends in February 2027, she acknowledged it’s been “very, very sad and difficult” to see the rise in hate….

Source: Islamophobia envoy says Mideast war is bringing back anti-Muslim tropes from 9/11

Number of US expats to climb throughout 2025

From the citizenship-by-investment marketing firm Aston’s. Still relatively small number for a country with such a large population of millionaires and ultra wealthy:

Number of US expats set to reach 5,000 per year in 2025

The latest analysis from Astons, reveals that the number of US citizens choosing to leave the States is forecast to hit almost 5,000 by the end of this year, marking the highest annual total since 2020.

Astons’ analysis of US Federal Register data* reveals that in 2024 an estimated 4,819 US citizens chose to expatriate themselves and settle in another country.

This marked an annual increase of 47.8%.

Further data shows that following this annual increase, the number of US expats has continued to increase at an incredibly sharp rate, with the first quarter of 2025 recording a rise of 102.4% compared to the final quarter of 2024.

This means that in the first three months of this year alone, an estimated 1,285 US citizens become expatriates.

Based on these recent trends, Astons’ now estimates that by the end of 2025, the total number of US citizens expatriating themselves will reach 4,936 – based on the most conservative of forecasts.

This will be equivalent to an annual increase of 2.4%, and mark the highest number of US citizens leaving America in a single year since 2020, the height of the pandemic.

Senior Consultant for Residency and Citizenship Programs at Astons, Suzanna Uzakova, commented:

“We’re seeing a significant shift in the mindset of affluent Americans who are no longer just looking to invest their money wisely, they’re actively seeking new homes and lifestyles beyond U.S. borders. The rising cost of living, political uncertainty, and a desire for greater personal freedoms are pushing many to explore permanent residency abroad.

Europe is especially attractive thanks to its quality of life, healthcare, and cultural richness. Among all European destinations, Greece has emerged as a standout choice — not just for its beauty, but for its accessible Golden Visa programme, favourable tax incentives, and lifestyle that blends luxury with a much sought-after simplicity.

The investment required to access Greece’s Golden Visa programme starts from just €250,000 provided it goes into real estate – making it one of the most affordable residency-by-investment routes in Europe. For many Americans, Greece offers the perfect balance: EU access, property investment potential, and a relaxed pace of life that feels a world away from the rush back home.”

Data tables and sources
*US expat data sourced from the US IRS (US Federal Register)

Full data tables can be viewed online, here.

Les demandes d’asile au poste frontalier de Lacolle en hausse depuis l’année dernière

Of note:

Le point d’entrée de Saint-Bernard-de-Lacolle, situé tout près du chemin Roxham et de la frontière entre le Québec et les États-Unis, accueille près de 50 % de demandeurs d’asile de plus depuis le début de l’année, comparativement à la même période en 2024, selon les chiffres de l’Agence des services frontaliers du Canada (ASFC). Pour faire face à cette hausse, l’agence fédérale a loué des « locaux supplémentaires » afin de pouvoir « aider au traitement des demandeurs d’asile ».

« En cas d’afflux de demandeurs d’asile nécessitant des locaux supplémentaires, l’ASFC met en place des plans d’urgence en matière d’infrastructure », précise l’agence fédérale dans une déclaration écrite transmise au Devoir.

Selon les chiffres fournis par l’ASFC, 10 724 demandes d’asile ont été reçues au point d’entrée de Saint-Bernard-de-Lacolle entre le 1er janvier et le 27 juillet 2025. Durant la même période en 2024, 5077 demandes d’asile avaient été reçues.

Le mois de juillet 2025 (prenant fin le 27 juillet dans le cadre de la récolte de données) fut le plus occupé, avec 3089 demandes. Pendant la même période en 2024, 613 demandes d’asile avaient été enregistrées. Pour 2025, juillet est suivi du mois d’avril, avec 2733 demandes, contre 670 en 2024.

Les mois de janvier (560) et février (755) 2025 sont les deux seuls mois ayant vu moins de demandes qu’en 2024 (respectivement 818 et 859)…

Source: Les demandes d’asile au poste frontalier de Lacolle en hausse depuis l’année dernière

The Saint-Bernard-de-Lacolle entry point, located very close to Roxham Road and the border between Quebec and the United States, has received nearly 50% more asylum seekers since the beginning of the year, compared to the same period in 2024, according to figures from the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA). To cope with this increase, the federal agency rented “additional premises” in order to be able to “help in the treatment of asylum seekers”.

“In the event of an influx of asylum seekers requiring additional premises, the CBSA is putting in place emergency infrastructure plans,” says the federal agency in a written statement sent to Le Devoir.

According to figures provided by the CBSA, 10,724 asylum applications were received at the Saint-Bernard-de-Lacolle entry point between January 1 and July 27, 2025. During the same period in 2024, 5,077 asylum applications were received.

The month of July 2025 (ending on July 27 as part of the data collection) was the busiest, with 3089 requests. During the same period in 2024, 613 asylum applications were registered. For 2025, July is followed by April, with 2733 applications, compared to 670 in 2024.

The months of January (560) and February (755) 2025 are the only two months with fewer requests than in 2024 (818 and 859 respectively)…

How to improve university EDI policies so they address Jewish identity and antisemitism

Thoughtful reflections and suggestions how EDI policies can be inclusive of Jewish identities:

According to Statistics Canada, police-reported hate crimes against Jews rose by 82 per cent in 2023.

In the months following Oct. 7, 2023 and the subsequent war in Gaza, university campuses across Canada became sites of tension, protest and divisions.

Jewish students and faculty increasingly reported feeling alone, excluded and targeted.

As our research has examined, despite these urgent realities, Jewish identity and antisemitism remain largely invisible in the equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) frameworks of Canadian higher education.

These frameworks are meant to address the ongoing effects of historical and structural marginalization. Emerging from the four designated categories in Canada’s Employment Equity Act, EDI policies in Canadian universities tend to centre race, Indigeneity as well as gender, with limited attention to religious affiliation.

Canadian higher education’s primary EDI focus on racism and decolonization is important, given the history of exclusion and marginalization of Black people, Indigenous Peoples and people of colour in Canada. Yet, this framing inadequately addresses the historical and ongoing antisemitism in Canada.

A cross-university study of EDI policies

To understand this oversight, we conducted a content and discourse analysis of the most recent (at the time of the study) EDI policies and Canada Research Chair EDI documents from 28 Canadian universities.

Our sample included English-speaking research universities of more than 15,000 students and a few smaller universities to ensure regional representation.

We focused on how these documents referred to Jewish identity, antisemitism and related terms, as well as how they situated these within broader EDI discourses. We found that, in most cases, antisemitism and Jewish identity were either completely absent or mentioned only superficially.

Three patterns emerged from our analysis:

1. Antisemitism is marginalized as a systemic issue: Where it appears, antisemitism is generally folded into long lists of forms of discrimination, alongside racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia and other “isms.” Unlike anti-Black racism or Indigenous-based racism, which often have dedicated sections and careful unpacking, antisemitism is rarely examined. While EDI policies can be performative, they still represent institutional commitment and orientation. Not specifically considering antisemitism renders it peripheral and unimportant, even though it remains a pressing issue on campuses.

2. Jewish identity is reduced to religion: When Jewishness is acknowledged in EDI frameworks, it is almost always under the category of religious affiliation, appearing as part of the demographic sections. This framing erases the ethnic and cultural dimensions of Jewish identity and peoplehood and disregards the ways in which many Canadian Jews understand themselves. The lack of understanding of Jewishness as an intersectional identity also erases the experiences of Jews of colour, LGBTQ+ Jews, and Mizrahi and Sephardi Jews.

While some Jews may identify as white, some do not, and even those who benefit from white privilege may still experience antisemitism and exclusion.

The recent scholarly study, “Jews and Israel 2024: A Survey of Canadian Attitudes and Jewish Perceptions” by sociologist Robert Brym, finds that 91 per cent of 414 Jewish respondents in the overall study believe that Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish state — a response Brym believes indicates that the respondent is a Zionist, echoing a broad definition of the term. (Three per cent of Jewish respondents opposed the view that Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish state, and six per cent said they didn’t know).

For most Canadian Jews in the study, Brym writes, “support for the existence of a Jewish state in Israel is a central component of their identity.”

But Zionism presents a challenge for EDI for several reasons. Firstly, Zionism enters into a tension with (mis)conceptions of Jews as non-racialized people within anti-racism discourses.

Secondly, some scholars and activist movements address Zionism largely as a form of settler colonialism.

While debates over the historical sources of Zionism and their political implications are legitimate and evolving, the danger arises when debates shift to embodying and targeting Jews as individuals. Furthermore, “anti-Zionist” discourses, often amplified in student protests, risk flattening the diversity that exists under the Zionist identification.

3. Pairing antisemitism and Islamophobia: In the EDI policies we examined, antisemitism is rhetorically paired with Islamophobia: In nearly every case where antisemitism was mentioned, it was coupled with Islamophobia. This rhetorical symmetry may be driven by institutional anxiety over appearing biased or by attempts to balance political sensitivities. Yet it falsely implies that antisemitism and Islamophobia are similar or are inherently connected.

While intersectional analysis of antisemitism and Islamophobia can yield insight, this pairing functions as an avoidance mechanism and a shortcut.

Failure to name, analyze Jewish identity

The erasure of antisemitism from EDI policies affects how Jewish students and faculty experience campus life. Jews may not be marginalized in the same way as other equity-seeking groups, yet they are still deserving of protection and inclusion.

The EDI principle of listening to lived experiences cannot be applied selectivity. Jewish identity is complex, and framing it narrowly contributes to undercounting Jewish people in institutional data and EDI policies. Simplistic classifications erase differences, silence lived experiences and reinforce assimilation.

By failing to name and analyze Jewish identity and antisemitism, universities leave Jewish members of the academic community without appropriate mechanisms of support. The lack of EDI recognition reflects and reproduces the perceptions of Jews as powerful and privileged, resulting in a paradox: Jewish people are often treated as outside the bounds of EDI, even as antisemitism intensifies.

The question of Jewish connection to Israel or Zionism introduces another layer of complexity that most EDI policies avoid entirely. While criticism of Israeli state policies is not antisemitic, many Jews experience exclusion based on real or perceived Zionist identification. Universities cannot afford to ignore this dynamic, even when it proves uncomfortable or politically fraught.

What needs to change

If Canadian universities are to build truly inclusive campuses, then their EDI frameworks must evolve in both language and structure.

First, antisemitism must be recognized as a form of racism, not merely religious intolerance. This shift would reflect how antisemitism has historically operated and continues to manifest through racialized tropes, conspiracy theories and scapegoating.

Second, institutions must expand their data collection and demographic frameworks to reflect the full dimensions of Jewish identity: religious, ethnic and cultural. Without this inclusion, the understanding of Jewish identity will remain essentialized and unacknowledged.

Third, Jewish voices, including those of Jews of colour, LGBTQ+ Jews and Jews with diverse relationships to Zionism, must be included in EDI consultation processes. These perspectives are critical to understanding how antisemitism intersects with other forms of marginalization.

Fourth, the rhetorical pairing of antisemitism and Islamophobia, while perhaps intended to promote balance, should be replaced with a deep unpacking of both phenomena and their intersections.

Finally, universities must resist the urge to treat difficult conversations as too controversial to include. Complex dialogue should not be a barrier to equity work. The gaps we identified reveal how current EDI frameworks can exclude any group whose identities fall outside established categories.

In a time of polarization and disinformation, universities must model how to hold space for complexity and foster real inclusion.

Source: How to improve university EDI policies so they address Jewish identity and antisemitism

Casey Babb: Canada doesn’t need an antisemitism or Islamophobia czar

Very one sided but one does have to ask whether these special rapporteurs are effective in improving cross community relations or not or just assuaging and reflecting the concerns of their particular groups.

Former antisemitism envoy Lyons and current islamophobia envoy Elghawaby apparently did try some joint events and initiatives but Lyons, in any case, was frustrated that neither group wished to listen to the concerns of the other.

No easy way to have such dialogues but clearly, current approach not effective:

All told, this disconnect between the positions of Canada’s special envoy on preserving Holocaust remembrance and combating antisemitism and its special representative on combating Islamophobia has rendered them not just futile, but problematic. Never in our nation’s history have we so desperately needed moral fortitude, truth tellers and courageous religious and community leaders to come together and face hard truths in unison. Yet for the last two years, this need has been met not just with inefficiencies and obstacles, but what feels like deliberate attempts to undermine relations not just between Jews and Muslims, but between Jews and everyone else.

Canada is at an inflection point — socially, culturally, politically and economically. Major issues could improve in these spheres — or gradually worsen over time as they have been now for many years. It is therefore imperative that every dollar and initiative be spent and developed with prosperity and unity in mind — not the indulgence of endless grievances, the infantilization of entire peoples and the notion that our country can only be unburdened of our sins by relentlessly confirming our guilt.

Step 1 in achieving these things: get rid of useless and divisive positions.

Source: Casey Babb: Canada doesn’t need an antisemitism or Islamophobia czar