While I was away: Antisemitism and Antizionism

2026/10/14 Leave a comment

Embarrassment of articles and commentary. My selection is by definition selec

Chris Selley: Avi Lewis embraces collective guilt for Jews, but never for Muslims

Valid critique:

…“Indeed, I’m old enough to remember the aftermath of 9/11, when New Democrats — and many others, particularly on the left — admonished us not to do to Muslims precisely what Lewis did to his fellow Jews. (The admonishment was often a bit much, but I fully agreed with the message and still do, no matter what group we’re talking about.)

One very common commentary trope back then was, “Well why can’t Muslims at least apologize for what was done in their name?” It was ugly and un-Canadian, and it rightly got called out. And now, a quarter-century later, Lewis is doing the same thing.

Anyway: By way of follow-up, Lewis bizarrely insisted that he had not held Jews collectively responsible for the wreck of Gaza … which he unambiguously had, including himself among the guilty.  He accused those criticizing him of being “partisan.” Lewis’s fellow travellers insisted, among other things, that Lewis’s critics were acting “in bad faith”— which is, ironically, a very bad-faith argument.

I also have to say I’m intrigued to know what Lewis imagines he or any other Jewish Canadian should have done to stop what he claims is an “ongoing genocide.” Does he have special powers we don’t know about? The anti-Israel rabble isn’t easily placated by empty statements of support and solidary from their politicians. They want Canada to Do Something, or at least be more virulently anti-Israel in its policies and messaging.

“People like Lewis rely on the notion that “criticizing Israel is not the same as criticizing Jews,” which I certainly agree with. But you don’t hear that argument so often nowadays. Protestors seem less and less interested in picking targets that we’re supposed to believe are extra-supportive of Israel. Once you start marching through Jewish-populated neighbourhoods, the argument is laughable. You don’t know who lives there. This is just pure harassment.

Does Lewis realize he’s inviting misery upon himself, for that matter? It’s not hard to imagine the rabble turning on him. They don’t care who he is, or who his father was, or where he sits on the political spectrum. They just want more Canadian politicians to say they hate Israel. And Lewis just made that quit a bit easier.

Lipstadt: Jews targeted by antisemitism need more than statements of sympathy from politicians

Yes, thoughts and prayers without meaningful action…:

… No, what has left me sick and tired are the pious sympathies and sincere regrets issued by government leaders, Prime Ministers (UK, Canada), Mayors (London, Manchester, New York), University presidents (worldwide) and so many others.  Their aides must have a file on their computers which they can expeditiously open when something happens.  Maybe it’s entitled: “Reactions to Attacks on Jews.”  They just need cut and paste from previous declarations.  Last year, in the wake of the Golders Green stabbing, this newspaper put those platitudes on its front page.  I was exhausted just reading them.   [“Our thoughts and prayers are with you”; “An attack on one of us is an attack on all of us”; “We stand with you.” And the one that I find most infuriating: “This hate has no place in our society.”  Has no place? It’s already here… and it’s thriving.]

Do I think leaders should condemn these acts?  Of course.  They must speak out unequivocally and expeditiously and with no contextual hesitations.  But those condemnations must be accompanied by action, including difficult actions, ones that might have political costs. Political leaders must be willing to name the source of these attacks, call them out specifically, and demand that the communities and political enclaves spit out the hate mongers who have taken refuge in their midst.

Leaders must do this even at the risk of losing votes. They must also recognise, as those in the United Kingdom, Canada, and France, among other places, have failed to do, that when their most energetic foreign policy actions are aimed at Israel, when they reward Hamas even when it has made no moves towards peace, the attackers are invigorated.  Despite being warned, as Foreign Secretary Miliband was by Chief Rabbi Mirvis and other Jewish leaders, that this singling out of Israel motivates attackers to harass, attack, and murder Jews worldwide, they ignore the warnings.

Why, my interlocutors ask me, is this happening now? In part because the haters know that there rarely are consequences for attacking Jews.  So please spare me your pious sympathies, sincere regrets, and worn-out protestations. I am not just sick and tired of them, I consider them – and you – to be hypocritical and self-serving.

I – together with so many others – have had enough.

Ambassador (ret.) Deborah E. Lipstadt is the former United States Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism and is currently Distinguished University Professor at Emory University.

Geist: A Definition That Meets the Moment: Federal Government Recognizes Antisemitism Includes Anti-Zionism

Geist has been a regular commentator on antisemitism and anti-zionism from the  Jewish mainstream perspective:

… Public Safety Canada released its summer progress report on the National Commitments to Combat Antisemitism yesterday, days after the Yom Kippur attack on the Sons of Jacob synagogue in Belleville. Most of the report tracks activities related to police training, funding programs, and provincial initiatives. But what makes the report consequential is the government’s clear recognition in a pair of statements that antisemitism includes anti-Zionism. The statements are sure to attract criticism in some quarters, but anti-Zionism is too often thinly veiled antisemitism, as if substituting the word Zionist for Jew renders the unacceptable acceptable. Given the rising antisemitic violence, culminating in this week’s terror attack, combatting antisemitism requires definitions that safeguard the Jewish community while remaining consistent with protecting freedom of expression. The government’s approach, which relies on a definition of antisemitism based on the lived reality of the Jewish community, does just that.

There is little doubt that the report’s references to anti-Zionism are deliberate. Both fall within Pillar One of the report that focuses on understanding antisemitism. The inclusion is how many in the Jewish community understand and experience antisemitism, facing threats that go to their longstanding beliefs and identity as Jews. For identifying antisemitism, it is that experience that matters, not the intent of the speaker. The report first states that the intended outcome of the pillar is that “Institutions across Canada have increased access to tools, guidance, and training to support the recognition, understanding and response to contemporary manifestations of antisemitism, including anti-Zionism, as outlined in the Canadian Handbook on the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism.” The report says the definition and Handbook “will continue to serve as the foundation of the federal government’s engagement with Jewish communities and its work to fight antisemitism.” Second, in explaining why understanding antisemitism is important, it states:

Antisemitism, which includes anti-Zionism, is not always obvious. 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. Recognizing antisemitism consistently is an essential first step toward responding effectively.

The two statements go out of their way to include anti-Zionism in their understanding of antisemitism, which the government rightly notes is essential to an effective response. The report also links antisemitism to national security, stating that “the Government of Canada recognizes that antisemitism can be a matter of national security” and describes antisemitism as “both an indicator and an accelerator of radicalization.” Given the events of the past week, the statements are both critical and self-evident.

Sucharov: Anti-Zionism and antisemitism should not be conflated

While I understand the formal distinctions between antisemitism and antizionism, in practice these have become largely meaningless in demonstrations and commentary. Both sides need to see the others as human and as victims, current and past. And just as debates over Zionism belong not only to Jews, debates over Islamism belong not only to Muslims:

… But I have come to realize that feeling attached to a place should not preclude one from questioning the material effects of a given state’s governing ideology. This shouldn’t be hard for Canadians to understand. Many of Canada’s most patriotic citizens regularly challenge the settler-colonial aspects of our country’s founding ideology. A full-throated call for reconciliation here within our borders is no different than demanding that the State of Israel grant everyone under its rule freedom, dignity and equality.

What’s more, on the very definition of the term Zionism, we are all too often talking past each other. A few years ago, I published the findings of a survey I had recently conducted of American Jews. There, I found that how Zionism is defined has a marked effect on whether respondents identify with the label or not. Specifically, when I presented respondents with a definition of Zionism as “the belief in privileging Jewish rights over non-Jewish rights in Israel,” support for Zionism plummeted. It was 72 per cent when Zionism was defined instead as support for a Jewish and democratic state, but only 10 per cent when I presented that first definition, which is one I know Palestinians have experienced at the hands of Zionism.

Decades after the late Palestinian intellectual, Edward Said, urged us to try to see “Zionism from the standpoint of its victims,” we must realize that debates over Zionism belong not only to Jews.

Geist: Ontario is Done Waiting for Universities to Act on Campus Antisemitism

Enforcement has always been the Achilles heel:

… Nolan Quinn, Ontario’s Minister of Colleges, Universities, Research Excellence, and Security, recently sent an unequivocal message that this isn’t good enough. He issued a revised directive that shifts the emphasis from policies to enforcement. This includes requiring universities to assert authority over student associations and groups, including investigating complaints against them. It also mandates proportionate security measures for campus events and time-and-place restrictions on protests, effectively establishing bubble zones with enforced perimeters around religious and cultural gathering places.

To address concerns about insufficient awareness among students and staff, the directive also requires universities to provide and actively promote training on prevalent forms of hate, developed and delivered with experts trusted by the affected communities. Furthermore, annual reports must now disclose complaint data by category and stage of completion, so universities can no longer hide antisemitism complaints behind a single total.

The directive also addresses the lack of confidence in campus complaints mechanisms. Recent studies, including the CASE report that surveyed 900 Jewish students on campuses across the country and the Benotto report on antisemitism at Toronto Metropolitan University, found that many students did not believe that reporting incidents would result in any action. The province will now require universities to check in with complainants at least every 30 days, until the case is resolved.

Most importantly, the new directive is backed by the threat of real penalties. It expressly puts operating and other provincial funding at risk for non-compliance. Since the prior directive failed to get some Ontario universities’ attention, the possibility of lost revenue might….

Finally, policies and requirements need deadlines. The new directive does not include a deadline for implementation, running the risk that recalcitrant universities will continue to drag their feet on antisemitism.

Tamkin: Mayor Mamdani’s antisemitism strategy doesn’t define antisemitism. That’s a good thing.

Thoughtful commentary on definitions:

Halfway through New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s strategy to combat antisemitism is a page labeled “definitions.” Rather than announce which definition of antisemitism the strategy will use, the page explains why the administration won’t be defining the term.

“Despite antisemitism’s persistent presence throughout history, scholars, community members and community leaders do not agree on certain aspects of what antisemitism is,” it reads. “New York City can and will leverage all of the tools at its disposal to combat antisemitism effectively without needing to adopt a definition for this specific form of hate.”

The strategy instead cites three prominent definitions: the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance or IHRA definition, the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism, and the Nexus Document (in the interest of full disclosure,I am a fellow with the Nexus Task Force, though I was in no way involved in the writing of the definition). The strategy also alludes to other frameworks.

That it does not include a definition will be held up by some as proof that the Mamdani administration doesn’t take antisemitism seriously. In fact, the decision not to  select one definition shows that it is focused more on fixing the problem than prematurely picking just one method to solve it.

We do not need a definition to fight hatred. We do not have similar pushes to define, say, racism or sexism or xenophobia. The report itself makes the point that a definition is not “necessary useful” for the Mayor’s Office to Combat Antisemitism to do its work. “Every crime that may be bias motivated is investigated by the NYPD’s Hate Crimes Task Force consistent with New York State law and applicable criminal statutes. Likewise, allegations of anti-Jewish discrimination reported to the New York City Commission on Human Rights are assessed under the City’s Human Rights Law.”

Moreover, what people who want one definition often mean is that they want antisemitism defined as including anti-Zionism, or that they want the administration in question to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism, which the Mamdani administration revoked when he came into office. The IHRA definition contains examples of antisemitism that are mostly about Israel and that include “Applying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation,” and “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.”

Critics (including me) have argued that the codification or singular embrace of IHRA threatens to restrict speech around Israel and US foreign policy.

Further, Israeli legal scholars Itamar Mann and Lihi Yona have argued that, in addition to potentially chilling speech about Israel, the push to codify or embrace this one definition is a push for a government-sanctioned understanding of what it is to be Jewish. “It restricts the freedom of Jews to define their own identity, limiting the ways in which Jewish beliefs, thought and activism can be expressed,” they wrote last year. It would be inappropriate for the Mamdani administration, or any government administration, to take it upon itself to decide what it means to be Jewish.

And insisting that our understanding of antisemitism always and only adhere to one definition is like insisting that we always and only use a hammer for home renovation. Sometimes that is useful; sometimes that can result in destroying your house.

There are times that IHRA may be useful in thinking through what is and is not antisemitic. But there may be times that it leads to overuse and political abuse of the term “antisemitism.” A person protesting Israel and not any other country may be applying a double standard; on the other hand, they may be holding Israel to account because they are an American taxpayer and Israel is the top recipient of US aid. By pairing IHRA with other definitions and frameworks, those in office are more, not less, informed and empowered to thoroughly think through how they’re tackling antisemitism.

That isn’t to say there’s nothing to criticize about the Mamdani administration’s strategy. Some might note that it’s heavier on principle than it is on specific policy; others, that it does not mention that, though anti-Zionism and protest of Israel are not inherently antisemitic, both can cross over into antisemitic rhetoric, vandalism, and even violence.

But they don’t need a definition to do any of that. And like the Biden administration’s 2023 national strategy on antisemitism (which also declined to pick one single definition), the Mamdani strategy takes a whole of government approach, stressing that Jews are New Yorkers and allowing them to live as full-fledged members of society safely is everyone’s responsibility, and that it will use the tools at its disposal to do that. You could just have a hammer, but why would you want that when you could also have a screwdriver, a wrench, and your own ingenuity and discernment?

Allen: Turning Hate into Empathy

Of the various commentaries by my former colleagues, I find Jon Allen’s the most balanced. His critique of the failure of multiculturalism to build bridges between communities engaged in foreign conflicts is not limited to Isreal/Palestine:

… Understanding the Israeli Palestinian conflict and its antecedents is complicated, but recognizing the death and destruction that it has produced on both sides shouldn’t have been. It is a sad testament to Canada’s strong multicultural traditions and previous examples where Jews, Christian and Muslims grieved with each other, that many mainstream Jewish and Muslim organizations, including clergy, were, for the most part, silent in the face of atrocities that occurred on both sides at the time….

Holding Multiple Truths

It seems clear, therefore, that post October 7, 2023, now three years later, far too many people, both here in Canada and in the region, continue to operate completely in their own lanes and root only for their own team. Many Jews and Arabs alike, wherever they may be, are simply unable to hold multiple truths in their heads at the same time. They are unable to see and empathize with the suffering and history of trauma that both sides have experienced.

But despite what some might honestly believe, this conflict has no simple good guys and bad guys. Israelis and Palestinians each view themselves as victims, each have real existential fears based in their recent histories, each have valid historical narratives that cannot easily be reconciled and, as noted, each are currently experiencing real and severe trauma. Finally, extremists on both sides, whether Hamas terrorists or the far-right government in power in Israel, bear much of the blame for where Israelis and Palestinians find themselves today and how they got here.

While Israelis and Palestinians are stuck in the middle of an ongoing conflict, Jews and Muslims in Canada are not. Perhaps it is time for both sides here to lower the rhetoric, stop the allegations of perfidy one against the other, and just for a moment try to understand the pain and fear that each are experiencing. Then, hopefully, the anti-Semitism, very real or perceived, and the anger of the Muslim community, sometimes justified and sometimes not, can be turned towards some reconciliation and mutual empathy.

October 7 vigils demonstrations 

Lederman: There’s nothing to praise about the Oct. 7 attacks. A Canadian literary journal disagrees

Indeed. But many left-leaning folks made similar mistakes over China (Jan Wong), Che Guevara, the Soviet Union etc, useful or useless idiots depending on one’s opinion:

… Over here in Canada, a new special issue of the online journal The Ex-Puritan looks at these events through a literary lens, with a special “Resistance & Hope” issue, guest-edited by writer Bahar Orang. It features Ms. Orang’s own poem, Flood.

“Praise the paragliders, their gentle ascension, their unbroken morning, and of course their triumphant descension, their feet touching down,” it begins. “Praise October.”

There’s a lot of praise in the poem – for “the fighters, whose courage nourishes the world.” For “their cunning, their patience, the tanks on fire, the enemy fleeing.” Also for missiles, “the recognitions written in blood on each one, the names carved already into your own flesh.”

I found this hard to read. But not nearly as difficult as other reading I’ve done about that day.

There is nothing poetic about “Silenced No More,” a report by the independent Civil Commission on Oct. 7th Crimes by Hamas against Women and Children. The report was published in May. Canada’s Irwin Cotler is named as a principal contributor….

People are justifiably outraged about the sexual assault allegedly committed by seven men at Cornell University, known as the Cornell 7. Which makes the silence about the genital-burning, body-severing, gang-rapes of Oct. 7 even more outrageous. Not just the silence, but the denial. Erasure. Praise, even.

John Ivison: On the eve of pro-Hamas vigils, universities finally seem ready to tackle campus antisemitism

Finally: 

…The idea of national standards is not terrible, as long as they adopt the tougher options. For example, York University removed an anti-Israel encampment almost immediately, while other campuses, such as McGill, tolerated them. They quickly became the focal points for antisemitism.

Yet, as Justice Benotto concluded, while universities cannot resolve the conflict in the Middle East, or forge a consensus over competing historical narratives, they can establish clear behavioural recommendations and protect the rights of all members of the student and academic community.

“What the university can do is ensure that it has clear policies that are consistently enforced to ensure that people are behaving towards one another in the university environment in a way that’s conducive to higher education,” agreed Shack. “Ultimately, Jewish people in this country are going to be driven out of public institutions, and out of society, in a very scary way that we’ve seen in other countries throughout history and that no one would ever think possible in Canada.”

The argument against tighter rules against intimidation on campus is that it will stifle free expression.

But the right to free speech is always subject to boundaries.

Cary Kogan, a professor of psychology at the University of Ottawa who heads the Network of Engaged Canadian Academics, said that there is a sense in some faculties that academic freedom is a kind of “white magic that protects you from anything and everything.”

“But the right to experience and participate in an educational setting as a full member of a democratic society has to be balanced with the rights of academic freedom,” he said.

The solution is not that complicated. Expressly prohibit intimidation, harassment, discrimination and conduct that interferes with the rights of others, and impose disciplinary sanctions on those who broach those rules.

Criticism of Israel’s government is protected expression.

But anti-Zionism —  the libel that the Jewish collective, Israel, rather than the individual Jew, is uniquely evil — is not. And it is the normalization of anti-Zionism that is driving antisemitism in Canada.

Lederman: Are we on the verge of an exodus? In a hate-filled climate, Canadian Jews are weighing their options

Of note:

… In a thread about encountering protesters outside his Yom Kippur service in Toronto (where a former Israeli official was speaking), CBC journalist Neil Herland revealed that he has obtained an Austrian passport – his Holocaust-surviving father was from there – “in case Canada becomes unsafe for me as a Jew.”

Is that my next move: a Polish passport? Go back to Poland? Give the chanters what they wish?

Of course not. I’m not going anywhere. But if you had told me three years ago me that I would even be asking these questions; that I would travel to Oklahoma of all places to see how former Canadian Jews are living there, and where more want to join, I would have said: you’re crazy. Or you’re joking. We’re good at that, joking. And wandering.

“A line of decency has been crossed in our province,” said Ontario Solicitor General Michael Kerzner at the Belleville news conference about the synagogue attack.

Antisemitism is not simply a Jewish problem. It is a global problem, and right now, it is a serious Canadian problem. I knew the fallout from Oct. 7, 2023 would be bad, and it has been – catastrophic for Gazans, first and foremost. But this, in Canada, I did not expect.

I understand the impulse to leave. I don’t cast judgment on anyone trying to carve out better, safer lives for their families. But I’m with Mr. Farber. This country built us and we helped build this country. I’m going to fight for it. Despite the despondency, I hang onto the hope. I am not without a home. This land is my land.

The Missed Opportunity of NAZA 

Have not yet seen NAZA but valid point in terms of the opportunity for greater self-reflection:

… Abraham and Szor should be commended for making art that peels back the skin and shows us our darkest instincts: our ability to dissociate, to replace people with numbers, to ignore inconvenient suffering. They are now paying a high personal price for the film, subject not just to online hate (from the right, of course, but also from those on the left who boycott and reject any art made by Israelis, no matter how critical). Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has threatened to revoke their citizenship, and they will face very real death threats if and when they return to Israel after touring with the film. I’d like to say that the fact that they are displeasing people on both sides means, as the truism goes, that they are getting something right. But I can’t help feeling that they missed an opportunity.

NAZA is discomfiting, but it could have been even more so if it didn’t divert attention to a familiar and (for some) reassuring narrative about a fundamentally genocidal Israel. If Abraham and Szor had forced viewers to actually see themselves in those silhouetted people, to understand them as individuals, the shock of it might be even greater than imagining that the rest of us are made of purer stuff.

Filed under Antisemitism, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Geist: TMU Picks Damage Control Over Fixing the Damage: Behind Its Shameful Response to the Devastating Benotto Report on Campus Antisemitism

2026/08/26 Leave a comment

The contrast is telling:

…A report like this should have sparked immediate action, and it is difficult to believe that findings of this kind involving any other group would have been met with anything less. For example, in November 2020, amid mounting pressure over Egerton Ryerson’s residential schools legacy, TMU established a task force that issued its report within a year (during which time the Ryerson statue was toppled), and the Board of Governors adopted all 22 recommendations immediately (including changing the name of the university to TMU). But when the issue involves Jewish students, TMU’s response is far different. It sat on the report for nearly two weeks, released it with disciplinary findings redacted, and announced a President’s Implementation Task Force that will report back on the report in 2027. That means students arriving on campus in the next few weeks will face another year of antisemitism with the university signalling that there is no urgency to address the issue.

In fact, the task force membership leaves little doubt that the university intends to reject many of the report’s recommendations. Nearly half of the committee’s members have signed public petitions opposing some of the recommendations, including the adoption of the IHRA definition, and rejecting the report’s findings on the links between anti-Zionism and antisemitism. Simply put, delaying the implementation of the Benotto report and stacking a new task force with opponents of its recommendations is precisely what you do when you don’t take the antisemitism report seriously and want to kill its recommendations. As a result, TMU is home to two problems: its antisemitism problem is now the most thoroughly documented in the country, and its leadership is more interested in damage control than fixing the damage. If the university is unable or unwilling to establish a safe environment for all of its students and faculty, it falls to the Ontario government, which already requires universities to implement policies to address and combat hate, including antisemitism, to ensure that it does.

Source: TMU Picks Damage Control Over Fixing the Damage: Behind Its Shameful Response to the Devastating Benotto Report on Campus Antisemitism

From the Globe editorial:

….As both reports show, Jews who don’t renounce Israel’s existence are treated as outcasts: “The redefinition of Zionism to incorporate genocide and the insistence that anyone who fails to actively support anti-Zionism is likewise culpable,” Ms. Benotto writes, “have contributed to an environment that has enabled antisemitism to flourish.” A Jewish lecturer says it’s “incredibly unsafe” to wear a Star of David, and even organizing a non-political Sabbath dinner requires a risk assessment, Ms. Benotto reported.

This is not about isolated episodes. It is about a poisoned environment. Our learning institutions should consistently stand up for the values they claim to represent. As Ms. Benotto documents, TMU already has policies against violence, threats of violence, and discriminatory, intimidating or harassing words and conduct. Every school should, as she urges for TMU, “establish clear behavioural expectations, protect the rights of all members of the community, and enforce its policies consistently, transparently, and predictably.”

It hardly seems too much to ask. Yet TMU has not responded to the eight recommendations of the Benotto report, instead announcing an “implementation committee” that has until next March to come up with a “blueprint.”

The report – again, commissioned by TMU – already lays out a course of action. No blueprint is needed, just a spine.

Source: The betrayal of Jewish students needs to end

Filed under Antisemitism, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Geist: Denial, Hate, and Silence: The Three Responses to Overwhelming Evidence of Canada’s Campus Antisemitism Crisis

2026/08/13 Leave a comment

Valid:

…The first response is denial, with some groups claiming the survey is unrepresentative, its methodology flawed, and that it conflates Jewish identity with Zionism. The objections do not withstand scrutiny. The survey’s community-recruited, non-probability approach is the standard methodology for researching discrimination against small, hard-to-reach populations. Indeed, it served as the methodology for surveys on 2SLGBTQ youth, urban Indigenous health studies, anti-Asian racism data, and trans communities. Governments have used the resulting data for policy development and few demanded probability samples before treating that research as a basis for action. Moreover, while relying on the IHRA definition is precisely what a study backed by a government that has itself adopted that definition should do, the findings do not depend on definitions. Set aside every Israel and Zionism-related item in the survey and the data still shows 56% of Jewish students witnessing discriminatory treatment of Jews as Jews, 54% witnessing intimidation or threats, 22% witnessing physical violence, and 45% regularly encountering Holocaust denial. No definition is required to classify “Hitler should have finished you off”, “the Holocaust did not really happen”, or “Jews, Jews, you cannot hide.” Critics themselves concede that the report documents “unmistakable antisemitism,” but are left to quibble at the edges by debating definitions rather than confronting what the data shows.

The second response is hate. Once again, my posts about the survey attracted replies on my social media that read like a live enactment of the report’s findings, validating a national dataset in real time. The survey found that 45% of Jewish students regularly encounter Holocaust denial or distortion; the replies included the claim that the Holocaust is “fake, just exaggerated slop to position yourselves as victims.” The survey found that more than 70% of Jewish students report harm to their mental health; the replies mocked that finding with comments about “mental illnesses suffered by Ashkenazi jews” lying “in the genes.” The survey documented students hiding their identity and considering leaving their universities; the replies suggested Jewish students “should transfer to Tel Aviv” and dismissed them as “professional victims.”

The most important response, however, was the non-response or silence from those who must act. One week after a government-backed report found that 70% of Jewish students believe their universities do not take antisemitism seriously, I could find no responses from university presidents, Universities Canada or other organizations. Political leaders have been little better: Culture Minister Marc Miller called the findings “alarming”, but a broader response or sense of urgency from governments has been missing. The Advisory Council on Rights, Equality and Inclusion, which serves as the government’s replacement for the Special Envoy on Preserving Holocaust Remembrance and Combatting Antisemitism (who commissioned the CASE report), continues to signal that it is not a serious effort to combat antisemitism. At the report’s release, Council member and former senator Marc Gold read the Minister’s statement, declined to respond to criticism of the government’s approach, and described the council’s progress as: “we’re getting to know each other and we are providing input into a work plan.” The house is on fire and they are getting to know each other.

Simply put, silence is not neutral, as it confirms students’ worst fears and risks making them even more skeptical about reporting their experiences. The NECA recommendations released alongside the report provide a ready-made starting point, beginning with enforcing the policies universities already have. With the fall term just weeks away, no university leader can claim to be unaware of what returning Jewish students face.

The report’s findings were overwhelming, and so is what the past week has revealed. The deniers cannot bring themselves to accept what the data shows, the haters keep demonstrating it, and the institutions with the power to act have said nothing at all. It is time for a fourth response: action.

Source: Denial, Hate, and Silence: The Three Responses to Overwhelming Evidence of Canada’s Campus Antisemitism Crisis

Filed under Antisemitism, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

ICYMI – Geist: Canada’s Campus Antisemitism Crisis: National Survey Finds Antisemitism Nearly Everywhere and University Responses Nowhere

2026/08/11 Leave a comment

Understandably, this report has received considerable coverage and commentary. One of the better commentaries IMO:

…The report itself stops short of formal recommendations, concluding instead that academic leadership must take greater responsibility and that the findings should be used immediately by leadership in higher education institutions to examine their policies and practices. The recommendations came separately from the Network of Engaged Canadian Academics (NECA), a non-partisan group of more than 400 Jewish and non-Jewish academics from 54 institutions of which I am a member, which released ten recommendations alongside the report. The list will sound familiar to anyone who has followed this issue: applying existing policies to protect students targeted for any aspect of their Jewish identity including Zionism, institutional neutrality policies that apply across the institution, adoption of the IHRA definition of antisemitism together with the Canadian Handbook, a centralized and transparent incident reporting system with annual campus climate assessments, and a special advisor on antisemitism on every campus.

What has been missing is not knowledge of what to do, but the will to do it. Indeed, the release carries its own illustration of the problem: the survey was commissioned by former Special Envoy Deborah Lyons before the government eliminated her role, leaving the government to release the most comprehensive evidence yet of a systemic antisemitism problem on campus just months after creating a leadership void that has yet to be filled and a new anti-hate council that has yet to act.

I have been an academic for nearly 30 years, working in an environment where inclusion and safe spaces for all students to be their best were unquestioned priorities. Backed by a supportive University president, dean, and advisor on antisemitism, I still believe that to be the case. But this survey confirms that the vast majority of Jewish students encounter antisemitism on campus. If this were any other group — 95% of Indigenous students reporting discrimination or 70% of BIPOC students reporting mental health harm — this would be viewed as a major crisis requiring immediate action. But when 95% of Jewish students report encountering antisemitism, 70% report harm to their mental health, a majority hide their identity, and students report threats of violence and Holocaust denial, the response from some quarters is to ignore or take issue with the survey data.

The bottom line is that hundreds of Jewish students from campuses across the country report antisemitic conduct on campus that is stunning in scope and harm. Every university president in Canada should be investigating how much of the data reflects their own campus experience and committing to change through the NECA recommendations. Every faculty member should be examining whether the discriminatory conduct occurs in their class. And every faculty and student union should be working to fully protect their Jewish members. Years of willingness to tolerate or excuse the antisemitic reality – a Jewish exception – suggests this is unlikely to happen. But now no one can say they didn’t know what was happening.

Source: Canada’s Campus Antisemitism Crisis: National Survey Finds Antisemitism Nearly Everywhere and University Responses Nowhere

Filed under Antisemitism, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

While I was away: Antisemitism

2026/06/08 Leave a comment

Wide range of commentary on antisemitism and conflation of antisemitism and anti-Zionism, and the mixed reaction to PM Carney’s address to Jewish leaders. Making an address outside of the House of Commons never works, former PM Mulroney learned that with Italian Canadians, former PM Harper learned that with Sikh Canadians and PM Carney repeats those mistakes with Jewish Canadians.

And Carney should have been clearer on the extreme forms of anti-Zionism on display in Canadian cities and institutions that go far beyond legitimate criticism of the Israeli government policies and actions, particularly under the current Netanyahu government with extremist Jewish ministers in Cabinet and government:

Canada is being tested by a crisis of antisemitism, Carney says

… Mr. Carney’s speech, his first to focus on the topic of antisemitism, was met with polite praise from those in the audience, which included MPs, local and provincial politicians and religious leaders. He had faced pressure to speak in person directly about the issue.

But Jewish leaders criticized him for not addressing his government’s foreign policy toward Israel, which has included condemning the country’s conduct in Gaza and recognizing a Palestinian state – moves that some in the Jewish community have said further inflamed domestic tensions.

“When Canadian elected leaders publicly condemn Israel, the world’s only Jewish state, Jewish Canadians pay the price,” Holy Blossom’s Rabbi Yael Splansky said in recorded remarks played before Mr. Carney began speaking.

Globe editorial: The missing words in Mark Carney’s antisemitism speech

…What should he have said? That the problem is antizionism, a complete, anything-goes rejection of, and demonizing of, Israel’s existence. And that antizionism is manifesting itself on Canada’s streets and university campuses, in a complete, anything-goes rejection, and demonizing of, Jews.

This is where the Prime Minister’s courage failed him. Taking on the antizionists – the core of the problem – was not something this Liberal prime minister was prepared to do. He went into a synagogue before an invitation-only audience of 170 Jewish leaders and did not meet the moment. He didn’t mention Israel, despite his prepared remarks doing so – once. He was unable or unwilling to articulate what is behind the “scourge of antisemitism” that he rightly condemned….

Geist: Why Mark Carney’s Antisemitism Speech Did Not Meet the Moment

…Naming the crisis is only step one however, and on the parts that matter most, the speech missed the mark. Begin with where he chose to deliver it. Carney told his audience he was speaking in a synagogue but the address was for all Canadians. But a speech for all Canadians that frames antisemitism as a national problem belongs on the floor of the House of Commons, where Canadians are represented and where all MPs – whether or not they are Jewish or represent ridings with large Jewish populations – would have had to sit together and hear the need for the country to take responsibility for antisemitism. I’m happy to see Evan Solomon, Leslie Church, Anthony Housefather, Rachel Bendayan, and Ben Carr in attendance. But we need all MPs, particularly those who have said little about antisemitism since October 7th, to see this as their issue too. MPs from all perspectives sitting side-by-side only happens in the House of Commons, and it did not happen yesterday (as one rabbi noted, a speech in a synagogue was needed months ago in the immediate aftermath of the shootings).

Chris Selley: At a synagogue, Carney tells the wrong people to abandon their ethnic rivalries

…We’re lucky, and we have done a lot of things right, but we’re not special: You can’t ask people to bring their faith, culture, language and world view with them to Canada but leave any rivalries or grievances behind. That’s just not human nature. This insistence on combating dire situations with myth-making will eventually be a large part of the Liberals’ undoing. In the meantime, on the issue of antisemitism specifically, Carney’s government seems to have almost nothing to offer. And he offered it at a synagogue.

John Ivison: The crucial words Carney wouldn’t speak in his antisemitism speech

For my part, I felt that it was an unusually eloquent and heartfelt speech but that it fell short for a different reason: it failed to be honest about the cause of the corruption in the body politic.

“We welcome the peoples of the world, in all their diversity and splendour. We don’t welcome the world’s hatreds,” Carney said. “When you come to Canada, you bring your faith, your traditions, your language, your story but you leave behind your animosities.”

But that is not happening. Islamists arrive and are given permission to give vent to their ancient loathing by anarcho-socialists, and their naive campus enablers, who love Palestine but hate Canada, and despise Jews most of all.

The Montreal4Palestine group continues to defend the mock hanging of a man wearing a kippah last month, saying it was directed at a specific political figure (Israeli politician Itamar Ben-Gvir), not at Jews. Will it take a real lynching to convince the waverers that this is not legitimate freedom of expression?

Given the demographics, it is clear why the prime minister was ambiguous in laying the blame.

But, as Elie Wiesel learned in the death camps, neutrality helps the oppressor and silence encourages the tormentor.

The malignancy will continue to metastasize if we keep obscuring its source.

Tasha Kheiriddin: Mark Carney in denial over what’s behind antisemitism

…Citizenship is a two-way street. Newcomers have a responsibility to respect the laws and customs of the place they choose to call home. When they not only fail to embrace Canada’s basic values, but repudiate them, there must be consequences: fines, arrests, deprivation of liberty, and in the case of non-citizens, removal from the country. Let me be clear.

That’s what Carney should have said. Instead, he listed his government’s actions to date, including Bill C-9, the Combating Hate Law. He announced the creation of a Ministerial Advisory Council on Rights, Equality, and Inclusion, one of whose jobs will be to study antisemitism. It includes one lone Jewish member, former senator Marc Gold, and features Omar Alghabra, an MP who has been photographed numerous times in the company of Islamic extremists.

This is BS. Canada doesn’t need another council to study a problem that Carney described quite fully in his remarks. Canadian Jews need to feel safe in their homes and communities. And all of us need an end to denial, inaction and the toleration of hate.

Lederman: The Prime Minister addressed Canada’s antisemitism problem. Almost nobody was satisfied

… Canada’s Jewish community, like any community, is not homogenous. There are always going to be differences of opinion. Some of the criticism is fair, but the knee-jerk sneering at the Prime Minister’s acknowledgment of Jewish Canadian pain – and his call for the rest of the country to step up – is disappointing and unproductive. The speech was not a hollow gesture, but a meaningful promise to act.

The speech, in fact, was the action. Or an action, at least.

“No Jewish Canadian should ever have to wonder whether the government sees this clearly,” said AI Minister Evan Solomon, who is Jewish. “We do. We see it, we acknowledge it, we are acting on it.”

Canada’s leader is asking the country to come together to oppose antisemitism. This should be commended, not condemned. The response to that plea tells the story of a country divided.

Stephens: Hatred of Israel and the Degradation of the West

…How is it that hatred of one country can wind up doing more damage to the haters than the hated?

All prejudice, mindless or deliberate, is mind-warping; obsessive prejudice, of the kind Israel disproportionately attracts, is even more so. There are today millions of people around the world who, with considerable media and academic assistance, have convinced themselves that the major, if not sole, cause of injustice in the Middle East and even the world is Israel’s occupation of parts of the West Bank and Gaza.

As a result, this obsession has contributed to the relative neglect of the region’s other fundamental problems, above all the abiding grip of authoritarian politics in places like Cairo and Ankara and totalitarian religious fundamentalism in Gaza and Tehran. When was the last time you heard of an American campus protest against the treatment of Kurds by Turkey (a NATO ally and longtime beneficiary of U.S. security guarantees), or the genocide in Sudan?

Why is this year’s arts biennale in Venice being roiled by the inclusion of Israel, but not of China? Why has the recent report detailing the extensive documentation of systematic use of rape and sexual torture by Hamas and its collaborators received little attention?

These aren’t just questions of hypocrisy or double standards. They are evidence of minds that have lost the capacity to think dispassionately and critically. What we should really be worried about isn’t the future of Israel; it’s the fate of the West.

Moral judgments should be made about Israel according to the same standards by which we judge other countries faced with similar circumstances. It’s when Israel is demanded to be a saint — and then, as it invariably falls short, is damned as the worst sinner — that we lose our sense of perspective and proportion.

Jack Mintz: Australia’s response to antisemitism puts Canada to shame

…Dave Rich, a leading British academic on antisemitism, concluded that labelling Zionism as a form of western colonialism is used to demonize, exclude and attack Jewish people and supporters of Israel. He also argued that claiming that Israelis are just like the Nazis in practising genocide undermines the importance of the Holocaust in defining antisemitism.

This all-encompassing approach in Australia should be carefully reviewed by the Carney government. It is not just a matter of a government’s responsibility towards security. It is also an issue of social cohesion.

Like Australia, intimidating demonstrations that dehumanize Jews has led to an increase in antisemitic attacks in Canada. Reported and unreported antisemitic acts are frequent, totalling 567 per month in 2025 alone, according to B’nai Brith Canada’s annual audit of antisemitic incidents.

The Carney government should not wait for a Bondi-like terror incident before acting to curb antisemitism. So far, its effort is deficient.

Lederman: The San Diego mosque shooting is a profoundly 2026 tragedy

….What drives a 17- and 18-year-old to this kind of hatred? To end people’s lives, and then their own? Mr. Clark was about to graduate from high school. 

Consider everything we’re learning about the manosphere – misogynistic, hateful, homophobic, antisemitic, and somehow very attractive to many young men. 

A spark – caused by a bad day, a fateful encounter, who knows what – sends these kids to dark corners of the internet. Their hateful curiosity is reinforced by algorithms that continue to serve up vile ideas. These algorithms are designed to maximize engagement – and, for the social-media companies, profits. It’s all happening in the combustible environment of the divisive politics of the day, where hateful rhetoric has become the norm, not just from blabbermouth commentators, but politicians, all the way up to the U.S. President. 

In the aftermath of this tragedy, far-right Trump ally Laura Loomer posted: “The shooting in California took place at a jihadi mosque known for its hate preachers.” She wrote that it was “likely planned by Muslims” and the U.S. Islamic lobby. There are too many people who will believe her own hate-filled misinformation, uncritically.

Beyond the grief of this incident, there is an urgent need to address this emergency. We are in a confirmation-biased, hate-fuelled misinformation crisis. Wherever these two young men – boys, really – have been taught to hate like this, others are there too, lurking, reading, learning at the knees of influencers, extremist pundits, hateful politicians. The consequences, as we have seen too many times, can be deadly.

Polansky: Despair is not an option

…The perceptive reader will have noted that none of these measures requires special privileges or carve-outs for Jews or any other minority group. Moreover, all of these recommendations apply widely to problems of governance across the country. This is precisely the point. The observable social decline described here afflicts Jews acutely but not exclusively.

Similarly, the older dispensation of Canadian liberalism, now in need of restoration, allowed Jews to flourish along with other Canadians. Another way to put it is that improving the worsening situation of Canadian Jews will entail making much-needed corrections to the country as such. This is not incidental.

Against this proactive view is a growing (and largely online) sentiment, bolstered by a combination of unfavourable demographic trends and ugly news stories, that Canada is finished for Jews, and they should begin looking elsewhere. This, in fact, echoes much of the pessimism one increasingly finds among non-Jewish Canadians of all stripes about the trajectory of their country.

The French novelist Michel Houellebecq famously wrote “there is no Israel for me.” That there is an Israel (or, potentially, a Florida) for Canadian Jews should not change their calculus. By any historical measure, Canada has done quite well by them (and vice versa). They owe something to their country, and if nothing else, they owe it to their ancestors, who braved far worse to get here, to stay and fight. Canadians in general should do likewise. In this, as in other matters, they may find common cause in repairing their country’s weakening institutions.

Filed under Antisemitism, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

Geist: Why the Senate got antisemitism only half-right

2026/04/30 Leave a comment

Valid critique:

…The deepest irony lies in what the report says it wants to restore. Deborah Lyons, the previous Special Envoy on Combatting Antisemitism, understood the problem the Senate does not. Her handbook on the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism exists because anti-Zionist language was being used to launder antisemitism, and Canadian institutions, police, educators, and civil servants needed a working framework to distinguish legitimate, protected criticism of Israeli government policy from hate.

The handbook is explicit that Canadians can criticize the Israeli government at length and stay on the right side of the antisemitism line. But deploying double standards, contesting the country’s right to exist, or treating its Jewish supporters as legitimate targets of violence or political exclusion is another matter. The House Justice Committee reached the same conclusion in 2024. The Senate now recommends restoring Lyons’s office while declining the analytical work that made it useful.

For months, Jewish Canadians have argued that words are not enough. Neither, it turns out, is a report that documents the problem and declines to name half of it.

Source: Why the Senate got antisemitism only half-right

Filed under Antisemitism, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Michael Geist: When it comes to antisemitism, the sound of silence is loud in Canada 

2025/07/28 Leave a comment

Valid comments on lack of consistency in approaches:

…In response, there have been some notable efforts to address the antisemitism scourge. Both the federal government and some local municipalities have enacted or proposed bubble zone legislation designed to create a safe perimeter around places of worship, schools, hospitals, and other vulnerable institutions. Some universities and governments have adopted much-needed guidelines to combat antisemitism and promised to enforce them more aggressively.

More is required, but those responses appear to have shifted the discourse from disbelief to efforts to silence and thwart initiatives to protect the community. It often starts by insisting that the Jewish community is not only unable to judge what constitutes antisemitism, but that it actively engages in its weaponization. It is hard to think of any other group that is not only denied its own ability to identify harms but is painted as acting nefariously when it does so.

When the issue does break through, the efforts to protect the Jewish community are then silenced by framing them as undermining the rights of others. For example, bubble zone initiatives are frequently criticized as an affront to freedom of expression, despite being carefully drafted and modelled on similar laws that have been upheld by Canadian courts as constitutional.

Similarly, antisemitism guidelines on campus have been derided as chilling freedom of expression. These institutions have long histories of adopting extensive regulations to protect women, visible minorities and Indigenous groups, even going so far as to identify and guard against micro-aggressions. But the same approach seemingly does not apply to the Jewish community, who instead face charges that protecting their rights would come at the expense of the rights of others.

In fact, even political views on the founding of the State of Israel or expressions of support for Zionism, which as former prime minister Justin Trudeau noted “is the belief, at its simplest, that Jewish people, like all peoples, have the right to determine their own future” runs the risk of being labelled as “racist” in today’s educational environment, thereby silencing the perspectives.

As the rise in antisemitism has become too pronounced to ignore, there have been some important efforts to chronicle it and call for action. But what has been missing is an examination of its day-to-day effects, which has placed the safety and well-being of an entire community, from grade school to seniors’ homes, at risk. Those effects will become less visible if all that is left is the sound of silence.

Source: Michael Geist: When it comes to antisemitism, the sound of silence is loud in Canada

Filed under Antisemitism, Multiculturalism Tagged with

Geist: A new academic year requires a new approach to combatting antisemitism on campus

2024/09/09 Leave a comment

This one will be the hardest to implement I think. But needed:

…Third, universities must preserve their position as neutral forums for discussion, debate and learning. Often referred to as institutional neutrality, the principle dates back to the 1960s and a University of Chicago report that concluded, “There is no mechanism by which it [the university] can reach a collective position without inhibiting that full freedom of dissent on which it thrives.”

In other words, institutional neutrality ensures that faculty members and students are free to express their opinions, but the institution itself should refrain from wading into political matters. That principle was undermined by the University of Windsor’s recent agreement with campus protesters, which included commitments to university advocacy and restrictions on academic partnerships that could undermine academic freedoms.

The proliferation of campus antisemitism may have caught some universities off guard last year. But this year, there are no surprises. Universities must rise to the challenge by prioritizing a safe environment for all students and faculty – one that lives up to their ideals of inclusion and non-discrimination.

Michael Geist holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa’s faculty of law.

Source: A new academic year requires a new approach to combatting antisemitism on campus

Filed under Antisemitism, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

What open government hides | Geist

2014/12/03 Leave a comment

Michael Geist on the contradiction between the ‘Open Government’ initiative and the its inaction on ATIP compliance and reform and aversion to serious consultations:

There is much to like about Canada’s open government efforts, which have centred on three pillars: open data, open information, and open dialogue. Given the promise of “greater transparency and accountability, increased citizen engagement, and driving innovation and economic opportunity,” few would criticize the aspirational goals of Canada’s open government efforts. Yet scratch the below the surface of new open data sets and public consultations and it becomes apparent that there is much that open government hides.

The federal efforts around open data have shown significant progress in recent years. What started as a few pilot projects with relatively obscure data has grown dramatically with over 200,000 government data sets now openly available for use without the need for payment or permission. Moreover, the government has addressed concerns with its open government licence, removing some of the initial restrictions that unnecessarily hamstrung early efforts.

However, the enthusiasm for open data has not been matched with reforms to the access to information system. Despite government claims of openness and transparency, all government data is not equal. There is a significant difference between posting mapping data and making available internal information on policy decisions that should be released under access to information rules.

Indeed, while the government has invested in making open data sets available, it has failed to provide the necessary resources to the access to information system. The information commissioner of Canada has warned that inadequate financing has made it virtually impossible to meet demand and respond to complaints. Regular users of the access to information system invariably encounter long delays, aggressive use of exceptions to redact important information, significant costs, and inconsistent implementation of technology to provide more efficient and cost-effective service.

In short, the access to information system is broken. An open government plan that only addresses the information that government wants to make available, rather than all of the information to which the public is entitled, is not an open plan.

What open government hides | hilltimes.com.

Filed under Government Tagged with , , ,