Since the October 7 Hamas terror attack on Israeli civilians, antisemitism in Canada has surged dramatically, with a relentless wave of hate speech and hate crimes. Toronto police report that in 2023, anti-Semitic incidents accounted for 53% of reported hate crimes since the start of the Israel-Hamas war. This percentage continues to increase, as Toronto Police Chief Myron Demkiw reported during a meeting on March 4, 2025, with the police board, "56% of hate crimes in 2024 are anti-Semitic".
Toronto Police Chief Myron Demkiw revealed a 211% increase in these incidents compared to last year. B'nai Brith Canada's audit confirms that 2023 saw a record high in anti-Semitic activity, including a November incident where an incendiary device was ignited at a synagogue. Sinisterly, maps of synagogues and other Jewish institutions, including schools, are being circulated, with these locations falsely labelled as sites of "harm," "racism," and "ethnic cleansing. Jewish homes marked by Mezuzahs are being targeted, and there are continuous calls and ominous plans for an Intifada.
Canada's hate speech laws, enacted in 1970, have proven ineffective, as evidenced by the need for more enforcement over the past 54 years. Research by Dr Kenneth Grad, Assistant Professor at the University of Alberta Faculty of Law, indicates that these laws, initially aimed at combating rising antisemitism and neo-Nazism, were more symbolic than substantive. Legislative efforts in the 1960s, such as the Klein-Walker and Orlikow bills, sought to establish stronger hate speech provisions in Canada but faced significant challenges and opposition to restricting freedom of speech.
Hate speech laws in Canada, particularly Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code, which addresses the wilful promotion of hatred, and Section 318, which deals with advocating genocide, have faced numerous challenges under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, particularly regarding freedom of expression.
Still, despite these legal provisions, prosecutions under these sections were relatively rare, and most involved high-profile cases against white supremacists where the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the limitations on free speech are justified to protect society from the harms of hate speech.
Moreover, despite recent amendments in 2022 to the Canadian Criminal Code Section 319 making it illegal to publicly deny, condone, or downplay the Holocaust, incidents of anti-Semitic harassment, vandalism, and violence have risen. These incidents often use the Holocaust to harm the dignity of Jewish people. Canada's hate speech laws are unrealistic and difficult to enforce, especially against those promoting antisemitism under the guise of pro-Palestinian rhetoric. Section 318 of the Criminal Code makes it an offence to advocate or promote genocide. However, current laws do not adequately address blatant hate speech and calls for genocide, such as the “from the river to the sea" chant.
The Criminal Code also addresses the glorification of terrorism. Section 83.221, introduced in 2015, criminalizes advocating or promoting terrorism, with penalties similar to those for hate propaganda but does not require the Attorney General's consent for prosecution. Under the Criminal Code, the Attorney General's consent is required for prosecuting offences related to counselling, participating in, or facilitating terrorist activity (Sections 83.18, 83.19, 83.21, and 83.22). However, for Section 83.221, which criminalizes advocating or promoting terrorism, the Attorney General's consent is not required for prosecution. Even with the adoption of Bill C-63, it doesn't effectively stand up to freedom of political speech. Many Jew-haters and BDS Pro-Palestinian protestors use this freedom to delegitimize Israel.
Pro-Palestinian protests are continuously testing Canada's weak hate speech laws. In Vancouver, Charlotte Kates, a pro-Palestinian activist, was arrested after making statements at a rally that Bnai Brith Canada reported to the police. Although she was released with conditions, the investigation is ongoing, and no charges have been laid yet.
The RCMP investigated Montreal Imam Adil Charkaoui for making controversial statements at a pro-Palestinian rally where he called on Allah in Arabic to "kill the enemies of the people of Gaza."
Prosecutors decided not to file charges, concluding that his speech did not meet the legal criteria for incitement to hatred under Canadian law. The decision was based on Sections 318 and 319 of the Canadian Criminal Code, which require proof that the speech willfully promoted hatred against an identifiable group and was likely to lead to a breach of the peace. Prosecutors determined that, while controversial, Charkaoui's statements did not meet the legal threshold and constituted direct incitement to violence or hatred as defined by Canadian law.
Hate crimes are more difficult to charge and prosecute than other criminal charges, primarily because they require law enforcement to prove a specific motivation of bias. Prosecutors, therefore, must consider whether the statements would stand up to a Charter challenge or fall within the protected scope of free speech.
The Crown's decision not to charge Adil Charkaoui worries police services; they fear it could encourage hate speech elsewhere in Canada. The RCMP has warned of a growing number of cases that could incite hatred and is questioning if they have the legal tools to counter the trend. RCMP Chief Superintendent Karine Gagné gave the statement during an interview with Radio-Canada on June 11, 2024: “It might be time to revisit Canada's hate speech laws." Bill C-367, a proposed amendment to Canada's Criminal Code, aims to remove religious exemptions from hate speech laws. It seeks to repeal sections 319(3)(b) and 319(3.1) (b), which currently provide legal defences for individuals charged with promoting hatred if their statements are based on religious beliefs or texts.
Toronto Deputy Chief of Police Rob Johnson, who oversees the hate crime unit in Special Operations Command, on September 24, 2024, during a Special Advisor Council to the League of Human Rights, stated, "The era where police alone can identify and solve problems has passed." He emphasized that society must now recognize these behaviours as problematic and collaborate with the police and government to address them.
Elected officials play a crucial role in combating hate and antisemitism. Many believe that the government, including the Prime Minister, his cabinet, and staff, must actively denounce these issues and work towards more robust laws to protect against antisemitism. This includes acting against unions that support violence and organizations like OPSEU, as well as teachers who bring their classes to protests.
So, what can Jews do to protect themselves? Firstly, they must refuse to tolerate such behaviours in schools and on the streets and not support celebrities who endorse these views.
Secondly, they must collectively speak out against claims that Israel is an oppressive regime and reject the notion that terrorism against Israel and the taking of innocent civilian hostages is a “strong act of resistance." It is essential to recognize that Israel's efforts to rescue hostages do not make them villains.
Thirdly, Jews must speak out against hate incidents. They should work towards ensuring that the Government of Canada and the provincial governments adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism into law. Jews can speak out against hate incidents by reporting them to local law enforcement and organizations that track antisemitism, raising public awareness, and advocating for policies that combat antisemitism. They should also support educational programs and build community solidarity to foster understanding and tolerance.
Jews must work together to ensure public representation to advocate for Jewish rights by developing and implementing legislation that effectively and expediently combats hate speech.
Noted Toronto criminal defence lawyer Leo Adler expressed that the student protest should be called out for what they are: riots. He examined the riot provision, specifically Section 64 of the Canadian Criminal Code, which defines a riot as an unlawful assembly of a group of three or more people that has begun to disturb the peace tumultuously. Participating in a riot is an indictable offence, carrying severe legal consequences. Those found guilty can face significant penalties, including determining whether the encampment protests qualify as riots under Canadian law, depending on the specific details of the events.
Many University encampments, particularly at McGill, exhibited riotous actions. Protestors occupied the James Administration Building at McGill University, barricading themselves inside. This prompted Montreal police, including officers in riot gear, to use tear gas and chemical irritants to disperse the crowd. Fifteen people were arrested: thirteen for breaking and entering and two for obstructing police work. However, charges were not pursued.
Multiple illegal gatherings around cities, including businesses and public streets, have resulted in police intervention but no prosecution. In a virtual town hall meeting on August 28, 2024, McGill University President Dr. Deep Saini spoke with Montreal-area MP Anthony Housefather and acknowledged the challenges McGill faced with anti-Israel and antisemitic hostility on campus since October 7, 20231. Dr. Saini expressed, 'I never experienced anything of this nature.' He emphasized that a major difficulty is the inability to identify offenders, particularly when offenders conceal their identities, making enforcement of university codes challenging. “When somebody shows up on our campus with their face covered and they shout antisemitic slogans or do destructive things, and we are told we do not have the right to force them to show identity, we have our hands completely tied behind our backs. We cannot apply the code to somebody if we don't know who they are." he explained."
This aligns with broader concerns about the lack of accountability in illegal gatherings, as seen in the examples of police intervention without subsequent prosecution. Dr Sani described the encampment as a "magnet for violence and intimidation," citing incidents like overdoses, illegal drug use, and confrontations that required police intervention. Dr Saini confirmed the urgent need for the university to dismantle the encampment that attracted violence and intimidation and emphasized the need for collaboration between society, police, and government to address these issues. McGill University dismantled the encampment on its downtown campus with the help of a private security firm and in coordination with local and provincial police.
Adler contends that if every town had a bylaw controlling demonstrations with permits, determining the criteria for legal protests, and requiring licensed demonstrations to cover police costs, this would solve the problem of illegal demonstrations. Housefather stated, “As a federal legislator, I take this very seriously." He elaborated on his advocacy for Bubble Zone Legislation, aimed at introducing a new intimidation offence to prevent offenders from blocking access to buildings, community buildings, schools, and places of worship. Housefather emphasized the importance of university administrations clearly communicating and enforcing campus policies. He inquired about the measures McGill's president and administration would implement to protect Jewish students and faculty in the event of further breaches of school conduct occurring in the coming months.
Saini confirmed his commitment to protecting Jewish students and faculty in light of rising antisemitism on campus. “We are determined that we're going to use every single thing in our power to make sure that any infringement of all these boundaries is stopped as fast as humanly possible," Saini said. “It's all subject to the laws of the land, and we have learned to work with the police. We have enacted multiple layers of defences, and we have demonstrated that they are workable. We will deploy them as needed." He outlined several measures, including strengthening collaboration with law enforcement and the government to address incidents of hate and intimidation. Enforcing campus rules and policies more effectively to ensure a safe environment. Implementing multiple layers of security and defence mechanisms to respond swiftly to breaches of conduct. Actively working to identify offenders despite challenges posed by individuals concealing their identities. Dr. Saini assured that the university would use all available resources to prevent and address any future incidents.
