The reputation that Canada maintains as one of the world’s most tolerant and multicultural countries has been established for a very long time. For many years, Canadians have enjoyed being known as an example of liberal democratic tolerance towards religious minorities, who were able to feel safe and live freely in an environment protected by stable institutions and society’s overall unwillingness to be hateful towards others. At present, however, such a reputation has become more difficult to sustain. The discussion about the recently established council on antisemitism by Prime Minister Mark Carney shows why. The debate surrounding Prime Minister Mark Carney’s newly announced advisory council on antisemitism reflects a deeper concern: many Canadian Jews increasingly believe that their government understands the problem but lacks the urgency to confront it.
Based on statistics from the Canadian Police Hate Crime Reporting Project, which is reported each year, the Jewish community remains one of the religious communities that have always been attacked by the greatest number of hate crimes in Canada, even though they make up less than one percent of the total population of the country. Over the last few years, there have been many antisemitic events reported in big cities such as Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, and Vancouver. The situation has deteriorated, especially since the outbreak of the Gaza War.
The challenge facing Canada is not merely the existence of antisemitism. Every democratic society contains extremists. The real question is whether institutions are capable of recognizing how antisemitism has evolved in the twenty-first century.Historically, antisemitic sentiments were typically prevalent within the far-right organizations. These threats continue to persist. However, today, antisemitic sentiments can emanate from various ideologies. They may come from members of white supremacists, Islamists, or even the far left. Although these different groups hold contrasting views on other issues, they share a common antipathy towards Zionism and, at times, Jews.
This intersection poses a challenge for states. States that have liberal democracy have no problem in dealing with racism and neo-Nazism. However, they have a lot of trouble dealing with antisemitism that comes about due to anti-Israel activism, college politics, and identity politics.
To many Canadian Jews, however, such uncertainty has proven to be one of the most vexing issues in today’s environment. The problem is not that of criticizing the policies of the Israeli government. There is robust debate about the state’s actions inside Israel. The problem emerges when individual Jews are collectively made accountable for the actions of the Israeli state, when Jewish students are persecuted for being Jewish, or when Zionism is made to stand alone as the only illegitimate nationalism.The difference is important since modern-day antisemitism usually uses narratives rather than outright racial epithets. This can take many forms, including exclusion, double standards, threats, and attempts to limit the presence of Jews in public affairs. Although such acts do not fall within conventional understandings of hate, their consequences for Jews can be serious.
The controversy surrounding Canada’s new advisory council illustrates this broader tension. Critics argue that another committee risks becoming a substitute for action. Governments often create advisory bodies when they seek consensus, expertise, or political cover. Yet communities experiencing insecurity rarely measure success by the number of reports produced. They measure it by whether schools are safer, whether threats are prosecuted, and whether public institutions apply standards consistently.
This problem goes well beyond Canada. Throughout much of the Western world, the Jewish community has raised similar concerns. Over the last decade, there has been an escalation of fears regarding antisemitism in Britain, France, Germany, Australia, and even the United States.
Political discussions in these societies have focused on the question of whether governments have the political will to fight hate when it comes from political allies.
That is why the importance of the Canadian case cannot be confined to that country alone. It is an indication of how the government can deal with antisemitism in the same way that it responds to other types of discrimination. If the problem is acknowledged yet addressed mainly via consultative bodies, public faith will only deteriorate further.
That is why the importance of the Canadian case cannot be confined to that country alone. It is an indication of how the government can deal with antisemitism in the same way that it responds to other types of discrimination. If the problem is acknowledged yet addressed mainly via consultative bodies, public faith will only deteriorate further.
Ultimately, the challenge facing Canada is not one of diagnosis but implementation. The evidence of rising antisemitism is already substantial. The question now is whether institutions will move beyond statements and demonstrate that democratic protections apply equally to all citizens.
For Canada’s Jewish community, the answer will determine more than public policy. It will determine whether one of the world’s most celebrated multicultural democracies can still fulfill its promise of security, equality, and belonging.