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.
The inclusion should have real-world impact. To be clear, the IHRA definition this analysis draws on “is not legally binding and does not criminalize any expression or behaviour.” Indeed, criticism of Israeli government policy remains protected expression. However, proper understanding of antisemitism is essential within government when developing policies, spending programs, and supporting public servants. The report notes that police “are increasingly using the IHRA definition as a practical guide to help personnel recognize and assess potential incidents of antisemitism,” with thousands of officers having undergone specialized training. Moreover, the government should also apply the definition to its own funding and anti-discrimination policies to ensure that public tax dollars do not go to groups that engage in antisemitism, including in its anti-Zionist form.
The government has too often been reticent to take a position on this issue. In fairness, Justin Trudeau declared that “no one in Canada should be afraid to call themselves a Zionist. I am a Zionist” at the March 2025 National Forum on Combatting Antisemitism, the same forum whose commitments this report tracks. But by contrast, Mark Carney’s antisemitism speech earlier this year was notable for not mentioning October 7th, Israel, or anti-Zionism. Many in the Jewish community (myself included) roundly criticized that speech for failing to meet the moment.
The government’s explicit recognition that antisemitism includes anti-Zionism is precisely the kind of modelling that has been missing in recent years. There is still much to do, but this report is a positive step forward that goes a long way toward settling the question of how the Canadian government views modern antisemitism.
