Blog
When Writing About Antisemitism Proves the Point: What the Replies Reveal
Over the past several weeks, I have written and spoken about the escalation of antisemitic violence in Canada including a Globe and Mail op-ed, a blog post after Toronto Police finally moved to restrict protests from Jewish residential streets, an interview on CBC’s The Current, and a PROC committee appearance where antisemitism was raised. In each case, I shared the piece or clip on social media (here, here, here), sparking a torrent of antisemitic vitriol that even after months of escalation leaves me stunned. I write this post not to amplify the vocal hate that fills my timeline, but to ensure that readers who might otherwise not scroll past my original posts understand what has become normalized.
Acting on Antisemitism: If This Was Always Possible, Why Didn’t It Happen Sooner?
Earlier this month, I appeared on CBC’s The Current to discuss the escalation of antisemitic violence in Canada following my Globe op-ed and PROC committee appearance. The host asked me whether something like the Bondi Beach massacre, the December 2025 attack that killed 15 people at a Hanukkah celebration in Australia, could happen here. I replied that it was a certainty. He was taken aback and pressed me on it. I clarified that I didn’t mean a massacre was certain, but that with the relentless escalation of antisemitic violence in Canada, people would die. It was not a matter of if, but when.
That exchange has stayed with me, not because I said something provocative, but because his surprise was so revealing. What felt to me (and I believe many in the Jewish community) like an obvious, even understated observation given the inevitable endpoint of a trajectory visible to anyone who has been paying attention, registered to him as an alarming claim requiring justification. That gap between what the Jewish community experiences and what everyone else appears willing to acknowledge has been a defining feature of the post-October 7th world.
Setting Canada’s AI Policy Priorities: My Appearance Before the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology
The Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology is one of several House and Senate committees currently grappling with legal, regulatory and policy challenges and opportunities presented by AI. I appeared before the committee yesterday alongside Yoshua Bengio and Colin Bennett. Bengio unsurprisingly garnered the lion’s share of the questions, but the committee did give me the chance to highlight my thoughts on policy priorities and to address a few questions. I plan to post some reflections on the policy tensions in the coming days. In the meantime, the video and text of my opening statement are posted below.
The Online Streaming Act in Jeopardy: U.S. Takes Aim at the CUSMA Cultural Exemption With Threats of Bill C-11 Retaliation
From the moment it was first introduced as Bill C-10 in the fall of 2020, it was readily apparent that mandated payments by foreign streaming services to support Canadian content would face a trade backlash with the U.S., with the real prospect of trade retaliation. In fact, I wrote about the issue days after the bill was tabled, warning that an uneven playing field for benefits – foreign companies required to contribute but banned from benefiting – was a risky approach. Those warnings were dismissed by the government, cultural lobby groups, and supporters of the bill who assured critics that Canada’s cultural exemption under CUSMA provided a shield against U.S. retaliation.
It took years for Bill C-10 – later Bill C-11 – to become law as the Online Streaming Act, but now the bill has come due. Weeks after the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) specifically identified Canadian digital laws as a target in CUSMA renegotiations, House Republicans introduced the Protecting American Streaming and Innovation Act, a bill that would mandate an investigation into the Canadian law and open the door not only to trade retaliation but also to a change in how the cultural exemption is applied.
The Hidden Lawful Access Tradeoff: How Bill C-22 Lowers the Evidentiary Standards for Police Access to Subscriber Information
The return of lawful access in Bill C-22 has unsurprisingly focused on the government’s significant shift on warrantless access to subscriber information, which was the headline concern with Bill C-2, the previous lawful access proposal. As noted in my initial summary of the bill, Bill C-22 establishes court oversight for subscriber information with the warrantless access piece limited to requiring telecom companies to confirm whether they provide service to a given individual. That is a positive step, but there is a tradeoff, namely that the evidentiary standard needed to obtain an order for access to subscriber information is actually being lowered.
Recent Posts
When Writing About Antisemitism Proves the Point: What the Replies Reveal 
Acting on Antisemitism: If This Was Always Possible, Why Didn’t It Happen Sooner? 
Setting Canada’s AI Policy Priorities: My Appearance Before the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 262: Zack Shapiro on the Claude AI Native Law Firm 
The Online Streaming Act in Jeopardy: U.S. Takes Aim at the CUSMA Cultural Exemption With Threats of Bill C-11 Retaliation
