One week ago, the release of the Campus Antisemitism and Student Experiences (CASE) report provided the most comprehensive national data to date on antisemitism on Canadian university campuses. As I wrote in my post on it, there is a crisis: of the more than 900 Jewish students surveyed, 95.7% experienced or witnessed antisemitism over the previous year, 72% limit what they say in class, 57% avoid wearing Jewish symbols, and roughly one-quarter have considered dropping out. That data is in addition to the more than 1,200 open-ended student accounts that deliver the gut punch: a professor telling a class that “Jews belong in Poland and should go back there,” widespread Holocaust denial, and physical and verbal threats targeting Jewish students. The samples posted below give a sense of the responses.
Post Tagged with: "canadian heritage"
Canada’s Campus Antisemitism Crisis: National Survey Finds Antisemitism Nearly Everywhere and University Responses Nowhere
For the better part of two years, I have written about antisemitism on Canadian university campuses from the vantage point of personal experience: a post I never thought I would need to write on the right of Jewish students to feel safe on campus, the normalization of antisemitism at encampments including at my own university, the trepidation that accompanied a new academic year, and the chilling effect on expression that I described to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. Those accounts, alongside those of many students who shared their experiences, were often downplayed by some as exaggerated or unrepresentative. Yet this week, the release of the Canadian Heritage-backed Campus Antisemitism and Student Experiences (CASE) report, conducted through the Office of the former Special Envoy on Preserving Holocaust Remembrance and Combatting Antisemitism and produced by the Association for Canadian Studies and the Metropolis Institute, puts that claim to rest. The report, for which I served as a member of the advisory board, provides the most comprehensive national data to date on the experiences of Jewish students at Canadian post-secondary institutions. The report makes for difficult reading as it confirms that Canada is facing an antisemitism crisis on campus, with the overwhelming majority of the Jewish students surveyed stating that they had experienced or witnessed at least one instance of antisemitism over the prior year.
Government Reveals Digital Policy Priorities in Trio of Responses to Canadian Heritage Committee Reports
The Canadian government has responded to three reports focused on digital policies from the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, shedding new light on potential future policies and priorities. The three reports – on tech giants, local media, and harms caused by illegal sexually explicit materials posted online – recommended a wide range of measures that include new laws, regulations, and government programs. The government sidesteps some of the recommended legislative reforms in its responses signed by Heritage Minister Marc Miller, suggesting limited interest in committing to broad-based platform liability rules.
We Need More Canada in the Training Data: My Appearance Before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage on AI and the Creative Sector
The government, led by AI Minister Evan Solomon, is currently conducting a short consultation on AI regulation that has attracted criticism for its short time frame. At the same time however, the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage has been working through a study on AI and the creative sector that may be more limited in scope, but has featured a broader range of perspectives. I had the opportunity to appear before the committee yesterday where I lamented that too often debates on new technology is framed “as a threat, emphasizes cross-industry subsidies, and misses the opportunities new technology presents. We therefore need risk analysis that rejects entrenching the status quo and instead assesses the risks of both the technology and the policy response. I’ll post the full discussion (which ventured into AI transparency, copyright, the news sector, and much more) in a future Law Bytes podcast episode. In the meantime, my opening statement is embedded and posted below.
Why the Conspiratorial Responses to Canada’s Antisemitism Guide Demonstrate Its Necessity
Delegates from dozens of countries gathered nearly 25 year ago in Stockholm, Sweden for the Stockholm International Forum, where they affirmed a global commitment to combatting racism, antisemitism, ethnic hatred, and ignorance of history. That meeting sparked what became a 16-year open process to develop much-needed anti-racism tools, including the creation of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism.
Antisemitism is generally understood as a certain perception of Jews that veers into hatred, but specific examples can be helpful for those seeking to apply policies in the workplace, codes in educational environments, or standards for government funding programs. The IHRA definition, which is non-legally binding, seeks to fill the void by including both general principles and specific examples. It has struck a chord with endorsements from 45 countries and hundreds of provincial and local governments. And Canada has been a leader in this regard: the federal government adopted it in 2019 as part of its anti-racism strategy and the majority of provinces have followed suit with their own support measures.
Combatting antisemitism should not be controversial, yet a new Canadian effort to provide governments, businesses, and schools with greater clarity on implementing the IHRA definition has sparked opposition from the NDP and even outrage in some quarters.











