Canadian minister’s letter says anti-Zionism criticism is not automatically antisemitic, but leaves enforcement unclear

The National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM) posted on Sunday a response it had received from Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree. The NCCM had asked for further clarification about the national commitments to combat antisemitism initiative’s recent report, which acknowledged that antisemitism includes anti-Zionism. The post opened with the headline “Government of Canada clarifies: anti-Zionism is not antisemitism.” Amira Elghawaby, Canada’s former special representative on combating Islamophobia, shared the same headline on X. Columnist Terry Newman calls the headline misleading.

Beneath the headline, the NCCM post included a section of the minister’s letter stating that the report did not intend “to suggest that all criticism of Zionism, Israeli government policies or the State of Israel” is antisemitic. Newman argues that the NCCM’s post is dishonest, because recognizing that not all anti-Zionism is antisemitic is different from saying that anti-Zionism is never antisemitic in any instance. He writes that the public should read the letter’s exact words, as the truth of a matter depends on what a document actually says (Proverbs 18:17).

In the letter, Anandasangaree tells NCCM senior government affairs and public policy officer Fatema Abdalla that “Canada’s position has not changed” and that Canada “continues to support open, respectful and lawful debate on issues related to Israel, Palestine, the Middle East and international affairs.” He also notes that the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism “explicitly recognizes that criticism of Israel, similar to that levelled against any other country, is not in itself antisemitic.” He states that the definition was adopted in 2019 as part of Canada’s anti-racism strategy. He adds that the Department of Canadian Heritage published a handbook in 2024 offering “non-prescriptive guidance for how the IHRA definition can be practically used,” and that the handbook says the definition does not bind any government department or agency to a particular use. Newman writes that the definition has always lacked binding force.

The letter explains that the report’s reference to anti-Zionism “reflects the understanding” in the handbook and the definition that “Denying the Jewish people the right to self-determination may, depending on the context, be considered a manifestation of antisemitism.” It does not describe what those contexts are. The report itself lists antisemitic acts, including “explicit threats, violence or hate speech,” as well as “conspiracy theories, Holocaust denial, coded language, stereotypes or the collective blaming of Jewish people.” Newman notes that the report does not explain how to determine whether an anti-Zionist expression or act is antisemitic.

Newman points to another section of the letter on enforcement. Anandasangaree wrote that the definition “has informed educational and awareness-building efforts in a variety of sectors, including some law enforcement contexts,” but that decisions on police training and operational practices are often made by individual police services or by provincial and territorial authorities. The letter also states that the IHRA definition “does not create criminal offences, establish legal prohibitions or restrict Charter-protected freedoms, including freedom of expression,” and that it “serves as a tool to help identify, understand and respond to antisemitism and anti-Jewish hatred in its various forms.”

Newman argues that if anti-Zionism can be antisemitic, the contexts should be clarified and shared with all levels of policing, and he asks how the government’s stated goal of “protecting the public” can be achieved without that. He writes that his office has yet to explain how it will decide which expressions of anti-Zionism are antisemitic. The letter closes by saying the government’s position “remains unchanged” and that the definition was cited to “support public awareness and understanding of antisemitism.” Newman concludes that the next logical step is for the government to provide further clarification.

Source: Read the original report