Providing Canadians with tools to root out hate against any group is vital to our democracy. But it is unconscionable that these tools are designed or become weapons to promote hate against another group. The Arab Canadian Lawyers Association’s (ACLA) definition of “Anti-Palestinian Racism” (APR), now gaining traction in Canadian institutions, does precisely that, turning a language meant to defend dignity into a framework that treats Jewish identity as inherently racist.
Discrimination against Palestinians, like against any group, is unacceptable. Fortunately, Canada has strong legal mechanisms in place to address such cases, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and provincial human rights codes. These instruments prohibit discrimination based on place of origin, race, ethnicity, and religion. As the Ontario Human Rights Commission affirmed in an opinion, these existing protections are sufficient to address acts of prejudice against Palestinians.
But APR is not designed merely to fill a legal gap. Instead, it is a political instrument, one that forces a specific historical and ideological narrative that denies Jewish ties to the land of Israel. The definition requires all Canadians to support a Palestinian state from the river to the sea, which means the annihilation of Israel. It also suggests that disagreement with Palestinian political claims or narratives about Israel’s creation, or those which support Zionism, is inherently racist. APR doesn’t simply combat hate; it seeks to delegitimize the belief shared by 94 percent of Jewish Canadians who support the existence of a Jewish state in Israel. This view is shared by millions of other Canadians of all faiths and ethnicities because we acknowledge the right of self-determination for ourselves and others, including for Jews.
This is where the danger lies. APR imposes a rigid orthodoxy on a complex and contested historical and political conflict. In doing so, it undermines the very foundations of our Canadian liberal democracy: open dialogue, freedom of expression, and academic freedom. APR also risks criminalizing legitimate debate and dissent, particularly on university campuses, where open exchange of ideas is essential. Evidence of the danger of APR is already visible. For example, at Carleton University, a recently released report titled “The Palestine Exception” charged professors who teach a course that takes students to Israel to study religions and cultures in the region with engaging in APR.
The effects of APR are chilling. Canadians who support Israel’s right to exist are routinely being marginalized, accused of racism, and excluded. Even Prime Minister Carney, who reaffirmed Canada’s policy of supporting a two-state solution, would be deemed a racist. Many Canadians support a two-state solution and the aspirations of the Palestinian people. Supporting Palestinian rights does not require denying the right of Jews to national self-determination or casting Zionism as a form of bigotry. Yet APR reduces this complex reality to a zero-sum game in which supporting one group requires condemning the other.
The federal government is now being urged to enshrine APR, including by Canada’s Special Representative on Islamophobia, into its anti-racism strategy. This would be a dangerous mistake. By endorsing a definition that equates Jewish identity with racism, Canada would undermine its existing anti-discrimination regime, politicize legal norms, and embolden those who seek to suppress rather than engage in open debate. This definition is not aligned with Canada’s inclusive, democratic values.
It is also remarkable that APR’s proponents reject Canada’s adopted definition of antisemitism, that of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). IHRA affirms that criticism of Israel of the same type levelled against any other country is not antisemitic, while APR permits no criticism of Palestinian narratives without being labelled racist—yet another example of double standards applied to the detriment of the Jewish community.
If we want to build a truly inclusive Canada, we must resist simplistic labels that divide rather than unite. Canadians should be free to express support for Palestinian self-determination—as long as such advocacy does not glorify terrorism or vilify Jews. Equally, Zionists and Israelis must be allowed to express support for Jewish self-determination without being cast as racists.
APR is a step away from inclusion. It is a step toward silencing, polarization, and legal confusion. Canada needs practical tools to combat hate. We should not adopt a concept that is being used to demonize one group under the guise of protecting another. The road to justice is not paved with redefinition and ideological rigidity, but with mutual respect, legal clarity, and an unwavering commitment to the rights and dignity of all. Let’s not abandon those principles with a definition that will further fuel polarization and hate in Canadian society.
Should 'Anti-Palestinian Racism' be adopted by Canadian institutions?
How might APR impact freedom of expression in Canada?
What are the authors' concerns about APR's definition of racism?
Comments (2)
Hatred toward the Jewish people is the oldest and most enduring prejudice in recorded human history. We in Canada seem to be immersing ourselves in another round of it, to our shame.