EDITORIAL: Feds waffling on ‘anti-Zionism’

See more Toronto Sun on Google — save as a Preferred Source 

Ever since Hamas’ terrorist attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, many so-called “pro-Palestinian” protesters have been substituting the word “Zionist” for “Jew” to thinly disguise their hatred of Jews.

Recommended Videos

Similarly, they misrepresent Zionism — the belief that the Jewish people have the right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland of Israel, where Jews have lived for thousands of years — as a racist, colonial endeavour.

The federal government briefly acknowledged this reality in a paper published on Sept. 24 by Public Safety Canada titled “National Commitments to Combat Antisemitism – Summer 2026.”

It described “anti-Zionism” as “a contemporary manifestation of antisemitism,” noting that “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,” the report said.

Now, less than a month later, the federal government is already backing away from its own definition of anti-Zionism as a form of antisemitism.

On Oct. 16, following complaints by the National Council of Canadian Muslims about the government describing anti-Zionism as antisemitism, Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree watered down its own definition, in a letter to the NCCM, to the point of meaningless.

Now, Anandasangaree writes, “denying Jewish people the right to self-determination, may, depending on the context, be considered a manifestation of antisemitism.”

Tellingly, Anandasangaree doesn’t provide any examples of where denying Jewish people the right to self-determination is not antisemitic.

Instead, he continues:

“The report was not, and is not, intended to suggest that all criticism of Zionism, Israeli government policies, or the state of Israel is antisemitic, nor is it intended to limit or discourage lawful political expression or public debate.”

This is a classic example of a red herring argument —where an irrelevant point is introduced into an argument to divert attention away from the central issue.

Criticism of Israel or Israeli government policies is not antisemitic as long as Israel is being judged by the same standards applied to other countries.

But Canada’s policy up to now has been that denying Jewish people the right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland of Israel is antisemitic.

Now, according to Anandasangaree it depends on the “context.”

What “context” is that, minister?

1. 

   World
2. 

   Canada
3. 

   Toronto & GTA
4. 

   World
5. 

   Celebrity