Content warning: This article mentions antisemitism and genocide. 

On October 31, the Canadian government published the Canadian Handbook on the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism: a guiding document intended to help Canadians recognize and combat antisemitism in various settings. This handbook builds on Canada’s 2019 adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition of Antisemitism as part of its Anti-Racism Strategy. 

The handbook traces Canada’s antisemitism back to the 1930s and 1940s when the Canadian government enacted an immigration policy that prevented entry to Canada for “peoples that were seen to be unassimilable” — including Jewish people. It cites the October 7 Hamas attacks on Israel as the driving force for a new wave of antisemitism in Canada.

While the IHRA definition is not a legal document, the handbook is supposed to serve as a reference in practical scenarios across fields including education, civil services, law enforcement, and public policy. The Canadian government aims to promote the use of this across societal institutions to foster greater awareness of antisemitism and its various forms.

Breaking down the handbook

The handbook has four key elements: the Core Definition, the Preamble, the Illustrative Examples, and the Postscript. The Core Definition provides a broad outline of the definition of antisemitism, describing the term as “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.” This includes both verbal and physical acts against Jewish individuals, community institutions, and property.

The Preamble contextualizes antisemitism in relation to issues including common myths and stereotypes about Jewish people, and provides guidance for differentiating antisemitic rhetoric from legitimate criticism of Israel. It clarifies that criticism of Israel, akin to criticism directed at other countries, is not inherently antisemitic. But it notes that “applying double standards” to Israel or holding Jewish people collectively responsible for Israel’s actions may indicate an antisemitic bias.

The Illustrative Examples section outlines 11 common instances of antisemitism — including Holocaust denial, accusations of dual loyalty of Jewish citizens to Israel, and claims that Jewish people control global institutions. The handbook also identifies denial or distortion of the October 7 Hamas attacks as a form of antisemitism — drawing parallels to Holocaust denialism.

Finally, the Postscript clarifies that while the definition is a tool for awareness and recognition, it does not override existing laws or criminalize antisemitic acts independently of existing hate crime laws. However, the handbook emphasizes that antisemitic motives may influence criminal charges if hate crime elements are identified.

Rising antisemitism

Co-president of Hillel UofT, Matan Frankl, relayed his perspective on the handbook in an email to The Varsity.

“I would gauge the definition as sufficient in outlining a basic and graspable conception of antisemitism,” Frankl wrote. “The definition itself uses straightforward, broad terms, while the intricacies are found in the IHRA’s “illustrations and contemporary examples.””

“There are certain applications or invocations of the definition that can be read uneasily. Still, I do not think this takes away from the rhetorical and functional role the IHRA’s definition embodies,” he explained.

“I would love to say that the handbook’s creation and promotion helps [deter] antisemitic sentiments in Canada, but speaking from experience, I would not say this is the case,” Frankl added, referring to the spike in antisemitic hate crimes in Canada. This year, 56 per cent of reported hate crimes in Toronto were classified as antisemitic. 

According to Statistics Canada, Jewish people experienced over 70 per cent of all religiously motivated hate crimes in 2023, despite only making up one per cent of Canada’s overall population.

U of T faculty members chime in

Members of the U of T community also shared their thoughts on the handbook’s release and its antisemitism definition.

Renan Levine — an associate professor of political science at U of T with a research interest in Israeli politics — wrote in an email to The Varsity that, “I think the first two categories are crucial,” referring to the Core Definition and the Preamble. 

“People often complain that they are not sure what is, and what is not, appropriate to say [about Jewish people], especially when they are motivated to complain about Israel. Definitions like IHRA provide an important set of guidelines and resolve uncertainty.” 

Levine also spoke about the limitations of the definition.

“[The IHRA definition] cannot be the final word on what is, or is not, antisemitic. But, it is not going anywhere, and at a minimum, people should read it and be aware of what many in the Jewish community consider a crucial test for assessing antisemitism,” he explained. “At the same time, all should recognize that the IHRA is not the only definition.”

Deborah Cowen — a professor of geography and planning and Steering Committee member of the Jewish Faculty Network — wrote to The Varsity in an email that, “The IHRA definition is not only a discursive and legal tool for silencing critiques of genocide, but is itself profoundly antisemitic.”

Cowen noted that the definition has been criticized by international civil society organizations for “collapsing critique of the State of Israel with actual antisemitism: the hatred of Jews as Jews.”

She also added that, “On campuses, where this definition has been adopted, [the definition] has been used to intimidate and silence student groups, labour unions, academic departments and faculty associations that are committed to justice for Palestinians.” 

Cowen views the handbook’s implementation as more harmful than helpful, stating, “If these efforts are effective at anything, it is only in the suppression of pro-Palestine speech, including from a large and growing proportion of diasporic Jewish communities.”

Implications for pro-Palestinian advocacy

Since the Canadian government adopted the IHRA handbook, several organizations and U of T community members, have raised concerns over the definition’s implications for pro-Palestinian advocacy. 

Sara Rasikh — a spokesperson for UofT Occupy for Palestine and second-year masters student studying social justice education — told The Varsity in an email that “It is crucial to focus on enforcing the robust protections that already exist against discrimination, without imposing definitions that could be weaponized to silence legitimate dissent. The IHRA definition and its application are problematic, especially within academic contexts.” 

Rasikh explained how the lead author of the original IHRA definition, Kenneth Stern, has problematized the application of this definition to campus speech. In a 2017 opinion article in The Post and Courier, Stern noted how applying the definition could lead campus administrators to “fear lawsuits when outside groups complain about anti-Israel expression, and the University doesn’t punish, stop or denounce it.”

In an email to The Varsity, Sheryl Nestel — a retired U of T professor and member of Independent Jewish Voices Canada — wrote that “this definition will be used to censure and punish pro-Palestine speech.” 

“This is a definition that operates through the erasure of Palestinians and their claims to self-determination, which are continuously under threat by the Israeli occupation, and of the fundamental human right to protest actions taken by any state,” she wrote.

Rasikh also noted that, “Applying the IHRA definition to police discourse prevents essential conversations about human rights abuses and the complex power dynamics at play in Israel [and] Palestine.” She added, “In this context, these actions are not just ineffective; they are actively harmful, as they prioritize shielding a genocidal, apartheid state from criticism over addressing the real and pressing issue of antisemitism.”