The Maple Monitor 1: Antisemitism, Trade Wars, and Self-Defense in Canada
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): A Further Inquiry
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/30
Irina Tsukerman is a human rights and national security attorney based in New York and Connecticut. She earned her Bachelor of Arts in National and Intercultural Studies and Middle East Studies from Fordham University in 2006, followed by a Juris Doctor from Fordham University School of Law in 2009. She operates a boutique national security law practice. She serves as President of Scarab Rising, Inc., a media and security strategic advisory firm. Additionally, she is the Editor-in-Chief of The Washington Outsider, which focuses on foreign policy, geopolitics, security, and human rights. She is actively involved in several professional organizations, including the American Bar Association’s Energy, Environment, and Science and Technology Sections, where she serves as Program Vice Chair in the Oil and Gas Committee. She is also a member of the New York City Bar Association. She serves on the Middle East and North Africa Affairs Committee and affiliates with the Foreign and Comparative Law Committee.
Tsukerman spoke with Scott Douglas Jacobsen for the first installment of The Maple Monitor. The discussion addressed rising antisemitism in Canada, the impact of global conflicts such as the war in Gaza, and the role of social media in fueling hostility. Tsukerman also analyzed U.S. and Canadian trade tensions, noting how tariffs harm small businesses, consumers, and job creation while fostering inequality. Finally, the conversation explored debates over Canada’s self-defense laws, contrasting them with U.S. models, and the growing public pressure for reform.
Interview conducted August 29, 2025.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, first of the series, The Maple Monitor, Some politicians have expressed outrage at what they call a ‘violent attack on a Jewish woman at an Ottawa grocery store.” Prime Minister Mark Carney and Ontario Premier Doug Ford have spoken out against it, calling it a disturbing act of violence against the community.
Canada does have a much lower rate of violent crime than many countries. Unfortunately, however, the rise of antisemitism and antisemitic attacks is not really news anymore. It has been escalating for several years in a row. While Canada overall reports lower violence, there has been a noticeable spike in antisemitic sentiment.
Irina Tsukerman: Including among migrant communities, there has been a rise in antisemitic incidents—not as high as in Australia, the UK, other European countries, or the United States, but it seems to follow the same general trends. Of course, the war in Gaza and Hamas propaganda have contributed to this overall climate. It is not clear whether this specific incident is directly linked to all of that or not.
The fact that attacking Jewish targets has become more socially acceptable—from the perspective of the attackers—is also fueled by social media rhetoric and conspiracy theories. These are not limited to specific political issues or propaganda related to crises abroad; they reflect a broader atmosphere of antagonism.
The big question is: has there been a clear rise in violent incidents? And, beyond that, have there been other types of incidents—nonviolent but still harmful—such as vandalism, threats, and hate rhetoric that are also on the rise in that area? In other words, was this one event an isolated case, or is it part of a growing trend in that particular location?
Jacobsen: This has come up repeatedly in interviews with different experts. It even came up in discussions with the United States Hispanic Business Council. Many small businesses rely on duty exemptions for U.S. shipping. The de minimis exemption ends today. So mom-and-pop shops in Canada, too, are going to be hit. Online sellers are also worried.
Shipments under $800 USD. I forget the exact reason that became the magic number, but $800 is the threshold for entering the U.S. without extra fees. Now these shipments will be subject to duties of up to $200, depending on the country of origin. Canadian small businesses selling to American customers will be hit with those extra costs, cutting into profits.
This is part of the ongoing tariff wars. Canada imposed reciprocal tariffs after the United States under Trump implemented steep ones. Some reciprocal tariffs have been lifted, but clearly not all. And trade wars always hurt both sides.
Tsukerman: First of all, they hurt consumers and small businesses, along with customers who face rising costs as companies pass on expenses. Exporters also lose out, as profit margins shrink in competitive markets. The result is fewer jobs on both sides. Reciprocal tariffs and bilateral disputes create anti-competitive environments.
When that happens, customers are left with fewer and more expensive choices. Most of what’s left comes from big corporations. That hurts diversity in the marketplace, as small and niche businesses disappear. It also means less competition for the large players, which in turn leads to lower product quality—because monopolies can afford to absorb costs, while smaller firms cannot survive.
Tariffs can also be passed down without causing significant economic damage, but often they cannot. What we’re seeing is that trade wars don’t just hurt the economy overall—they concentrate economic power into fewer hands. They can also lead to microeconomic corruption among businesses. That aspect of these tariff impositions isn’t being discussed enough, but it should be.
When businesses shut their doors, what happens to everyone else? What happens to the owners? They’re left unemployed. That leads to higher unemployment rates, more people competing for jobs. At the same time, automation is erasing many entry-level jobs. So you have young graduates competing with displaced small business owners for the same types of positions. This doesn’t just create stagnation; it creates an entire generation of hopeless workers scrambling for fewer opportunities.
Not because young people cannot compete in an AI-driven environment—they should be able to learn new skills quickly. The problem is there are simply too few job openings until enough people have developed those advanced skills to generate new, complex industries. We’re not at that point yet. Right now, the skill base is inadequate to the technology.
And not enough people have acquired the skills needed to develop it further. Tariffs compound the problem: fewer jobs, more competition, harsher economic conditions, lower quality of life, and rising inequality. Instead of improving conditions, tariffs deteriorate them.
And for no real benefit. Protectionist tariffs don’t generate significant new job creation. Eliminating small businesses dependent on shipping doesn’t suddenly create a thriving domestic manufacturing sector. That sort of shift would take years and would probably be more expensive than importing goods. It’s not even clear who would want those jobs if such workplaces eventually opened. They won’t open quickly enough to help those losing their livelihoods right now.
Jacobsen: I don’t blame the media for devoting 80 percent of their coverage to the economy right now. It makes sense. I’m just trying to find more politically oriented stories, but it’s a miserable situation. Nobody is really talking about this angle. In the U.S., there’s been growing—though still very limited—coverage of local stories about people losing their jobs and small businesses being squeezed. It is happening, but it’s underreported.
All right, we’ve got one more issue. I think that will fill out our workload for today. Actually, you might be able to expand the project to cover this: Pierre Poilievre, the leader of the Conservative Party and former contender for prime minister, has pushed for amendments to the Criminal Code to expand legal protections for Canadians regarding what qualifies as “reasonable self-defense.” What are your thoughts on this?
Tsukerman: In the U.S., self-defense is broadly defined. But in states like New York—especially New York City—it’s exceptionally difficult to get a carry license. You can have a rifle to protect your home during a break-in, but if you use deadly force, you still have to prove it was necessary.
New York doesn’t have stand your ground laws like Florida does. That means if someone attacks you, you’re required to first try to escape or resolve the situation peacefully. Only if it’s unavoidable can you use force—and even then, you’ll have to justify why it was necessary.
In Canada, I get the sense the debate is precisely over this issue: to what extent do people have the right to “stand their ground” and act immediately in self-defense, versus the obligation to first flee or surrender—like giving up money during a robbery and getting out safely.
It’s a balance between avoiding escalation and not emboldening attackers who might otherwise feel free to act with impunity. Even if you call the police, they may not apprehend the offender, who could go on to commit further crimes. But if you physically stop them, you might recover your property, prevent future attacks, and deter others from seeing you as a soft target.
The issue is whether the law should empower people to act in self-defense without excessive legal risk. I don’t know if the current government is open to broadening those rights, but there is definitely increasing public pressure as general violence ticks up. Many people see protecting themselves as basic common sense, and they don’t want the justice system burdened with minor altercations that could be handled on the spot.
Jacobsen: Thank you so much.
Tsukerman: Thank you.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
In-Sight Publishing 