Canada’s Struggle with Antisemitism: Civil Society, Politics, and the Fight for Liberal Democracy

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): A Further Inquiry

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/02

Part 2 of 2

Mathew Giagnorio is the founder and editor-in-chief of A Further Inquiry, where he publishes commentary on liberal democracy and contemporary antisemitism. His work, including “What is Liberalism? The Rise of Left-Wing Antisemitism, and The Weaponization of White Privilege,” examines ideological extremism, conspiratorial rhetoric, and policy responses. A contributor to The Freethinker, Giagnorio foregrounds the resurgence of antisemitism across politics, academia, and culture. He employs legal, historical, and educational frameworks to enhance civic resilience and safeguard Jewish communities. In June 2025, he participated in “Confronting Antisemitism in Canada,” a co-hosted event by the Clarity Coalition, Niagara Military Museum, and the Canadian Antisemitism Education Foundation.

In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Giagnorio supports a practical working definition paired with awareness that antisemitism morphs across eras, from religious and racial frames to anti-Zionist rhetoric. He warns that propaganda, campus intimidation, and increasingly misapplied concepts like “anti-Palestinian racism” can shield violent extremism from criticism. Education’s overreliance on Holocaust instruction, he argues, obscures the prejudice’s deeper history. Reflecting on a June 2025 conference, he highlights legal and policy strategies, student testimonies, and cross-partisan conspiracism. Canada’s leadership is inconsistent; today, civil society organizations are driving effective responses.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: That is the political and geographic context, where matters are concrete. However, in other conversations, we touched on different strands of antisemitism, some of which are far more bizarre. In a glossary of styles of antisemitism, we encountered the supernaturalist conspiracy theories—things like, “the Rothschilds own the moon and operate a moon base controlling global domination.” These examples are extreme, but they illustrate how antisemitism mutates into absurd forms. What we discussed at the conference, however, remained more concrete and pressing: the kind of antisemitism that is shaping publishing, organizing, and political events today.

From your perspective as an editor and organizer, what was your takeaway from that event? Moreover, how do you incorporate these insights into your editorial guidelines and decision-making?

Giagnorio: That is an excellent question. My main takeaway was that we have much work to do, but we also have a lot of people already doing the work. There are numerous outstanding Jewish organizations, some newly established after October 7, while others are long-standing.

I was particularly impressed by the contributions of Casey Babb at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute—his policy work is phenomenal. I also had conversations with Mark Sandler and his team at an organization whose name escapes me at the moment. However, their focus is crucial: they approach antisemitism through a legal lens. They are asking: What do we need to do legally? How do we combat this through the courts and policy frameworks?

For me, it was also a valuable chance to deepen my understanding of how the historical dimensions of antisemitism shape contemporary realities. Moreover, what I took away most of all is that we are not in an exclusively doom-and-gloom moment. Yes, things may be burning—literally and figuratively. Yes, things may be chaotic. However, there are people, organizations, and legal advocates working diligently behind the scenes.

I consider myself part of that network. It is encouraging to know there are compatriots—Jewish and non-Jewish—who are committed to liberal democracy and who stand firmly against antisemitism in all its vile, brain-rotting forms. The conference also provided an opportunity to build connections, strengthen our ranks, and highlight important moments in Canadian history that can inform the fight we face today.

One of the most chilling things I took away from the conference was hearing the testimonies of Jewish students on Canadian campuses, especially in Quebec. Their stories were frightening—they gave me chills then, and they give me chills now. Many of these students felt they had nowhere to turn. They could not go to their deans or professors. When they did speak up, they were dismissed outright. Their concerns were brushed off as “just an opinion” or a “feeling.”

To me, that was not very nice. The very act of attending university and seeking an education is no longer safe for Jewish students—emotionally or physically—in Canada at this moment. That is heartbreaking, especially for me, as someone who loves this country, was born here, and values our history—the good, the bad, and the complex. While Canada talks about welcoming others with “elbows up,” we are at the same time turning an elbow against our Jewish brothers and sisters. That hurts deeply.

Jacobsen: Do you notice any commonalities between left and right blind spots on this issue?

Giagnorio: Yes. The conspiratorial mindset is the commonality. The further you go into extremism—whether left or right—the more interchangeable the narratives become. Both sides fall into the same patterns: the Rothschild conspiracies, the denial of the moon landing, and, in the most grotesque examples, the blaming of 9/11 on Israel and the Jews. That is not new, but it is grotesque.

Another blind spot is internal. Both the left and the right struggle—or outright refuse—to acknowledge antisemitism in their own ranks. Each side insists that antisemitism only exists on the other side. That refusal is itself part of the problem. John Cleese, in a satirical sketch on self-righteousness, captured this perfectly decades ago: it is always easier to attribute all the bad to others and all the good to oneself. That mindset happens not only at the individual level but also within groups. Unless we remain vigilant and mindful, we all fall prey to it.

Jacobsen: So that is a perennial lesson.

Giagnorio: Each generation has to relearn this lesson. Moreover, in terms of antisemitism, I would add another commonality: the educational approach. In Canada—at least in Ontario, and I cannot speak for other provinces—what is labelled “antisemitism education” usually boils down to Holocaust education. That is important, but it is only one part of the history.

Antisemitism has European roots, a Middle Eastern history, and has evolved over centuries. Reducing education to only the Holocaust flattens the picture. It leaves out the longer arc of antisemitism—its religious, political, and conspiratorial forms. To address antisemitism effectively, we need to teach it as a long-standing, global prejudice—not simply a chapter of mid-20th-century European history.

The current educational approach’s structure exacerbates the situation. If you are in primary or secondary school and move into post-secondary education, you may come away with the impression that the Holocaust was just another genocide. Horrible, yes—but no different, nothing distinct in and of itself. That is inaccurate. It reflects a blanket approach in education.

So, I am not surprised, Scott, when you see younger people in their twenties today becoming vehemently antisemitic. Young people are out there chanting “Globalize the Intifada” or “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,”wrapped in keffiyehs. That is a natural response from an education system that has failed to teach them the long history of antisemitism. Instead, they are given a crib-note version of Anne Frank and maybe a chapter—or even just a few pages—on the Holocaust within the context of World War II. However, the buildup, the severity, and why the Holocaust happened are not emphasized. It did not appear out of nowhere.

Jacobsen: Canada is a close ally of the United States and has its own long history of navigating this issue. Canada can be hypocritical at times in policy versus action—though in a more subtle, almost “smiley-face” way. With respect to antisemitism, what is Canada doing well, and what is Canada not doing well?

Giagnorio: Excellent question. Right off the bat, I believe that Prime Minister Carney is worse than Prime Minister Trudeau on this file. For all the sham, drudgery, and disgusting yes-and-no approaches with Trudeau, at least he openly stated—passionately, in fact—that he was a Zionist. Take that with a grain of salt, critique me if you like, but he did say it.

Carney, by contrast, has yet to make such a statement. He takes an overly technocratic approach to governance, where even if Trudeau often made the wrong policy calls, at least he understood the issues from a political and policy perspective. Carney seems not to grasp them at all. To him, it is just a numbers game: if you organize things in a certain way, you can either “fix” or dismiss the problem. That is a fundamental misunderstanding.

Now, Canada has done some things right. One of them is listening—though inconsistently—to Jewish voices and community leaders. It has been an ebb and flow, not a straight line of progress. Even Carney, despite his flaws, has at least shown some willingness to listen, although he tends to treat Canada as if it were a corporation. It is a very technocratic, almost corporate mindset, and in that sense, ironically, it reminds me of a Trump-like approach to governance—though with Canadian politeness layered on top.

Prime Minister Carney did at least attend the October 7 Nova Music Festival memorial exhibit. He reached out to the Jewish community in a way that Justin Trudeau often did not. Moreover, I must agree with my colleague, Warren Kinsella, who wrote an article making the same point: when a politician is listening, you take it. Please do not spit in his face every ten seconds. He is a politician—he will be frustrating at times, even infuriating—but when he listens, take what you can get.

That said, what we are seeing now feels very much like an appeasement of terror. I recently wrote an article opposing Canada’s move toward acknowledging a Palestinian state at this time. To me, that is appeasement. It sends a message: commit enough atrocities, cause enough slaughter, and you will be rewarded. You do not even need to disarm—just attack, terrorize, and eventually, you will get what you demand. That is a dangerous—and complex—issue to address.

It is not easy, and it has been an ebb and flow, both under Trudeau and now under Carney. Take October 7 itself: Montreal was practically ablaze—riots, vigilantes, people shouting “Globalize the Intifada” in the streets. Moreover, where was Trudeau? At a Taylor Swift concert. He issued no official statement. That is a problem. Antisemitism is not a local issue—it is a national and civilizational issue.

This tendency defined Trudeau’s time: he often told different audiences different things. Moreover, we see it continuing under Carney. Yes, Carney made gestures, but then you also see him speaking at MAC (the Muslim Association of Canada), equating “Muslim values” with Canadian values. For context, he was trying to say that all cultural traditions are compatible with Canadian liberal, secular, democratic values. However, that is not entirely accurate—especially when addressing an organization widely criticized for its illiberal tendencies. The problem is not that MAC is “conservative.” The problem is that it is an entity with deeply illiberal tendencies.

That kind of rhetoric emboldens the voices of extremism. For Carney to speak at such an event and make those remarks at a time of heightened tensions was, frankly, foolish. It does not demonstrate economic brilliance—it demonstrates social ineptitude. Therefore, I cannot provide a concise and thorough answer, except to say that there are too many ebbs and flows in Canada’s leadership.

The people who are truly doing great work are not necessarily those in government. They are the Jewish organizations, many of which were formed in the aftermath of October 7, as well as those that predate it by a long time. These include legal organizations, advocacy groups, and policy institutes. They are the ones doing the real work.

For example, Vivian Bercovici, Canada’s former ambassador to Israel, has also made significant contributions as a journalist. She has written courageously and clearly about issues that others in Canada either avoid or fail to articulate with the same precision. Organizations such as the Canadian Antisemitism Education Foundation (CAEF) are also doing outstanding work. Moreover, entities like the Jewish Affairs and Free Speech Alliance (JAFFA) are also making meaningful contributions.

There are many organizations across Canada working to influence government positively, press for real change, and respond pragmatically and proactively to antisemitism. Their work highlights an essential point: this is not a free speech issue. When speech crosses the line into calls for the destruction of a democratic state or the physical elimination of a people, that is not free expression—it is a threat. Moreover, in those cases, the threat outweighs any claim to freedom of speech, because what is being expressed is not an idea but the denial of a people’s right to exist.

Jacobsen: Matthew, thank you.

Giagnorio: You are welcome.

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.