Defining Antisemitism in Canada: Mathew Giagnorio on Law, Education, and the Propaganda War
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): A Further Inquiry
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/01
Defining Antisemitism in Canada: Mathew Giagnorio on Law, Education, and the Propaganda War
How should Canadian publishers and policymakers define and confront evolving antisemitism without shielding violent extremism from legitimate criticism?
Sep 01, 2025
∙ Paid
Part 1 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: Alright, today we are here with Mathew Giagnorio, founder and editor-in-chief of A Further Inquiry. We will discuss antisemitism. On June 12, 2025, you organized and the Clarity Coalition, the Niagara Military Museum, and the Canadian Antisemitism Education Foundation (CAEF) co-hosted the conference “Confronting Antisemitism in Canada” at the Niagara Military Museum. You frequently publish commentary and analysis on contemporary antisemitism, including the piece “What is Liberalism? The Rise of Left-Wing Antisemitism, and The Weaponization of White Privilege.”Additionally, your contributor bio at The Freethinker highlights the resurgence of antisemitism as a central focus of your work.
Two main ideas have emerged in these conversations. One approach is to adopt a static definition—helpful as a placeholder that enables metrics (e.g., via census or incident data) and provides an indicator of what to watch for. The other sees a static definition as too limited, because antisemitism evolves and is perennial. This view advocates for a living, context-responsive definition informed by current needs. Which approach seems—perhaps not more “correct,” but more appropriate—in a Canadian publishing context to you?
Mathew Giagnorio: Scott, first, it is great to be with you again today, and thank you for highlighting some of my work. I think you do need a definition—a working definition of antisemitism—but you also need to be fully aware that antisemitism evolves. It varies from decade to decade.
If we were talking at the turn of the 20th century—the 1920s or 1930s—the focus would lean toward nationalism and racial orientation. If we were talking in the 1500s, the emphasis might be on Jews as a people without a country—a wandering people—and it would also have been tied to religion. Antisemitism does change; it is morphological, to put it that way. There are constants in how it operates: it is a prejudice. However, it is not just another type of racism. In a sense, it is the original form of conspiracy theories.
There is almost nothing that does not end up being blamed on or attributed to Jews in the most outlandish, disgusting, and conspiratorial ways from an antisemitic mindset. So, yes, you need a working definition for everyday use.
Moreover, for the legal system, we need a means to circumvent, stop, and prevent this from occurring. As we are seeing through a contemporary lens, antisemitism has never truly gone away. However, today it is being given a more emboldened voice by politicians and by people who should otherwise dismiss this nonsense. We are witnessing it on the streets of Toronto, in Sydney, Australia, and in the United Kingdom. It is absolute nonsense.
We are also seeing the line: “I am not antisemitic, I am just anti-Zionist.” As I last checked, that is absolutely absurd. There are blatant calls for the destruction of Israel, people describing Hamas as “resistance,” and even casting Hezbollah as “resistance fighters.” This is grotesque. It is a propaganda strategy aimed at winning the war of perception. Moreover, although the IDF is doing a strong job militarily on the ground, in the West—in what should be democratic, liberal, secular countries—the propaganda war is still at a crossroads. Increasingly, the online space is being occupied by antisemitic voices.
Moreover, what frightens me most is seeing young people, especially those under 30, who believe they are engaging in a just, righteous, or historically correct cause. However, they know little about the history, and they are being drawn deeply into this. Why? Because academic discourse and DEI programming often disproportionately frame Jews as “privileged,” classifying them as “white Europeans.” This narrative has been heard at rallies under slogans like “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” or other refrains, which cast anyone Jewish as European, white, and therefore, by that definition, privileged.
It is a complete distortion of reality. Therefore, we need a clear working definition for a legal approach. However, we also must remain aware, both historically and in the present, that antisemitism undergoes morphological change. Today, one form is disgust that Israel exists at all, or resentment that the Jewish people are thriving. To be antisemitic today is not only to harbour old prejudices—which persist—but also to oppose the existence of the State of Israel directly. Hence, the anti-Zionist framing has become a prominent feature of modern discourse. You can see this in both academia and activist culture.
At our conference, one of the Canadian aspects discussed was the troubling introduction of these narratives not only at the high school level but even in primary schools. I shared with you and some of my colleagues my research on how this is being framed legally, particularly through the concept of “anti-Palestinian racism.” On its face, that sounds good—of course, nobody wants to be prejudiced against Palestinians.
Giagnorio: The problem with some of these modern definitions is that they are being used not based on race or anything of that sort, but rather to dismiss any criticism of volatility, terrorism, or extreme ideologies. These are ideologies that do not function as equals or compatriots, but explicitly as opponents of the Jewish people and, more specifically, as opponents of the State of Israel’s existence.
That becomes a serious problem when definitions are manipulated in ways that make it impossible to criticize groups such as Hamas. When you cannot call out violent, extreme, illiberal, undemocratic, theocratic, and outright barbaric actions—and when those actions are instead classified as “culture”—that is grotesque.
Now, that being said, I do not want to see any person—man, woman, or child, Palestinian or otherwise—die. I do not think any free-thinking, healthy-minded individual wants that. However, we must recognize that Palestinian civilians are put in harm’s way daily by groups such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and other factions. In many ways, they are captives of those entities themselves.
Do we have to acknowledge that every day, people are involved in this process? Indeed, some of these groups are even voted into power. However, we also must hold on to nuance and reality. Modern antisemitism is not diluted; it still uses the same tropes, the same conspiratorial frameworks that it always has.
We also need to understand that for people in their 30s, 40s, or older, antisemitism is often equated almost exclusively with the far-right framing—Nazi Germany, World War II, and of course, the Holocaust. That is what most people picture. However, it is difficult, especially for those on the political left or in liberal circles, to accept or even observe that antisemitism is not partisan. It predates the political spectrum as we know it. It exists on both the left and the right.
Today, we are seeing more of it from the political left, and that has historical precedent. For example, the Soviet model of antisemitism favoured leaders like Yasser Arafat and his approaches. This is not new. Stalin was virulently antisemitic, as was the Soviet system more broadly, as well as Imperial Russia before it. Out of this context emerged the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”—a fabricated text that became the precursor for much of the conspiratorial antisemitic framework that followed.
The fact that these ideas continue to circulate online is alarming. However, as free-thinking individuals in Western liberal democratic countries, we cannot sit idly by and allow this to continue. We must be vigilant and active. This is not a partisan issue—it is not simply for those on the left or the right. It is a societal issue.
Societies that allow the normalization of antisemitic rhetoric and discourse are societies that are, historically speaking, on the path to disintegration and decay. Moreover, we are seeing the beginnings of that today.
The Palestinian movement for statehood recognition has gained international attention. Canada, France, and the UK have each signalled support at the upcoming United Nations General Assembly, which is concerning. I know Prime Minister Mark Carney has suggested that recognition would only be contingent on disarmament—Hamas excluded from elections, Fatah committing to certain conditions. However, that is naïve. Who enforces these promises? Who ensures compliance?
We need to realize that antisemitism is not just a threat to the Jewish people. It has always been—and will always be—a threat to intellectual discourse. It is brain rot. It is also a direct threat to the functioning of liberal democracy.
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 