By Mark Sandler and Peter Copeland, February 25, 2025
Canada is tense. A barbaric antisemitism is ascendant.
We’ve seen a meteoric rise in extremists’ protests, hate crimes, dangerous rhetoric, and even outright violence. Canadian law enforcement, tasked with preserving public safety and upholding democratic freedoms, faces a new and challenging landscape.
Governments, law enforcement, and academic institutions have all been fairly criticized for their failure to respond to the pervasive antisemitism on our streets and campuses. Some have proposed amendments to Canada’s Criminal Code, including toughening up our hate speech laws, as the solution. But enforcing existing law, not new layers of legislation, is the better answer. We need a plan to both respect fundamental freedoms and enable effective law enforcement to deter the rise in antisemitic hate across Canada.
Understanding the challenge
Police are often criticized for either overstepping or failing to act in response to hate-motivated incidents and protests that infringe the rights of minority groups. This leaves communities feeling either unprotected or unjustly targeted, with accusations of police bias along partisan political lines.
In almost every case it is difficult to credibly assert that police are systemically overstepping their authority. On the contrary, unprecedented levels of antisemitic activity show that extremists have engaged in the harassment and intimidation of Jews largely with impunity. Obvious instances of hate activities have gone unchecked. When charges are pressed, our broader justice system deals with them in ways that fail to deter offenders or protect the community.
The policing gap
A key factor in the incapacity of our law enforcement to address hate-filled protests and hate crimes is a crisis of confidence within police services. In the wake of high-profile criticisms of police conduct in Canada and in the United States, such as those arising out of the killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police officers and the Black Lives Matter movement, issues surrounding the conduct of police during the Freedom Convoy, and the shooting of Dudley George at Ipperwash Provincial Park, there has been a chilling effect on policing. Police have reported an increased hesitancy in responding to certain calls, and in using force. Officers fear public criticism or professional consequences for taking decisive action in politically charged environments.
A 2019 study of police in Canada and the United States showed that 93 per cent of officers surveyed believe the public perception of policing has worsened since they started their career. It found that “a substantial majority of today’s rank-and-file officers in the 23 jurisdictions across both countries (72 per cent) are intentionally reducing, or eliminating, proactive interactions in the community, in response to officers’ perceptions that such discretionary initiatives are unnecessarily risky.”
Part of the issue also rests with the emphasis now placed on de-escalation tactics. De-escalation is a desirable outcome in most high-risk situations. However, if such efforts are not accompanied by meaningful boundaries, they signal to extremist elements that they can act with impunity. In this context, de-escalation often looks like capitulation and merely emboldens further criminal activity.
To compound the issue, police training to manage hate crimes and protests often falls short. Officers often do not fully understand the range of legal options available to them, leading to underenforcement or missed opportunities to hold offenders accountable. Nor do police necessarily understand how antisemitism manifests today. Specifically, some officers may fail to appreciate how antisemitism frequently masquerades as anti-Zionism. As a result, unless hate speech is accompanied by an immediate breach of the peace, police may ignore hate speech during protests and demonstrations. This underestimates the impact of hate speech on the targeted community and the ability of such speech to draw others to extremism. Both these dangers have been recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada, in cases like R v. Keegstra wherein the Court upheld the constitutionality of s. 319 (2) that criminalizes the wilful promotion of hatred.
Where the law stands
Canada’s Criminal Code provides robust tools to address hate crimes and public order disturbances. These include prohibitions on mischief related to property and religious property, criminal intimidation, unlawful assembly, the wilful promotion of hatred, public incitement of hatred likely to lead to a breach of the peace, and advocating or promoting genocide.
While there is rightfully a high bar for prosecuting instances of hate speech to ensure faithfulness to constitutional protections, some hate speech offences are underused. A legislative requirement for the attorney general to consent to prosecute several of the hate speech offences adds a layer of complexity and delay (potentially discouraging law enforcement from pursuing these cases).
Often, a better option to control illegal, hate-motivated, and destabilizing protests is the prosecution of other offences in the Criminal Code. In many recent protests, intimidation (an offence that specifically addresses the blocking of roads), trespass, interference with the lawful use and enjoyment of property (mischief), and unlawful assembly are clearly on display, all of which constitute offences in themselves. And, if these more conventional criminal offences are used to tamp down plainly hateful protests, the Criminal Code still allows our courts to consider hate motivation as a relevant aggravating circumstance in sentencing.
In other words, in many recent cases there were more options available to police than simply pursuing complex hate speech charges; police and prosecutors should use the full arsenal of legal tools available to them to address the hate and intimidation happening on our streets.
A path forward: policy, advocacy, and training
First, police need better training on the tools available to them. Training must emphasize the distinction between protected speech and hate speech. Officers need practical guidance, using real life scenarios, to recognize hate-motivated crimes and to understand when actions like intimidation or mischief cross legal thresholds. Clear procedures or direction from police leadership on how to handle unlawful assemblies, masked offenders, mischief, and other hate activities will empower police to act decisively. Dedicated hate crime units (with prosecutors embedded in joint task forces) could also prove essential. Adequate personnel and resources are also needed to equip law enforcement to pursue cases that might otherwise be seen as too complex or politically charged to address.
Beyond the frontlines, police service boards must create clearer policies for managing protests and hate crimes. These policies must prioritize zero tolerance for hate and intimidation while outlining criteria for enforcing laws against property damage, unlawful assemblies, and hate speech. Boards should advocate for streamlined processes, such as reducing delays in obtaining the attorney general’s consent for certain prosecutions.
Finally, law enforcement cannot operate effectively without public trust and support. Rebuilding trust requires a balanced narrative that acknowledges past shortcomings while emphasizing the critical role police play in maintaining public safety. Most Canadians will support the robust, but measured, use of the criminal law to address extremism.
Conclusion
Canada’s social fabric is strained by the rising tide of antisemitic hate crimes and divisive protests. While the challenges are significant, they are not insurmountable. By investing in police training, adopting clear and enforceable policies, and rebuilding trust between communities and law enforcement, we can create a society where public safety and democratic freedoms coexist and we can deter the rise of intimidation, hate, and violence that has tragically become a recognizable part of Canadian life.
Mark Sandler is the chair of the Alliance of Canadians Combatting Antisemitism.
Peter Copeland is the deputy director of Domestic Policy at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.
