By Sheryl Saperia and Ches W. Parsons
June 23, 2026
On June 1, 2026, Prime Minister Mark Carney delivered his first major speech devoted to antisemitism, telling an audience at Toronto’s Holy Blossom Temple that “Canada’s civic compact is failing Jewish Canadians.” The acknowledgement was overdue and, in important respects, welcome. But the speech fell short in others. For instance, the prime minister did not name the movements behind the antisemitism he decried – namely, Islamism and the far left.
In the wake of the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks on Israel, the far left and Islamist movements have often acted in parallel – and at times, in concert – to harass, intimidate, and isolate Jewish communities across Canada, the United States, and Europe. Their convergence is commonly described as the “red–green alliance” (red for the far left, green for the Islamists). But that label is increasingly incomplete. Another shade of hate must be added to the palette – the “brown” of the far right (recalling the Nazi Brownshirts of the Second World War.)
The shared hostility of all three movements toward Jews and Israel is fuelling the surge in antisemitism that is sweeping across the West. Yet, Canadian political leaders and security agencies seem to only take far-right extremism seriously. They hesitate to name Islamism as a root cause and have not extended comparable seriousness to far-left extremism. Moreover, they have missed the cumulative national security threat the three pose together.
The San Diego attack: United in hate
The terrorist attack in San Diego on May 18, 2026, which must be unequivocally condemned, is emblematic of a larger phenomenon – groups with little in common ideologically converging to blame the Jews for the world’s evils and urging violence against them.
On May 18, two teenagers walked into the parking lot of the Islamic Center of San Diego, opened fire, and killed three men before retreating to a vehicle a few blocks away and killing themselves. The 75-page manifesto they left behind, titled The New Crusade: Sons of Tarrant after the perpetrator of the 2019 Christchurch mosque massacre in New Zealand, was a neo-Nazi document. Its first eight pages framed Jews as the root of every global problem. It praised Hitler and called for a race war.
Security guard Amin Abdullah held the shooters off long enough for 140 schoolchildren inside to be moved to safety. He died doing so, and his actions were heroic. However, the public record reveals Abdullah’s darker side. Archived Facebook posts surfaced within twenty-four hours of his death in which the security guard had responded “FO SHO!!” with a thumbs-up to a post praising Hitler’s “Final Solution” against the Jews. He had separately written about Jews that “Hell Fire is waiting for them.” The mosque he protected is led by Imam Taha Hassane, who in an October 20, 2023, sermon told his congregation that the Hamas attack two weeks earlier was not terrorism but justified resistance to “brutal Zionist occupation and genocide.”
The gunmen and the mosque they attacked stood on opposite sides of a massacre, yet antisemitism ran through both. That two sworn enemies arrived at the same hatred of Jews captures a terrible truth: that antisemitism is the one position on which otherwise irreconcilable extremist movements meet.
The red-green alliance is not new
The intellectual foundations of today’s red-green alliance go back decades. Among the most important was the Soviet anti-Zionist propaganda campaign of the 1960s and 1970s, which built much of the analytical vocabulary that Western leftists and Islamist movements share today. After Israel’s victory in the Six-Day War of 1967 embarrassed Moscow’s Arab clients, the USSR launched a systematic campaign that recast Zionism as racist, imperialist, and settler-colonial, recycling earlier antisemitic libels in anti-colonial vocabulary. The effort culminated in UN General Assembly Resolution 3379 of 1975, which declared Zionism a form of racism. The resolution was revoked in 1991, but its core proposition was reanimated at the 2001 UN Durban conference, by which point it had spread well beyond its Soviet origins to become a fixture of Western progressive discourse and Islamist political rhetoric.
The Iranian Revolution of 1979 turned a shared vocabulary into a political alliance. Political Islam, or Islamism, was not itself new – the Muslim Brotherhood had been active in Egypt since 1928 – but 1979 marked the first time an Islamist movement seized state power through revolution, in a country that had been a close Western ally. For Western leftist intellectuals, the moment was a watershed even before its outcome was certain. French philosopher Michel Foucault, travelling to Iran in 1978 as the upheaval unfolded, described the movement as the expression of a “political spirituality” the exhausted secular West could no longer produce.
That intellectual receptiveness hardened into something more deliberate after the Cold War. As Soviet communism collapsed in 1991, some of its theorists looked to political Islam for a new revolutionary partner. In 1994, Chris Harman, a leading thinker in Britain’s Socialist Workers Party and editor of Socialist Worker, made the case in a long essay, The Prophet and the Proletariat. He argued that Islamism was not a form of fascism, as some on the left then claimed, and that socialists should at times make common cause with Islamist movements against the state and Western imperialism. He distilled the stance into the formula “with the Islamists sometimes, with the state never.” The essay became a reference point for a left that, having lost its traditional cause, found in radical Islam a partner against a shared enemy.
A parallel intellectual development was unfolding in Western universities over the same decades. Edward Said’s Orientalism (1978) recast Western scholarship on the Arab and Muslim world as an instrument of imperial power and gave the New Left – the radical, student-driven left that emerged in the 1960s around anti-war and anti-colonial causes – a textual anchor. Frantz Fanon, whose The Wretched of the Earth (1961) cast revolutionary violence as the necessary mode of decolonization, supplied the moral framework that the New Left took up. By the 1990s, the framework was being taught widely under the name of settler-colonial studies, with Israel as the paradigm case. In 2006 at UC Berkeley, an academic named Judith Butler described Hamas and Hezbollah as “social movements that are progressive, that are on the Left, that are part of a global Left.” She was willing to overlook that both terrorist groups reject the feminism, gay rights, and secular liberalism the contemporary left rests on, presumably because the shared rejection of Israel was enough.
From academia, the same concepts moved into mainstream Western progressive life. By the early 21st century, anti-Zionism had become a moral litmus test for progressive credentials across trade unions, NGOs, professional associations, and the diversity, equity, and inclusion infrastructure of public and corporate life.
Foreign money helped accelerate the shift. A 2023 study by the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) documented a network of relationships between North American universities and foreign-state donors, Qatar most prominently, that creates an institutional environment in which anti-Israel and antisemitic discourse flourishes.
The red-green alliance operated historically on both intellectual and operational levels. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), founded in 1967 by the Christian Palestinian physician George Habash, was Marxist-Leninist, secular, and atheist. It described its objective in terms drawn directly from the Soviet vocabulary already taking hold internationally: the destruction of Israel and the defeat of what it called Western imperialism in the Middle East. The PFLP would co-operate operationally with Islamist movements like Hamas (founded in 1987) and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (founded in 1981), linked by a shared objective to eliminate Israel.
The PFLP built operational infrastructure. Through Wadie Haddad’s external-operations apparatus, the PFLP ran training camps in Lebanon and Syria from the late 1960s that supplied weapons, safe houses, and operational tradecraft to West German, Italian, Japanese, and other far-left groups. The September 1970 Dawson’s Field hijackings, in which the PFLP diverted three Western airliners to a Jordanian airfield and blew them up after evacuating the passengers, demonstrated the reach of that apparatus. Its foreign recruits took up the war on Israel too: in May 1972, three Japanese Red Army operatives, recruited, and directed by Haddad’s PFLP-External Operations apparatus, attacked Lod Airport near Tel Aviv and killed 26 people.
The June 1976 hijacking of Air France Flight 139, which ended in an Israeli commando raid on Entebbe airport in Uganda, also grew out of a PFLP pipeline. On June 27, two German nationals from the Revolutionary Cells (RZ), a German far-left terrorist group that co-operated operationally with both the Red Army Faction (RAF) and the PFLP, joined two PFLP-External Operations operatives in seizing the plane. The plane was diverted there, where the hijackers separated Jewish and Israeli passengers from the rest and demanded the release of 53 imprisoned terrorists. Four days later, Israeli commandos stormed the terminal and freed the hostages. The RZ personnel had trained in PFLP camps and drawn weapons and logistics from the network.
The RZ network produced a Canadian chapter to the story. Walter Lothar Ebke, a confirmed RZ member from 1985 to 1993, helped plant bombs across Germany, maintained a weapons and explosives depot in Berlin, and supported shootings that wounded a federal judge and an immigration official. When German prosecutors closed in during the mid-1990s, Ebke fled to Yellowknife, Northwest Territories. He opened a bed-and-breakfast on Back Bay, worked as a respected local carpenter, and lived quietly for nearly a decade. When Germany requested his arrest in 2000, residents of the Northwest Territories wrote glowing character letters on his behalf. Ebke fought extradition through every level of the Canadian court system before being returned to Germany in 2004. A senior operative of a European terrorist network had entered Canada, embedded himself in a small community, and exploited the country’s generous immigration policies, vast geography, and protracted legal appeals process. A similar pattern continues to repeat itself in Canada with figures whose files should have barred entry.
Also current is the PFLP’s alliance with Islamist movements. Its armed wing, the Abu Ali Mustafa Brigades, has fought alongside Hamas in the Joint Operations Room in Gaza since its establishment in July 2018, and PFLP operatives took part in the October 7, 2023, attacks. The alliance even reaches into Canada: in October 2024, the federal government listed the Canadian-based Samidoun Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network as a terrorist entity for its close links to the PFLP. Samidoun’s leadership has publicly celebrated Hamas, the PFLP, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad as “heroes” of Palestinian resistance – naming the secular Marxist and the Islamist factions together as a single struggle.
After October 7, the leaders of the Iranian regime, Hamas, and Hezbollah each publicly thanked Western progressives and governments for their solidarity. In May 2024, Hamas leader Khaled Mashal thanked the “great student Flood” emerging from Western universities at a Muslim Brotherhood conference in Istanbul. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei sent an open letter to American university students that month telling them, “You have now formed a branch of the Resistance Front.” Hezbollah’s deputy secretary general saluted “the Americans who are taking a stand” against Israel. Hamas has publicly thanked Canada by name on three separate occasions since October 7, after Canadian foreign policy moves that the terrorist organization treated as supportive of its strategic objectives. Hamas, Iran, and Hezbollah have, in their own words, claimed the Western protest movement and parts of the Western political establishment as their allies in a shared struggle.
The far right also belongs in the picture
To be clear, the far right, the far left, and Islamist movements are three distinct ideological threats. But they share common ground, and the cumulative threat they form is greater than the sum of their parts.
The analytical framework is not new. Alexandre del Valle, writing in Le Figaro in April 2002 and at greater length in International Politics in 2004, described a red-green-brown alignment between the far left, Islamism, and the far right around common enemies. The most prominent of those shared enemies are Jews, although there is also a shared hostility to the Western liberal order. The three movements have additionally converged on common usage of purity politics, binary divisions between those who are “with us or against us,” victimhood narratives, and an obsessive search for hidden systems of oppression that generate conspiracy theories.
The bilateral histories within the red-green-brown alignment are documented. The Second World War alliance between the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin al-Husayni, and Nazi Germany produced antisemitic Arabic-language radio broadcasts from Berlin. The Mufti also lent his religious endorsement to the SS recruitment of roughly 25,000 Bosnian Muslims into the 13th Waffen-SS “Handschar” Division in 1943. From the late twentieth century, European New Right and Third Position theorists explicitly theorized alliances among neo-fascists, Islamists, and far-left anti-imperialists against what they called “Zionist-occupied” liberalism. These are far-right intellectual currents that reject both liberal capitalism and the American-led global order and seek common cause with anti-imperialist movements, including Islamist ones. The most prominent figure is the Italian Claudio Mutti, who converted to Islam in the 1980s and built a publishing and intellectual network around the journal Eurasia.
The contemporary evidence of a red-green-brown alliance is digital and operational. The Terrorgram Collective, designated a terrorist entity under Canadian law in December 2025, has spent the two-and-a-half years since the October 7 attacks repurposing Hamas propaganda and pro-Palestine imagery as its own. October 7 execution videos circulate as tactical manuals. The attack is praised on these channels as a model for what users call “white jihad”: targeted antisemitic violence intended to accelerate societal collapse. “One struggle” memes splice Palestinian keffiyeh imagery with classic Zionist Occupied Government (ZOG) conspiracies. Canadian far-right influencers urge followers to exploit the pro-Palestinian street unrest for recruitment. These actors do not appear at encampments; in any public setting they would view the average protester as a racial enemy. Yet in the encrypted forums where they organize, they read, remix, and amplify the same Hamas propaganda and pro-Palestine imagery, often within hours of its first appearance on Telegram or TikTok.
Each of the three movements arrives at antisemitism by its own route, and each contributes something specific to the convergence.
The far-left tradition treats Western liberalism as the political face of capitalism and Western imperialism. Israel, in this framing, is a European colonial project in the Middle East that dispossessed an indigenous population. Jews are cast not as a people returning to their ancestral homeland but as colonial settlers, with Jewish institutional life in the diaspora treated as part of the same privileged power structure. Operating through universities, unions, and the diversity-and-inclusion infrastructure, the left supplies academically respectable vocabulary like “settler-colonial,” “apartheid,” and “genocide,” which allows hostility to Jews to be expressed as moral critique.
Islamism rejects Western liberalism as a political order built on human authority rather than divine sovereignty. Its hostility to Jews draws on religious texts and political theology that frame Jews as a permanent enemy. Its hostility to Israel is absolute: it rejects Jewish sovereignty over any part of the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, regardless of the fact that Jews lived in the land long before the Arab conquest of the seventh century, and regardless of any negotiated outcome. Islamism supplies the mass mobilization and eliminationist language like “from the river to the sea” and “globalize the intifada.”
The far right treats Western liberalism as the engine of multiculturalism and globalism, and Jews as the hidden hand behind both. From encrypted Telegram channels and the Terrorgram network, it supplies the conspiracy infrastructure: Zionist Occupied Government tropes, Holocaust denial, and the accelerationist strategy that treats Jewish death as a way to hasten the collapse of liberal society.
Three movements that would otherwise describe one another as mortal enemies have arrived at a single position with lethal real-world consequences. They use different vocabularies, but the practical effect is cumulative: Jews are made into a legitimate political target, and Jewish institutions are treated as legitimate sites of protest, intimidation, and confrontation. Antisemitism is the sui generis ideological core of these different extremist ideologies.
Antisemitism in Canada has reached a national security scale, but the response has not
In April 2026, the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, after a year-long study, called antisemitism in Canada “a clear and present danger to our free and democratic society,” and noted that although the Jewish community constitutes one per cent of the Canadian population, it has been the top target of hate crime in Canada since 2023 and the target of seventy per cent of religiously motivated hate crimes. Antisemitic extremists have shot at synagogues and Jewish schools. Jewish communal life is being conducted under sustained intimidation.
The alignment of the red, green, and brown movements helps explain the scale of antisemitism that Canadians are now experiencing: when three of the most significant extremist currents in the West today converge on the same target, the effect is greater than what any one of them could produce alone. The Canadian institutional response has not caught up.
Addressing the crisis while speaking at Toronto’s Holy Blossom Temple in June 2026, Prime Minister Mark Carney announced a ministerial advisory council whose membership immediately drew criticism: among its members are a lawyer representing pro-Palestinian activists suing the University of Alberta over the forcible removal of its 2024 encampment, and a former Liberal Cabinet minister whom the Conservative leader accused of having once lobbied to keep Hezbollah off Canada’s terror list. The speech pointed to new funding for community security, but it stopped short of treating the crisis as a major national security threat.
Confronting the crisis: Legal and policy tools that Canada should use to combat antisemitism
Confronting this threat requires the full range of legal and policy tools available:
Modernize and enforce sedition laws
Canadian prosecutors should be willing to lay sedition charges where the facts support them. The slogan most-chanted at protests across Canada since October 2023, “Globalize the Intifada,” is a call for international insurrection. “Intifada” is not a generic term for protest; it specifically denotes an armed uprising. Canadian law has a category for this: Sections 59 through 61 of the Criminal Code define and prohibit seditious conduct, which includes the advocacy of force as a means of accomplishing governmental change. The provisions are old, narrow, and rarely used. They are also potentially well suited to a sustained, organized campaign that openly endorses armed uprising against the established order in Canada, its Jewish community, and its democratic allies. Parliament should consider clarifying and modernizing the provisions where the current language is too narrow for present circumstances.
Treat organized attacks as terrorism
Patterned attacks on Jewish institutions in Canada are being treated as hate crimes. As we have previously argued in the National Post, this framing may be incomplete. The Criminal Code’s section 83.01 defines terrorist activity as an act committed in whole or in part for a political, religious, or ideological purpose, intended to intimidate the public or compel a person, government, or organization to act or refrain from acting. When firearms are discharged at synagogues and Jewish day schools, repeatedly, across multiple cities, with the unmistakable purpose of forcing a community out of public life, that is the legal definition of terrorism. The distinction matters because the two charging regimes invoke fundamentally different state responses. A hate-crime prosecution is a localized criminal matter, handled by local police and provincial Crowns. A terrorism prosecution invokes a whole-of-government response that includes CSIS and the RCMP. A hate-crime framing communicates to perpetrators and to the targeted community that this is a series of individual incidents. A terrorism framing communicates that this is an organized assault on the national order. The evidence supports the second framing.
Close terrorist listing loopholes
Canada’s terrorist entity listings under section 83.05 of the Criminal Code are an important tool, and the federal government has used it actively in recent years, including the listings of the Terrorgram Collective in December 2025, Samidoun in October 2024, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) in June 2024. But listings have sometimes lagged behind the evidence, with known organizations remaining unlisted for years until political pressure or allied designations forced action. Listings also lose meaning without enforcement, and they should arguably extend to successor and affiliate entities founded, led, or staffed by the same people. The Samidoun case is one example. Samidoun was listed because of its links to the PFLP. Yet Masar Badil, which the Jerusalem Post reports is closely linked to the banned Samidoun network, is openly planning a “Three Years of Al-Aqsa Flood” conference in Toronto for November 2026, celebrating the October 7 attacks. Without automatic extension to affiliates, a terror listing is just an invitation to rebrand.
Prevent foreign influence on campuses
The foreign-interference framework added by the Countering Foreign Interference Act in June 2024 (Bill C-70) created a Foreign Influence Transparency Registry, expanded CSIS’s mandate, and added Security of Information Act offences for foreign-influenced activity. The instruments are new, and the question now is whether they will be properly used. One consequential application is in higher education. Canada should not permit foreign actors whose strategic objective is the weakening of Western liberal democracies, including Qatar, Iran, and China, to fund Canadian academic departments, chairs, student programming, or institutional partnerships. It should surprise no one that a generation of Canadian university students has emerged hostile to Israel, Jewish communal life, and the Western liberal order when the institutional environment in which they were educated has been actively shaped by actors whose strategic interests align with these hostilities.
Hold universities accountable
Federal research funding to Canadian universities should be tied to the consistent enforcement of campus codes of conduct against intimidation and harassment, including the protection of Jewish students from organized exclusion from campus life. Many feel that universities have not been held sufficiently accountable for the gap between what their codes require and what they have permitted on campus since October 2023.
The same dynamic now reaches K–12 schools, where Jewish students have faced organized exclusion and where the politicization of curriculum has begun to shape Canadian children’s views of Jews and Israel before they ever reach university. The Toronto District School Board has voted to embed an anti-Palestinian racism (APR) framework in its anti-hate strategy, and Ontario’s elementary teachers’ federation has passed a resolution committing to develop APR materials for classroom use. The widely-used Arab Canadian Lawyers Association definition labels as racist anyone who fails to affirm that all Israeli territory, including pre-1967 borders, is occupied land, and treats disagreement with Palestinian narratives of the Nakba as racism. Under that definition, Canadians who support Israel’s right to exist are by definition racists. Embedding this framework in classrooms would mark Jewish students and families as racists in their own schools, for holding the convictions held by the majority of Jews in Canada.
Strengthen immigration enforcement
Canada must also strengthen its immigration regulations to meet the threat of antisemitism, particularly from state and non-state Islamist actors. For instance, officials of the Iranian regime — which funds, arms, and directs Hamas, Hezbollah, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad — have entered Canada in significant numbers. Two distinct frameworks exist for excluding them. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is a listed terrorist entity, which makes its members inadmissible under section 34 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). Separately, in November 2022, the Government of Canada designated the Iranian regime under paragraph 35(1)(b) of the IRPA as a regime that has engaged in terrorism and gross human rights violations, making senior officials inadmissible regardless of IRGC membership. The enforcement record is the problem. As of May 2026, the CBSA had reviewed approximately 17,800 applications under the IRPA designation of the Iranian regime, identified 34 individuals as inadmissible, and removed one official from Canada. Independent reporting suggests that several hundred Iranian regime officials and family members may be physically present in Canada. The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) and the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) are working against a problem that is larger than the available staffing can address. Parliament should provide the CBSA and the IRB with the additional staffing, intelligence support, and resources needed to keep pace with an inadmissibility caseload that is now structural rather than episodic.
Refocus charity oversight
Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) oversight of registered charities has been criticized from two directions. Recent reporting suggests that Canadian-funded humanitarian organizations operating in Gaza had their personnel infiltrated and their operations manipulated by Hamas, according to internal Hamas documents from 2018 to 2022 that were captured by the Israel Defense Forces and analyzed by NGO Monitor. The documents, to which the National Post was given exclusive access, name multiple international NGOs that have received Canadian government funding; the Israel Defense Forces say the documents are authentic, though the National Post could not independently verify them. At the same time, Jewish charitable organizations have reported a pattern of CRA audits and de-registrations that they and their counsel argue has been disproportionate and politically motivated. The CRA needs to focus its enforcement on the organizations actually engaged in material or ideological support for listed terrorist entities.
Address far-left political violence
CSIS and the RCMP take far-right extremism seriously, but comparable seriousness has not yet been extended to far-left extremism. Recent data from the Center for Strategic and International Studies indicates that in the first half of 2025, for the first time in roughly three decades, far-left terrorist attacks and plots in the United States outpaced those from the far right. The Canadian threat profile is not identical, but the categories of actors active in the United States, including anarchist networks, militant anti-fascist groups, and ideologically violent fringe elements of the broader progressive movement, are also active in Canada. Canadian intelligence and law-enforcement services should bring the same investigative resources, public reporting, and inter-agency coordination to far-left political violence that they have appropriately brought to far-right political violence.
Name Islamist extremism clearly
Canadian intelligence and law-enforcement services are aware of the threat posed by Islamist terrorism. What is missing is the political and institutional willingness to name the ideology specifically. The reluctance may have principled roots in Canada’s commitments to multiculturalism and religious tolerance, but it is also political: some leaders weigh the electoral cost of speaking plainly, and others fear the accusation of intolerance. The result is that an ideology in direct opposition to Canadian liberal-democratic values has become difficult for Canadian institutions to discuss. The category “religiously motivated violent extremism” is a legitimate one, and it covers cases that are not Islamist. But when the specific ideology driving an act or a movement is Islamist, Canadians should be able to say so. The great majority of Canadian Muslims do not benefit from a public conversation that cannot name the ideology threatening their own communities.
Canadians outside the Jewish community may ask why the red-green-brown alliance should matter to them. It matters because the rule of law, the quality of higher education, the impartiality of the public broadcaster, the security of the immigration system, and the social fabric of the country are all under strain. The impact is most visible on the Jewish community because antisemitism is the convergence point. The integrity of Canada’s liberal democracy and its institutions is the longer-term question.
Demand public broadcaster accountability
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) carries statutory obligations of impartiality under the Broadcasting Act. In March 2026, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage heard testimony documenting a sustained pattern of imbalanced coverage of the Israel–Hamas war since October 7, 2023, and proposing legally defined standards for factual reporting on terrorism and international conflict, with breaches triggering formal investigations, alongside mandatory transparency reporting on editorial decisions. Parliament should treat those proposals seriously. The CBC is not the only Canadian media institution shaping how the situation is understood by Canadians, but it is taxpayer-funded, and the one for which Parliament has the clearest accountability mechanism.
The stakes
Canada was built on a commitment to peace, order, and good government, and to the proposition that a liberal democracy can hold together a diverse society by protecting the equal dignity of every community within it. That proposition is now being tested by the far left (red), the Islamist movements (green), and the far right (brown), which agree on almost nothing except their shared hostility to Jews, Israel, and the liberal Western order. None of the three could, on its own, produce antisemitism on the scale Canada is now seeing; together, they amplify each other’s efforts to extreme levels. Antisemitism is the point on which they meet, but the liberal democratic system they each oppose is the longer-term target. The Jewish community has given the country the warning. Whether Canada answers it, with the full force of its laws, institutions, and political leadership, will determine whether it lives up to its own promise.
About the authors
Sheryl Saperia is a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.
Ches W. Parsons is a retired RCMP assistant commissioner and its former director general of national security.
Saperia and Parsons are the principals of Pearl Strategic Counsel, a new boutique firm providing expert security counsel to corporations, governments, institutions, and private clients, as well as strategic advice and thought leadership on national security, public safety, and civic stability.
