Anthony Housefather, PM Trudeau’s special adviser on antisemitism and Jewish community issues addressed the issue of anti-Palestinian racism when he was in Winnipeg on Nov 13, 2023 speaking at Etz Chayim synagogue to over 150 people.

According to a social media post by the Special Representative on Combatting Islamophobia, on Nov 7, 2024 it was announced that the federal government signaled support for “Anti-Palestinian Racism.” (APR).In her post on X, Amira Elghawaby wrote:

Through a series of roundtables across Canada, members of Parliament and my Office heard clearly that exclusion and erasure that are being reported by our communities, including among youth, are in part due to a lack of federal acknowledgement of anti-Palestinian racism. I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment on adopting a definition of anti-Palestinian racism to describe the bias and discrimination far too many Canadian Palestinians are experiencing

Elghawaby referred to the conflict in Gaza and Lebanon and to the “devaluation and dehumanization of Palestinian and Lebanese lives”

The term “Islamophobia” intends to capture anti-Muslim attitudes,and the creation of this sub-type of racism – anti-Palestinian racism – presupposes a surge of racism directed at Palestinians. Although Housefather did not specifically address the issue of empirical data, in my view it is necessary to see if there is empirical date or studies that have been done to verify that there in fact has been a surge in racism directed specifically at Palestinians, as opposed to Arabs or Muslims in general that would justify creating a definition of anti-Palestinian racism. There is no reference to such a study in Elghawaby’s post, and I hope that Housefather will examine carefully whether and to what extent there is empirical data to support creating a definition of anti-Palestinian racism. I should note that when the IHRA definition of anti-semitism was created, there was extensive empirical date about the existence of Jew-hatred, as opposed to anecdotal evidence.

I asked Housefather specifically whether he had spoken directly with Prime Minister Trudeau about the issue of  “anti-Palestinian Racism” (APR), as it is an issue of great concern, as denying the “Palestinian Nakba in 1948”  and the Palestinian narrative in the conflict could run afoul of any definition of  APR, which would greatly infringe on freedom of speech. The issue of APR first arose on Nov 7 in Elghawaby’s post and Housefather replied 6 days later on Nov 13, that “no” he had not spoken directly to PM Trudeau about this, because the issue was fresh.

Housefather said that he had raised the issue of APR with the staff of the PM, and that he has “weekly meetings with members of his staff,” where he raises issues of concern to the Jewish community. Housefather clarified to me after the event that he speaks to PM Trudeau about Jewish community concerns “every month or month and a half.”

C.I.J.A has issued a statement (set out below at the end of this article) outlining 10 reasons why it is necessary to reject APR. It says  APR  lacks debate, is inconsistent with established definitions and redundant definitions and redundant under the Charter, risks sidetracking the creation of Islamophobia guidelines, challenges freedom of expression, contravenes established government policies, is inconsistent with Canadian Foreign Policy, imposes a  divisive environment, silences victims of antisemitism, silences discussions of terrorism and invalidates anti-BDS legislation and policy.  

Housefather said in reference to Elghawaby’s post, “I do not think that’s the way the government of Canada would announce support for anti-Palestinian racism.” In my view this makes it all the more necessary for Housefather to clarify directly with PM Trudeau as soon as possible whether Elghawaby’s post is in fact accurate, and what if any promises he or his office has made about APR to her or the Arab or Muslim community.

Note that the Prime Minister’s Office didn’t respond when asked by National Post whether Trudeau plans to follow Elghawaby’s suggestion of advancing a definition of APR. (see: https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/jewish-groups-anti-palestinian-racism-israel)

Housefather indicated that there was no specific definition of APR noted in Elghawaby’s post, but there is very problematic definition of APR advanced by the Canadian Arab Lawyers Association  in a spring 2022 report that would make pro-Israel speech and narratives run afoul of the definition of APR. It says APR  is “a form of anti-Arab racism that silences, excludes, erases, stereotypes, defames or dehumanizes Palestinians or their narratives.”

In their supporting document the Canadian Arab Lawyers Association indicates that it advanced a definition of APR in reaction to the IHRA working definition of antisemitism, and it equates the displacement of approx. 750,000 Palestinians in the 1948 war with the Holocaust. The supporting document does not mention the equal if not greater number of Jews expelled from surrounding Arab states after the birth of Israel which Israel absorbed.

Housefather said, “Before we advance any new definition we need to understand why it is needed,” and why it is needed in addition to a definition of Islamophopia. He noted that Elghawaby’s post refers to the Lebanese, but she isn’t advancing a definition of anti-Lebanese racism. If the government has a definition of APR, Housefather asked would we not need a definition of anti-Lebanese racism, or anti-Syrian racism, and would we not need a definition of anti-Israel racism? Further he asked  why wouldn’t APR be caught in a definition of Anti-Arab Racism ? These are important questions that need to be answered and I hope that Housefather presses the PM's office  to answer these questions.

Housefather, a lawyer by training and a very capable orator, noted that the definition of  APR proposed by the Canadian Arab Lawyer’s Association is inconsistent with the  IHRA definition of anti-Semitism to which  the government of  Canada is committed. The IHRA is a non- binding definition, and I have no doubt that the Palestinian and Muslim community in Canada (who far outnumber the Jewish community) will take the position that that if the government of Canada is adopting the IHRA definition, then it must balance this with adopting a definition of APR. Housefather noted that we can not simply say "no" to a definition of APR, but need to understand the rationale for it being advanced. 

Housefather noted that it took a couple of years for the government to develop its anti-racism strategy, which may suggest that he thinks it would take a fair bit of time before the government advances a definition of anti-Palestinian racism. It should be noted that the IHRA definition of antisemitism was workshopped for a long period of time before it was advanced rather than be advanced in a rushed way, and I hope that Housefather makes this point with Trudeau when he next speaks to him.

CIJA has issued a 10 point statement (set out below) against APR saying it lacks debate, is inconsistent with established definitions and redundant definitions and redundant under the Charter, risks sidetracking the creation of Islamophobia guidelines, challenges freedom of expression, contravenes established government policies, is inconsistent with Canadian Foreign Policy, imposes a  divisive environment, silences victims of antisemitism, silences discussions of terrorism and invalidates anti-BDS legislation and policy.  

Housefather said “when an anti-Semitic event occurs, we don’t need to condemn Islamophobia and vice versa,” which is what has been occurring. I agree with him on that.  

Housefather spoke about other issues of concern to the Jewish community and I will report on his comments in a separate article of the Winnipeg Jewish Review.

CIJA’s 10 point statement on APR

The organized Jewish community generally supports the idea that those facing oppression and discrimination should be who defines it. Who better to explain how it is lived and experienced?

However, the express objective of a new concept, Anti-Palestinian Racism (APR), is to negate the Jewish experience, identity, and values, while also dismissing and diminishing the real need to define and combat Islamophobia.

This should not be accepted, tolerated, or even considered by decision makers. 

Here’s why. It:

1. Lacks Debate:

APR lacks scrutiny by experts, academics, jurists and lawyers, diplomats, civil servants, and elected officials. It’s driven by a select group advocating specific political views lacking both consensus and rigorous evaluation.

2. Is inconsistent with established definitions and redundant under the Charter:

APR introduces categories based on national origin and political opinion that diverge from established anti-racism definitions and conflates racism and discrimination. The Government of Canada’s 2024 Anti-Racism Strategy defines the following forms of racism: anti-Asian, anti-Black, anti-Indigenous, antisemitism, and Islamophobia. None cite national origin because discrimination based on national or ethnic origin is already protected under both section 15 of the Charter and under Canadian and provincial human rights legislation.

3. Risks sidetracking creation of Islamophobia guides:

Canada’s Special Representative on Combatting Islamophobia stated in the 2024 AntiRacism Strategy that a major goal was to “Develop a Canadian Guide on Islamophobia and addressing the safety and security needs of Muslim communities.” Islamophobia is a threat to Canadian Muslims, and focusing on APR undermines and polarizes the important work needed to combat Islamophobia.

4. Challenges freedom of expression:

 APR has the potential to silence dissenting viewpoints on issues such as the Arab-Israeli conflict. It fails to accommodate differing perspectives and narratives, including current government positions. The definitions of genocide denial under APR would mean that the Government of Canada’s position that the Israel-Hamas conflict in Gaza is NOT a genocide would be considered APR. Unlike the IHRA definition, which explicitly allows (and protects) legitimate criticism of Israel and its government, APR does not permit legitimate criticism.

5. Contravenes Established Government Policies: 

Including the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition of Antisemitism. APR’s premise that Israel is inherently racist directly contradicts these policies.  

6. Is inconsistent with Canadian Foreign Policy:

 Framing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as one of settler-colonialism and calling for “decolonization” disregards established Canadian foreign policy. The definition for APR directly challenges the IHRA definition of antisemitism, which includes “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.” Premised on Israel being a racist endeavour, APR contravenes IHRA.

7. Imposes divisive environment:

By pitting groups against each other in what resembles a zero-sum game of competing claims of discrimination that undermines unity and collaboration in combating prejudice. Proponents of APR refer to the erasure of “Palestinian-ess” where recognizing Israel, the Israeli flag, supporting a two-state solution, asserting that Jews are indigenous to Israel, and questions regarding representation of the Nakba have all been cited as attempted erasure of Palestinians. Under APR, affirming Israeli identity would be considered erasing Palestinian identity, labeled racism under APR. Most Canadian Jews identify with Zionism. Under APR, this majority view would be considered anti-Palestinian racism, creating deep division and polarization.   

8. Silences victims of antisemitism:

Proponents of APR describe “weaponized accusations of antisemitism,” where calling out antisemitism becomes anti-Palestinian racism, undermining and minimizing Jewish lived experiences of antisemitism.

9. Silences discussions of terrorism:

APR definitions stifle legitimate concerns about Hamas, Palestinian political leadership, Palestinian activists’ speech and their methods, and their adoption by government entities. All will lead to a skewed approach on issues that concern both Palestinians and Jews/Israelis.

10. Invalidates anti-BDS legislation and policy:  Legislation

Under APR, Ontario’s anti-BDS laws and the Prime Minister’s position on BDS would be considered racism. Anti-BDS laws are not racist against or repressive of Palestinians and do not prevent groups and individuals from supporting the Palestinian cause.