Case Explained: Ottawa’s new hate crime laws ‘a step in the right direction’, Jewish leaders say – Legal Perspective

On Sept. 19, Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government unveiled a series of planned changes to Canada’s criminal code. They, in part, crack down on the explosion of hate crimes across the country over the past two years since Oct. 7, mostly against Jewish people.

The new bill is called the “Combatting Hate Act” and still has a way to go before it is passed and takes effect. Ottawa intends to make it a crime when hateful protesters try to scare and intimidate minorities, including Jews, from accessing their community buildings, including synagogues, Jewish Community Centres, Jewish seniors homes, Hebrew schools and even cemeteries. The new law would also, for the first time, outlaw the public display of the Nazi swastika and the SS symbol in Canada, as well as other terrorism signs, if the people waving them are wilfully urging hatred against an identifiable group.

Many Jewish leaders are applauding the gesture as a strong signal that the Carney administration is keeping an election promise while putting a strong emphasis on fighting domestic antisemitism–that even while Canada announced on Sept. 21 it has formally recognized the Palestinian State, the government does not want to drag Middle Eastern politics onto Canadian soil.

So what’s in the new bill? Will it make it safer for Jews today, as the High Holidays begin? The short answer is: no.

On today’s episode of The CJN’s North Star podcast, hate crimes legal expert Mark Sandler—founding chair of the Alliance of Canadians Combatting Antisemitism—joins host Ellin Bessner to break down the proposed reforms. Also joining is Ezra Shanken, CEO of the Jewish Federation of Greater Vancouver, who personally met with the prime minister in Ottawa just days before the announcement.

Transcript

Sean Fraser: I think to myself about the many examples that we’ve seen over the years. Not too long ago in my community, we’ve seen charges laid for someone advocating genocide against their Jewish neighbours. We’ve seen recently synagogues in Halifax vandalised with hate symbols. We have seen violent attacks against people in Montreal because they are Jewish. We have seen the desecration of the National Holocaust Memorial…

Ellin Bessner: That’s what it sounded like Friday in Ottawa as Canada’s federal justice minister, Sean Fraser, unveiled the Carney government’s proposed Bill C-9: changes to the Criminal Code aimed at cracking down on skyrocketing hate crimes in this country, mainly against Jewish people since October 7.

The bill has a handful of proposed new crimes. And it makes changes to some existing ones.

New is banning the display of swastikas and the SS symbol if it’s a willful promotion of hatred.

Also new is making it a crime for anybody who tries to intimidate or block someone from going into a shul, a Hebrew school, or other Jewish cultural spaces. 

What the bill won’t do is move hateful protesters away from the entrance doors of a synagogue or from a community centre that’s hosting an Israeli or Jewish guest speaker. We’ll get a brand new crime, one the judges can put on somebody’s record, sort of like a Scarlet Letter or a mark of shame, saying the person committed a hate crime on top of whatever other crimes they get convicted of. 

Now much is being made of the fact that the announcement came the very first week that Parliament went back to work for the fall session, and only four days after Prime Minister Mark Carney met with the leaders of most of Canada’s Jewish federations and with CIJA, the political lobby group, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, whose leaders reminded Carney of the consequences here at home for Jews when Canada pushes back against the Israeli government so strongly and supports a Palestinian state. 

Ezra Shanken: We brought a lot of this stuff to bear and we also talked candidly about the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state and the connection of international proclamations and the spike in antisemitic incidents.

Ellin Bessner: I’m Ellin Bessner, and this is what Jewish Canada sounds like for Monday, September 22, 2025. Welcome to North Star, a podcast of The Canadian Jewish News, made possible thanks to the Ira Gluskin and Maxine Granovsky Gluskin Charitable Foundation. 

Many Jewish leaders are giving the Carney government a thank you note. Overall, B’nai B’rith Canada says these reforms are a “victory for Canadian values:. After all, the human rights organization spent over a year pushing all levels of government to ban the swastika, although critics say the government’s proposed changes don’t go far enough because it’s not an outright ban, it still has to be proven that the person waving the Nazi or terrorist symbol has malicious intent. 

The Canadian Friends of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre also applauded Ottawa’s reforms. They say harassment of Jews and glorification of terror has been going on for far too long, with the protesters who do it getting a free pass. So now the question is, what comes next? Will these reforms be fast-tracked or sidetracked? Will they be challenged by opposition parties, meaning it’ll be months and years until they even come into effect? 

To explain the legal aspects and the political ones, I’m joined by Mark Sandler. He’s a hate crimes expert who advises governments and police forces on antisemitism and is the founder of the Alliance for Canadians Combating Antisemitism, and also by Ezra Shanken, the CEO of the Jewish Federation of Greater Vancouver, who was one of the leaders at that meeting with the Prime Minister a week ago. Thanks for being here.

Mark Sandler: Our pleasure.

Ezra Shanken: Yep. Good to be here.

Ellin Bessner: All right, before we get into the nitty-gritty, let’s just do a quick lightning first impressions off the top. I’m going to start with you, Ezra. In the political realm. Is this good? Is this bad? Are you happy? Is it a victory? What does it symbolize?

Ezra Shanken: I think it symbolizes a step in the right direction. I think we, you know, it’s no secret that the organized Jewish community has been asking for additional protections to be put in place. But there’s a lot of work to be done. I don’t think anybody should feel unsafe within this country just because of who they are and where they choose to go. So if this can help us along in that journey to create a more caring environment for all, I’ll be pretty happy about it.

Ellin Bessner: Mark, you also have been working on this behind the scenes and publicly.

Mark Sandler: I’m generally encouraged by features of the new legislation. But I will point out in the course of our discussion what I regard as deficiencies, and I also want to keep our eye on the ball. And that is that I have been contending for a long time that the real issue isn’t the adequacy of criminal law measures to combat antisemitism, but the will to implement those measures and to enforce them. So this is a step in the right direction, as Ezra said, but there’s a lot more to be done.

Ellin Bessner: Now let’s break it down. What is it adding that wasn’t there before?

Mark Sandler: So they’ve added sections that have to do with intimidation or obstruction in connection with access to community centres, places of worship, and the like. There are already Criminal Code provisions that to some extent already address those issues. But I think it’s helpful that these are now codified with specific language of intimidation and obstruction that apply to our community centres and our places of worship. 

The second feature of the legislation, in my view, one of the most important, is creating a hate crime in connection with anything that is otherwise an offence but is motivated by hatred. For me, that sends an important message and that someone’s criminal record will reflect not only that they’ve committed a pre-existing offence, but that it was motivated by hatred. 

The third component of the new legislation is the definition of hatred. For me, there’s nothing new in this because they’ve simply adopted the language of the Supreme Court of Canada in Keegstra as to what hatred means, so it’s a neutral point. 

The fourth thing that they’ve done, and one of the more interesting ones, is that they’ve created another category of hate propaganda, namely the willful promotion of hatred by displaying certain symbols associated with prohibited entities under our Criminal Code, or Nazism. For me, it does add an additional offence of hate propaganda, but I have some difficulties with the language and the approach that has been taken. 

Mark Sandler: I should add that there is another provision contained in the Criminal Code that will be more controversial, and that is the removal of the requirement for the Attorney General’s consent for some of the hate propaganda sections that exist in the Criminal Code. Our community has been divided on the removal of that consent. I am personally opposed to that, and I can explain why.

Ellin Bessner: I’m actually surprised to hear that, but go ahead.

Mark Sandler: So, from my perspective, it sounds superficially attractive to remove the Attorney General’s consent, and I can understand the rationale for it. Having regard to the fact that some of the hate propaganda cases are languishing on the desks of several Attorneys General across this country.

I’m concerned about the removal of the Attorney General’s consent, as I’ve always stated, because I believe that there are those who would seek to misuse the hate propaganda sections to go after the Jewish community and pro-Israel advocates. So I have real reservations about the removal of the consent.

I would prefer that the Attorneys General of all provinces took a united front in vigorously moving forward on these cases so that the removal of the consent were not necessary.

I’m going to remind you of the hate propaganda sections that exist in the Criminal Code, one of them does not require the Attorney General’s consent, which is the incitement of hatred likely to lead to a breach of the peace. Nonetheless, it has been underutilized when it has been applicable to a number of activities that we’ve reported to the police. So, removal of the Attorneys General’s consent is not a panacea, and one must see it within the realistic light that I’ve tried to shine on it.

Ezra Shanken: In our own community, there has been immense frustration around the case of Charlotte Kates, which has been one of the kind of touchstone cases that has languished. You know, I don’t want to venture to put motive, but I think we could venture to hypothesize why it hasn’t been moved forward by this NDP government here in the province.

Ellin Bessner: And this is for our listeners, just a refresh. It’s the Samidoun, Charlotte Kates, their leader.

Ezra Shanken: This is actually from the earliest days of the post Oct. 7 environment in which Charlotte Kates in video celebrated the atrocities that were committed against us, threw her support behind the extremists who are out there perpetrating those offences and was arrested for it. There was a fair amount of work done by the Vancouver Police Department to make that happen, and we have a lot of gratitude. But I think what it would. And it’s been on the desk of the…

Ellin Bessner: The charges expired, they didn’t do anything. And she’s running around.

Ezra Shanken: The Attorney General division forever. This is why this is not a complete journey, nor do I think that there is a complete journey in this. There is an incredible amount of work that the government needs to do in educating and engaging with prosecutors.

I think that Mark alluded to it before, but there is an enforcement dimension to this. We can have all the laws we want on the books, but if we don’t have crown prosecutors who are willing to go the distance and actually make this happen, or Attorneys General that feel they are willing to stomach the political risks within their own careers to bring these things to a judge, and judges who are willing to rule on these cases, then the laws just become another list and another thing on the books that doesn’t get implemented.

So I do think that there is a tremendous amount of work that still needs to be done that could be done by the federal government, provincial governments coming together, but really working together with the legal community within the governmental space to try to examine enforcement and see how they can be helpful and how we can get them comfortable and educated around taking the risks.

Mark Sandler: One of the things that is missing in this legislation is an offence that involves either the glorification of terrorism or the willful promotion of terrorist entities or terrorist activities. I have proposed the latter as an important addition to the Criminal Code because it’s all too easy at times for the government to underutilize willful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group based upon arguments that I think are specious, but arguments nonetheless that are made that this is about anti-Zionism, not about antisemitism.

So for me, a real gap in the legislation in the existing Criminal Code is the failure to codify the willful promotion of terror activities, which isn’t dependent upon proof of which identifiable group is harmed. It’s dependent upon proof that you’re promoting terrorist activities of entities that have been designated by the government as such. So that is not in this legislation, although there were reports that the government was going to criminalize the glorification of terrorism as has taken place in other countries.

Ellin Bessner: So can you explain because, for example, you walk down the street and somebody’s got a Hezbollah flag, can they be put in prison and charged? No? Because it’s not bothering…?

Mark Sandler: What they’ve done is they haven’t criminalized the promotion of terror activities. What they’ve done is they’ve created a new hate propaganda section that specifically can only be proven by the display of symbols of terrorist activities. Now, there’s a couple of problems with that. The first is that in some countries, as I recommended, and others have recommended, there should simply be a section of the Criminal Code that criminalizes the display of terrorist paraphernalia, symbols, flags, and the like. That’s not what this section does. This is getting somewhat technical, but what it means is that it still remains a difficult task to prove this offence, as opposed to, for example, how England, Germany, and other jurisdictions have approached it, which is the mere display of these items constitutes the crime.

There’s no further proof required of willful promotion of hatred. The government seems to think that there are some constitutional challenges with it. I’ve drafted potential legislation that I think withstands any constitutional scrutiny, so I will be advocating that the government go one step further. I’m also concerned that the language is a little too narrow, because I would include symbols, flags, and articles of clothing. And as well, it says that if.

Ellin Bessner: It does or it doesn’t, clothing?

Mark Sandler: So far, it just says the word “symbols,” and I want greater clarity about what is covered. It covers these symbols when they are primarily used by a terror activity, which is very difficult to prove in a court of law. The primary use of a symbol, as opposed to a symbol that is specifically utilized by or specifically tied to a terrorist entity.

So, I have some drafting issues in connection with the legislation, though, as Ezra has said, and I agree, it’s a positive step forward, and we should acknowledge it as such.

Ezra Shanken: We know that this is an unfinished journey. Laws, I think, serve multiple purposes, and one purpose that they serve is a messaging and social engineering purpose. And what it does send, even though we would like it to be stronger, language-wise, it does help to continue to give us a mouthpiece to send a message. Not to the most hardcore who are willing to push the envelope at every step and bring hate to our doorstep, but to that outer circle that’s protecting them. They may not be on board for it. If there’s good education and promotion done around this evolving legal environment, I’m hoping that more and more people start to say, “Wait a second, this is… this is… I get it; we don’t want a world like this.” And this is a good reminder for me to stay out of the way on these types of things.

Ellin Bessner: How is this law gonna be changing the whole “awful but lawful” situation, which Jewish people and other minorities have had to live with for the last two years, where it makes you feel bad, but the police say it’s not illegal?

Mark Sandler: It will not completely fix that. And I say that for a variety of reasons. The first is, as you know, Ellin, I’ve been involved in training and educating police and prosecutors on the existence of criminal law tools to combat antisemitism. And there’s a long journey to be undertaken to ensure that they understand what tools are already available to them and that they understand what contemporary antisemitism is all about. Which is the real challenge at times because this “awful but lawful” defense often misunderstands or misinterprets what is protected speech and what is hate speech, even under our existing criminal code. So much of this is education and training.

The second is, under our current provisions of willful promotion of hatred, police can allege that the display of flags, such as Hezbollah flags, Hamas headbands, and the like, are evidence of willful promotion of hatred.

Mark Sandler: Exactly. So that ability can be utilized at present under our existing laws. Now here they’ve gone one step further because they’ve actually identified these symbols as potentially demonstrating the willful promotion of hatred. But as I said, it would be much more powerful if these were freestanding offences that say, if you choose to display a symbol associated with a terror group, one doesn’t have to then prove over and above that you’re doing it to willfully promote hatred against an identifiable group; it should be actionable.

Ellin Bessner: Nonetheless, this is NOT bubble legislation to keep people away from the JCC or the seniors homes, right?

Mark Sandler: There’s a lot of misunderstanding about bubble legislation because the government described this at times as bringing in bubble legislation. What bubble legislation is all about and why it is still necessary at the municipal or provincial levels is, it’s designed to be preventative. It’s not designed to wait until somebody commits a crime of intimidation and obstruction and then charge them. The federal government can’t create bubble legislation. They create criminal law. That’s their jurisdiction. So for those who think this has solved the bubble legislation issue, they’re incorrect.

Ezra Shanken: But what it has done, Ellin, is it’s an endorsement of the concept, and it sends a message from the federal government to provincial governments and municipal governments, in which we are working, many of us are working and advocating day in and day out to really send a message that to the extent that the federal government could do what they can, they’re trying to show that they’re doing that, which sends a message to the provincial government to then start to fill the gaps and start to get those things in place. I know that there are ongoing conversations here in British Columbia with our provincial government. And I think the more that the federal government is sending a supportive message down around these types of activities and efforts, I think that it helps to do that regardless of their limitations.

Ellin Bessner: Okay, on the timeline, because they announced it on the Friday. This law is going now to second reading, and then it has to go to the committee level, and then it has to go to the Senate. Being realistic, what are we talking about in terms of amendments? Like you said, Mark, you’re going to send them a whole bunch of sticky notes or briefs, right? When is this going to happen? How likely are we to see this soon? Because it’s something the community’s been asking for for two years, under the previous prime minister.

Mark Sandler: Well, the question is, we’ll see. But here’s the point that I would make about timing, and that is the government has introduced this legislation early in its legislative agenda. For me, that sends an important message. So, the question is, is it going to be fast-tracked because the government recognizes pervasive antisemitism and other forms of hate, so that it’s got to be dealt with in an expeditious way? Or will it proceed at a slow pace when these amendments are needed? So, the verdict’s not in yet on which approach the government will take. I would urge the government to address this as an urgent priority, and hopefully, then it could be enacted with appropriate amendments where necessary within a matter of months.

Ezra Shanken: I think we still need to see the Prime Minister really speak publicly and clearly on how he sees this going and what his commitment is around this. I think that we have yet to have that moment where the Prime Minister stands up, looks into the camera, and really says, “You know, this is unacceptable. This is where we’re going, and this is how fast I want to get there.”

And then we’ll know, we’ll have a better idea of kind of what we should expect. But right now, until the Prime Minister decides to really speak up and make a clear message to the public space about where he stands on this journey, it’s very hard to tell how fast or how slow it’ll go.

Ellin Bessner: And I’m wondering, just like Calgary, Toronto, and Vaughan, Brampton, they’re getting their bubble laws challenged in court. Are you confident at all, Mark, that these proposals will be able to go ahead, or will they also have to go all the way up to the Supreme Court, and we’ll be back to waiting around for another two years?

Mark Sandler: Look, no matter how carefully legislation is drafted, it will be challenged by those against whom it is used. And I think we have to recognize that. But remember, Ellin, the status quo is the legislation in the absence of the court saying that it’s unconstitutional. So it’s not as if we have to wait for a ruling on constitutionality before these sections can be utilized to full effect. So, that’s the important message to come out of it.

Ellin Bessner: Ezra, we should ask quickly before we end. You know, this came out very similarly. Within hours of the news that the government is banning or not allowing an Irish band called Kneecap to come play in Vancouver in October at the Vogue Theatre on Granville Street. They waved the Hezbollah flag. They said, “Up Hamas, Up Hezbollah. Death to the UK government people.” So it seems coincidental.

Ezra Shanken: No, I think that there’s a flurry of activity, and I don’t think we can separate this from a unilateral declaration of the Palestinian state that’s coming up. I think that it feels as though, to me, that the government is trying to send a message that though they have this foreign policy dimension, they want to make it abundantly clear that they’re bringing the war home here. That’s something that, to be clear, we have been very, very vocal about.

We have been very vocal about Kneecap and others who have willfully spread some pretty awful messages that really don’t help us here in Canada and as a Canadian society to have that openly available to people.  But I would say I wouldn’t be surprised at the flurry of activity, seeing the larger picture of what’s happening. But I think we should feel pretty good as a Jewish community at the amount of activity in week one of really a baby government as it’s kind of getting its footing. The fact that this has become the talk of the week, of the first week is… I mean, we’ll take it. If we can get it, we’ll take it.

Ellin Bessner: You were there on Monday, Day One, at a meeting with all the CEOs with Carney.

Ezra Shanken: We were there on Day One. I mean, I’m not going to go into the details of the private meeting, but what I will say is thisL I can tell you why we were there. Because we were offered the opportunity to sit down with Prime Minister Carney in a small group and to bring our message. And we did. We brought the message around enhanced protection around institutions. We brought the message about the extremists coming to our shores and really bringing that kind of messaging into our country.

And what are we doing about the Kneecaps of the world? We are trying to find common ground on that. And that’s a really important thing for the government to understand.  Not going into content, but saying every Jewish MP was there, most of the ministers were there. I mean, there was an interest and there was a lot of nodding, of positive nodding around the messages that I think Mark has been pushing and others have been pushing along with us to try to do that. And now we’re seeing some of the fruits of that later in the week. And then we’ll see what next week brings and how we’ll feel at the end of next week, depending on what happens. I think we’re gonna need the… I think it’s a good time for apples and honey.

Ellin Bessner: I want to wish you all a safe and happy New Year and I really appreciate you giving us your 4 cents on this. Thanks a lot from The CJN North Star podcast.

Ezra Shanken: Shana tova to you.

Ellin Bessner: And that’s what Jewish Canada sounds like for this episode of North Star, made possible thanks to the generous support of the Ira Gluskin and Maxine Granovsky Gluskin Charitable Foundation.

Our show is produced by Andrea Varsany and Zachary Judah Kauffman. Michael Fraiman is our executive producer, and Bret Higgins wrote the theme music. Our team wishes you a safe and healthy Jewish New Year. Thanks for listening. We’ll be back on Friday.

Show Notes

Related links

• Read more reaction to the proposed changes to the Criminal Code to outlaw terror symbols and the swastika, and better define hate and intimidation outside Jewish buildings, in The CJN.
• Learn more about why Canada banned the Irish band Kneecap from performing next month, in The CJN.
• How B’nai Brith Canada lobbied Whitby, Ont., to agree to ban the swastika, on North Star (formerly The CJN Daily).

Credits

• Host and writer: Ellin Bessner (@ebessner)
• Production team: Zachary Kauffman (senior producer), Andrea Varsany (producer), Michael Fraiman (executive producer)
• Music: Bret Higgins

Support our show