The B'nai Brith “Annual Audit of Antisemitic Incidents” has been a media focal point in coverage of antisemitic incidents in Canada. However, several criticisms have been raised regarding the report's methodology, accuracy, and broader implications that should give journalists pause before citing it. It is important to note that the annual audits are not exhaustive. They include only a small sampling of examples, the vast majority of the data is unavailable for verification. The fact that so many of the small sample of examples are highly questionable is concerning.
Journalists frequently state the findings of the Audit without skepticism or context so that readers can better judge the reliability of these findings. Of the limited public data that B'nai Brith makes available, a significant portion of those examples describe anti-Zionist actions or phrases as antisemitism. This is not a minor problem with the report but appears to be part of its fundamental purpose: to conflate anti-Zionism and antisemitism in an effort to silence critics of Israel. B'nai Brith is a pro-Israel advocacy organization, after all.
Conflation of Antisemitism and Anti-Zionism
A central criticism of the B'nai Brith report is its conflation of antisemitism and anti-Zionism. Critics argue that the report often categorizes legitimate political criticism of Israel and Zionist policies as antisemitic. This conflation undermines the distinction between hatred based on religious or ethnic identity and opposition to political ideologies or state actions.
Figure 1 (above) from the 2023 B'nai Brith annual report on antisemitism
Figure 1 is from the 2023 report. It shows a concerning trend in the annual audits, not merely framing criticisms of Israel as antisemitic, but framing expressions of solidarity with Palestine as antisemitic. The slogan included above appears on signs or is chanted at protests across Canada on a weekly basis. If this is considered antisemitism, journalists cannot credibly report B’nai Brith’s numbers without significant qualification, as most readers will understandably not think such examples would be included in such a report.
Anti-Zionism, which involves opposition to the political movement supporting the establishment and maintenance of a Jewish state in Israel, is a distinct stance that is not inherently antisemitic. By labeling anti-Zionist sentiments as antisemitic, the B'nai Brith report misrepresents genuine political discourse as racial or religious hatred. This mischaracterization can have several adverse effects:
- Dilution of the Term 'Antisemitism': Equating anti-Zionism with antisemitism dilutes the term's meaning and undermines efforts to combat genuine antisemitic incidents. It becomes harder to address real cases of antisemitism when the term is overused or misapplied.
- Stifling Legitimate Debate: This conflation can stifle legitimate debate and criticism of Israeli policies. Individuals and groups may hesitate to voice their opinions on Israel and its actions for fear of being labeled antisemitic. This suppression of discourse can prevent meaningful discussions and solutions to complex political issues.
- Extremist and Fringe Positions: The report sometimes goes further by considering advocacy for a Free Palestine as a form of antisemitism. This stance is viewed by many as an extremist and fringe position that conflates support for Palestinian self-determination with racial hatred. Such a perspective ignores the legitimate and widespread advocacy for Palestinian rights and undermines genuine efforts for peace and justice in the region.
- Community Tensions: Mislabeling political criticism as racial or religious hatred can exacerbate tensions between different community groups. It risks alienating those who seek to engage in legitimate political debate, which can hinder efforts to build solidarity and mutual understanding among diverse groups.
Here is a brief list of some examples of the conflation of anti-Zionism and antisemitism in the 2021 and 2022 B’nai Brith reports. This is not an exhaustive list:
Figure 2 (above) From 2021 B'nai Brith annual report on antisemitism
Figure 3 (above) From 2021 B'nai Brith annual report on antisemitism
Figure 4 (above) From 2021 B'nai Brith annual report on antisemitism
Figure 5 (above) From 2022 B'nai Brith annual report on antisemitism
Figure 6 (above) From 2021 B'nai Brith annual report on antisemitism. It is not an "ISIS flag." It translates to: "There is none worthy of worship except Allah (God), and that the prophet Mohammad is the messenger of Allah."
Figure 7 (above) From 2022 B'nai Brith annual report on antisemitism
Figure 8 (above) From 2022 B'nai Brith annual report on antisemitism
Figure 9 (above) From 2022 B'nai Brith annual report on antisemitism
Figure 10 (above) From 2022 B'nai Brith annual report on antisemitism
Figure 11 (above) From 2022 B'nai Brith annual report on antisemitism
Figure 12 (above) From 2022 B'nai Brith annual report on antisemitism
Methodological Concerns
In addition to the conflation issue, the methodology of the B'nai Brith report has been questioned. The report lacks transparency in its data collection and analysis processes. The criteria used to define antisemitic incidents are broad and ambiguous, encompassing a wide range of actions from severe hate crimes to minor social media posts. This lack of specificity can inflate the perceived severity of antisemitism, potentially misrepresenting the true nature of the issue.
Accuracy and Verification
The accuracy of the reported incidents is another contentious point. B'nai Brith typically relies on unverified reports and anecdotal evidence, which compromises the credibility of their findings. There have been instances where reported incidents were later found to be either exaggerated or unrelated to antisemitism. Such cases undermine the overall reliability of the report and raise questions about the rigor of B'nai Brith's verification processes.
Figure 13 From Global News investigation into the rise in antisemitism
A stark example of the discrepancies between B'nai Brith's figures and other sources is seen in the data collected by Global News. While B'nai Brith's 2023 report claimed 5,791 documented acts of violence, harassment, and vandalism aimed at Jews, an investigation by Global News found significantly fewer incidents when examining police data from seven major Canadian cities. Global News reported 465 antisemitic incidents in these cities, highlighting a vast difference between the two sources' figures. Such a discrepancy raises concerns about the methodology and accuracy of B'nai Brith's reporting.
Further, an investigative journalist at the Maple pseudonymously submitted faked examples of anti-Zionism to see if they would be included as “antisemitic incidents” to B’nai Brith. Despite the examples being from obviously questionable profiles online and containing criticisms of Israel, B’nai Brith told the journalist they would include their accounts in the report. Putting aside the debate surrounding the tactics of this journalist, such a story should set off red flags for reporters considering citing this document when writing about antisemitism in Canada.
Broader Implications
The implications of relying on a potentially unreliable report are significant. An inflated sense of antisemitism can create unnecessary fear and division within communities. It can also divert attention and resources away from addressing genuine and severe instances of antisemitism. It can also instill fear in people who might want to express solidarity for Palestine or unfairly criminalize those who do.
Furthermore, the report's perceived bias can exacerbate tensions between different community groups. By conflating political criticism with racial or religious hatred, the report risks alienating those who seek to engage in legitimate political debate. This alienation can hinder efforts to build solidarity and mutual understanding among diverse groups.
One other trickle-down is because antisemitism is so broadly defined, its coverage in the media outweighs other similar issues. Take for example the dramatic difference in coverage of antisemitism and Islamophobia in 90 day period before June 20, 2024:
Conclusion
In conclusion, while the B'nai Brith annual antisemitism report plays an important role in highlighting antisemitic incidents, it is crucial to approach its findings with a critical eye. Concerns about its conflation of antisemitism and anti-Zionism, methodology, accuracy, and broader implications suggest that the report may not always provide a fully reliable account of antisemitism in Canada. Journalists and media outlets should consider these criticisms when referencing the report and strive for a balanced and nuanced discussion on the topic. Accurate and fair reporting is essential in fostering an informed and cohesive society, particularly on sensitive issues like antisemitism. CJPME strongly recommends that, in order to meet basic journalistic standards, journalists forego citing B’nai Brith’s reports on antisemitism or do so with significant qualification.