Anti-South Asian Hate Online in Canada
By: A.J.
Introduction
Canada on the international stage has always portrayed itself to be welcoming to newcomers. Much of its reputation is linked to diversity and peacekeeping. It has consistently portrayed itself as a haven for those facing persecution. Therefore, Canada has become an attractive destination for families to individuals.
However, this is not the reality for many Indians and other South Asians living in Canada. Anti-South Asian sentiment on social media has become increasingly visible. Online posts captioned “Is it Tim Hortons or Taj Mahal Hortons,”[i] alongside more extreme posts claiming that Indians are “stealing our jobs.” Alternative-right (alt-right) networks have played a significant role in spreading online hate and participate in the harassment of famous South Asian figures.[ii] The Institute of Strategic Dialogue (ISD) reported a concerning rise of Anti-South Asian slurs seen on X (formerly Twitter) from 2023 to 2024.[iii] This has been accompanied by 200 percent increase in hate crimes against South Asians from 2019 to 2023.[iv]
Every person in Canada has the right to free speech. However, this right is subject to certain restrictions. So, one could ask: How far can a joke go before someone is offended? And can that offence be criminalized? To better understand this issue, it is necessary to first go over legal definitions, then dive into the topic of South Asian Hate in Canada, the newly passed Anti-Hate Bill, and finally consider steps that individuals can take to combat this hate.
Legal Definitions
What is “freedom of expression”? Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the “Charter”), every person on Canadian soil has the constitutional right to “thought, belief, opinion and expression.”[v] In simpler terms, you have the right to speak and listen to a variety of expressions and opinions. You also have the right to disagree with another person. The courts have clarified that an individual’s freedom of expression is generally protected if it is “(i) seeking and attaining the truth; (ii) encouraging public participation…; and (iii) cultivating diversity.”[vi]
What is “hate”? Hate is seen as a deliberate “harmful action” against an individual and/or a group on the grounds of an unreasonable opinion based a person’s race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or other personal characteristics.[vii] Hate as a form of discrimination can include refusing housing based on sexual orientation or making verbal threats against colleagues based on their gender expression.[viii]
What is “hate speech”? It is defined as communication that expresses extreme detestation or vilification of a person and/or group.[ix] Prominent examples include accusing a group of being “pure evil,” “animals or…subhuman,” “illegal or unlawful,” or “genetically inferior.”[x] The Criminal Code outlines various hate propaganda offences, such as public promotion of hatred, willfully promoting hatred, willfully promoting antisemitism.[xi]
What is a “hate crime”? A hate crime is defined as a “criminal violation motivated by hate” based on an individual’s and/or a group’s race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, or sex.[xii] A notable case of hate crime is R v Keegstra.[xiii] James Keegstra, the accused, was a high school teacher in Alberta who taught antisemitic statements to his students.[xiv] Under the Criminal Code, Keegstra was charged with the willful promotion of hatred against identifiable groups.[xv] However, Keegstra argued that this had infringed upon his right to freedom of expression as guaranteed under section 2(b) of the Charter. This case made its way to the Supreme Court, where the Court had to balance constitutional rights and the constraints of laws surrounding hate speech.[xvi] Ultimately the Court ruled against Keegstra, citing how laws imposed a “reasonable limit.”[xvii] This was the first conviction of hate speech under the Criminal Code.
As a result, the courts developed a three-step process for future claims on freedom of expression. This is to determine if the restriction on a person’s speech is legally justifiable.
Questions for the section 2(b) test are as follows:[xviii]
1) Does the expression fall under 2(b) protections?
2) Does the method or location of expression remove this protection?
3) Does the government/law move to restrict this protection?
The case of Keegstra brought forth a need for a legal framework for future claims regrading freedom of speech. It also shifted the discourse surrounding boundaries of acceptable speech. The courts also acknowledged the harm this form of hate speech had on vulnerable communities.
Anti-Indian Hate in Canada
Public sentiment towards immigration has also changed considerably, as shown by a survey by Environics shows.[xix]
Now this brings forth a couple of questions: Why is there a rise in anti-Indian, anti-immigrant hate? And why do many Canadians normalize this form of hate?
This can likely be traced back to COVID-19. During this time, the Canadian government pushed to boost immigration numbers in an attempt to breathe life into stagnant labour market.[xx] This resulted in people of Indian descent accounting 30 percent of new permanent residents in 2023.[xxi] This is in addition to the many South Asians working as frontline workers in customer service around Canada. The increased visibility of certain groups combined with growing to economic struggles, has created a recipe for disaster. Rather than taking the provincial or federal governments into account, many far-right extremists have appeared to shift the blame to immigrants from pre-existing systemic issues.
The alleged overrepresentation of Indians in the workforce has become a tool for those who hold extremist views. Diagolon influencers[xxii] have called Indians “invaders” and have called for them to “go back.”[xxiii] Other highly offensive posts by Diagolon had slogans titled, “Yeet the Jeets.”[xxiv] This can likely be traced back to a concept referred as “[a]lgorithmic [r]adicalization.”[xxv] Online platforms such as YouTube, Instagram and Facebook use systems that track user’s activity. Based on this activity, algorithms suggest similar content to the user. Radicalization occurs when the algorithm begins to steer the user towards more extremist content.[xxvi] Users quickly fall down an online “rabbit hole” where they are exposed to disinformation, conspiracy theories, glorification of violence, extremist ideologies, and hate-filled rhetoric.[xxvii] Those with “moderate views” may have a higher chance of being radicalized.[xxviii] Recruitment into these groups can also occur for those who lack a sense of community or social connections.[xxix] Radicalisation into far-right extremism can involve psychological indoctrination.[xxx] It begins with the creation of an ‘us versus them’ mentality.[xxxi]
To have a better understanding of this, we must view this form of hate from the perspective of racial hierarchy. The “great replacement” theory was coined by French author Renaud Camus. This debunked far-right conspiracy theory states that the threat of non-white immigration into white-dominated areas causes massive changes to the demography of the country. Using this understanding, we can understand how South Asians have become othered and are seen as enemies who “disrupt white hegemony.”[xxxii] According to the ISD, claims of Indians “taking over” Canada was further exacerbated during the Federal Election in 2025. During this time there was an uptick of online hate, amassing 2,300 posts to an audience of over 1.2 million.[xxxiii] Much of this was directed towards New Democratic Party leader Jagmeet Singh.[xxxiv] This was seemingly done as an attempt to “save” Canada and its national identity.
Today, many South Asians have experienced what has been defined as “everyday hate.” These actions are motivated by “unfamiliarity, intolerance and frustration.”[xxxv] Examples of these may include verbal harassment, use of offensive language, and damaging store fronts.[xxxvi] This form of everyday hostility has been felt by multiple international students from South Asia.[xxxvii] They have reported discriminatory posts on social media targeting those from India.[xxxviii] Many have reported an increase in mental health issues and isolation. There are now dedicated accounts targeting international students and newcomers, and these accounts are gaining popularity.[xxxix] Many of these individuals are on student or work visas and are reluctant to report such incidents. Other reasons may include their distrust of the police based on their experiences back home. Those who have reported these incidents have received little to no justice.
Bill C-9 (The Combatting Hate Act)
On June 18, 2026, Bill C-9 became law.[xl] This made significant changes to the Criminal Code by making “hate-motivated crimes” a specific crime.[xli] Those who are charged with such crimes may face harsher penalties. Those charged under these new hate crime offences may face up to 10 years, 14 years or life imprisonment.[xlii] For many, this is a positive step towards addressing hate crime in our communities. However, concerns have also arisen around the legal definition of “hatred” as only considered as “detestation” or “vilification.”[xliii] Many argue that “discrediting, humiliating, and offending alone are insufficient to meet the definition of hatred.”[xliv] The law appears to establish a vague definition that creates confusion and a lack of consensus. Civil society groups have also come together to voice their concerns about the suppression of peaceful assembly and freedom of expression.[xlv]
Overall, hate crime laws in Canada have been structured to criminalize only the most extreme forms of hatred. The framework does not consider smaller infractions.
The threshold set by these laws does not criminalize criticism, offensive comments, debate or unpopular opinions. The balancing of hate speech laws and freedom of expression is incredibly tricky. Neither side can be fully satisfied. Therefore, it is at the court’s discretion to assess the severity of the speech.
Conclusion
We must understand that hate speech in Canada is rooted in colonialism and racism institutions that were prevalent before the first ship from India had touched Canadian shores. During a time of severe racial inequality, online hate speech has a clear avenue through which it can translate into physical-world harm. The normalization of hate towards Indians, combined with a lack of enforcement, has created a breeding ground for far-right propaganda. One effective avenue to combat this hate is collective action.
I leave you with a list of actions you can take:
· Demand institutional changes within the federal, provincial, and municipal governments;
· Join local initiatives such as the Windsor-Essex Anti-Hate Youth Collective (WEAHYC);[xlvi]
· Attend workshops on allyship, combating online hate and hate crime reporting;[xlvii]
· Challenge and dismantle racist talking points in your everyday life;
· Support, encourage and protect those targeted by online hate;
· Report any online account or post that is pushing anti-South Asian rhetoric; and
· Push for more protection for international students within your institution.
Endnotes:
[i] Raveen Thukral, “The rising tide of online hate against Indians in Canada” (7 August 2025), The Tribune, online: <tribuneindia.ca> [perma.cc/W4HK-BAXE].
[ii] Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD), “The rise of anti-South Asian hate in Canada” (1 April 2025), online: <isdglobal.ca> [perma.cc/E2MQ-MNHY].
[iii] Ibid.
[iv] Ibid.
[v] Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s 2(b), Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11. [The Charter].
[vi] Ontario Justice Education Network (OJEN), “Freedom of Expression, Wilful Promotion of Hatred and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms: R. v. Keegstra” (last visited 23 July 2026), online (pdf): <ojen.ca> [perma.cc/7CP4-HSB3] at 2.
[vii] Alberta Human Rights Commission, “Hate” (last visited 23 July 2026), online: <albertahumanrights.ab.ca/what-are-human-rights/about-human-rights/hate/> [perma.cc/EE7F-9QS4] at para 2.
[viii] Ibid.
[ix] Josh Dehaas, “Bill C-9 Has Passed. Here’s What You Need to Know” (5 June 2026).
[x] Ibid at para 13.
[xi] Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, ss 319(1), (2), (2.1).
[xii] Department of Justice Canada, “Definition of Hate Crime” (last modified 12 June 2024), online: <canada.justice.gc.ca> [perma.cc/J324-JFN8].
[xiii] R v Keegstra, 1990 CanLII 24 (SCC).
[xiv] Ibid.
[xv] Ibid.
[xvi] Ibid.
[xvii] Ibid.
[xviii] Department of Justice Canada, “Section 2(b) - Freedom of expression” (last modified 14 July 2025), online: <justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art2b.html> [perma.cc/W8A6-GV38].
[xix] Rupinder Liddar & Sonya Pallapothu, “The familiar rise of anti-Indian racism in Canada” (1 November 2024), online: <policyoptions.irpp.org> [perma.cc/UA4N-654U].
[xx] Ibid.
[xxi] Adiba Hasan, “ICC Immigration Dashboard: 2023 in Review”, (28 February 2024) online: <forcitizenship.ca>.
[xxii] “Diagolon” is a Canadian far-right network that was founded by a podcaster, Jeremy MacKenzie, in 2021. Notably, Diagolon has a campaign titled, “they have to go back,” effectively targeting immigrants in Canada.
[xxiii] ISD, supra note 2.
[xxiv] Ibid at para 21.
[xxv] Johan Farkas & Marcus Maloney, Digital Media Metaphors: A Critical Introduction, 1st ed (London: Routledge, 2025) at 90.
[xxvi] Ibid at 90–91.
[xxvii] Ibid.
[xxviii] Tine Munk, Far-Right Extremism Online: Beyond the Fringe, 1st ed (London: Routledge, 2024) at 3.
[xxix] Ibid.
[xxx] Ibid at 6.
[xxxi] Ibid at 5.
[xxxii] Stevie-Jade Hardy, Everyday Multiculturism and ‘Hidden’ Hate (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017) at 36.
[xxxiii] ISD, supra note ii.
[xxxiv] Ibid.
[xxxv] Hardy, supra note xxxiii at 147.
[xxxvi] Ibid at 151.
[xxxvii] Josiah Sinanan, “South Asian newcomers to Canada say online hate is taking a toll” (22 June 2024), CBC News (Windsor) online: <cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/south-asian-newcomers-to-canada-say-online-hate-is-taking-a-toll-1.7243057> [perma.cc/2TK3-EYC9].
[xxxviii] Ibid.
[xxxix] Ibid.
[xl] Department of Justice Canada, “Bill C-9: An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places), online: <justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/charter-charte/c9_2.html> [perma.cc/36CJ-9ZUA].
[xli] Ibid.
[xlii] Ibid.
[xliii] Dehaas, supra note 9.
[xliv] CBA National/ABC National, “The unintended consequences of Bill C-9”, CBA/ABC National (4 February 2026), online: <nationalmagazine.ca> [perma.cc/4ZZB-PWC9].
[xlv] Canadian BDS Coalition & International BDS Allies, “Bill C-9 Threatens Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and Freedom of Expression in Canada” (6 October 2025), online: <bdscoalition.ca> [perma.cc/D6ZN-ENLZ].
[xlvi] South Asian Centre of Windsor, “Windsor-Essex Anti-Hate Youth Collective” (last visited 24 July 2026), online: <sacwin.org> [perma.cc/M7ZV-489H].
[xlvii] Council of Agencies Serving South Asians, “Training and Workshops” (last visited 24 July 2026), online: <cassa.ca> [perma.cc/F88E-EQBH].
