OHPI has observed significant amounts of hateful content in the online discourse surrounding these protests. This includes anti-immigrant hate, white-supremacy, antisemitism and anti-Muslim hate. This briefing includes some examples of this problematic content taken from social media posts about the demonstrations. 

While there is no evidence that immigrants are disproportionately responsible for the protests, much of the discourse online seeks to blame immigrants for the violence (and for a perceived general decline in Western society). The following post was made by the official account for the U.S Whitehouse on October 20th. It employs the phrase ‘third world’; an out of date expression that suggests a global hierarchy with the West at the top and the Global South at the bottom. The caption reads: ‘If you import the third world, you become the third world’. This post blames the riots in France on immigrants (without evidence) and then suggests that violence and lawlessness is an inherent part of their culture. Obviously, seeing this post from The White House’s official account is deeply concerning. 

Somewhat predictably, this post stoked a significant amount of anti-immigrant hatred. For example, the following reply suggests that the “third world” should all be deported. 

We see similar rhetoric on Instagram, with this comment blaming the riots on ‘mass uncontrolled immigration from Africa’. 

Some of the replies to The White House’s post endorse white-supremacy. The following reply demands mass deportation, and features a cartoon depicting various people of colour. Given that there are many people from the cultures depicted who were born in the USA, this post goes beyond implying that all immigrants should be deported. The implication is that the USA is a country for white people in particular. 

The idea that all non-white people should be deported from the West is oftentimes referred to as ‘remigration’, and is an idea propagated by the far-right. 

This next user writes “Import antiwhiteism… Suffer from antiwhiteism”. Once again, the suggestion is that the riots in France are the inevitable consequence of multicultural society, and that a harmonious society must be composed entirely of white people. 

We see observed a similar sentiment in some Reddit spaces, where a user attributes rioting to immigrants, who they describe as ‘savages’. 

Here we see a different Reddit user parroting the phrase posted by The White House on X. 

As well as anti-immigrant and white supremacist rhetoric, the discourse has also featured a significant amount of both antisemitism and anti-Muslim hate. 

The antisemitic content typically incorporates the anti-immigrant sentiment already discussed, but then also implies that Jews are deliberately encouraging mass immigration to destabilise western society or to slowly eliminate the white race. This narrative is referred to as the Kalergi Plan, and is a far-right conspiracy. This narrative dehumanises immigrants by suggesting they are instrumental in destroying western society, and also villainises Jews by suggesting that they are the ones plotting its downfall. 

In this comment from a Reddit thread about the protests we see another version of this conspiracy theory, this time applied to Israel. 

The following comments, made in response to a Youtube video about the protests, demonstrate some of the anti-Muslim hate in the online discourse surrounding these events. Generally, these comments implied that the protests and/or riots were carried out primarily by Muslims, and were a sign that Islam would soon be ‘taking over’ the west. The claim that Muslims have been the primary drivers of the riots is without evidence, and plays into harmful stereotypes about Muslims being violent and a threat to western society. 

We also see anti-Muslim hate on Reddit, with one user commenting the rioting is an ‘islamic invasion’. This comment received 125 upvotes. 

World events can act as a release valve that help to expose people’s underlying prejudices. Analysing online spaces in the wake of such events can therefore be a good way of assessing different attitudes throughout society. In the case of the demonstrations in France, OHPI has been compelled to write this briefing because of the sheer volume of hateful content that we have observed in the surrounding discourse. Much of the content is explicitly anti-immigrant, white supremacist, antisemitic and anti-Muslim. This indicates a serious problem with the way that these demonstrations are being interpreted by wider society, regardless of where one sits on the issues that have sparked the protests originally.  

The post European Protests and the Spread of Online Hate first appeared on Online Hate Prevention Institute.

On the 5th of October 2026, officials from the Defense Department announced that Hasan would be executed by firing squad on 3rd of December. This will be the first person executed by a US military firing squad since WWII, and the first person executed by the US military at all since 1961. 

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth then announced that the execution will be live-streamed. While regulations prohibit the broadcast of executions carried out in prisons, there are no such prohibitions relating to the broadcast of executions by the military. 

Here in Australia, Greens called on the government to block the live-stream in Aus. This received non-partisan support, including from One Nation’s Barnaby Joyce. A spokesperson for the federal government said that Australians ‘rightly expect’ not to be presented with this material on their screens. Albanese pledged that the government would do everything in its power to stop the live-stream being shown in Australia. Liberals condemned the live-stream whilst simultaneously expressing freedom of expression concerns about attempts to block it.

Having initially expressed support about the planned live-stream, and then later ambivalence, Donald Trump announced the it had been cancelled on the 16th of October. Though Hasan’s execution by firing squad is still scheduled for the 3rd of December, Trump has said that ‘many very good and well-meaning people would rather not watch him die’, and that the live-stream will therefore not go ahead.

This case raises interesting questions about eSafety’s capacity to block such an event, as well as social media platform’s guidelines involving graphic and violent content. If the live-stream had gone ahead, could the government have prevented its broadcast in Australia? Would major social media platforms like Facebook, Youtube and Tiktok have agreed to host it?

Esafety said it did not have the powers to block the live-stream, but also that platforms have a responsibility to protect users from harmful material, and that Esafety has the responsibility to enforce those obligations. Experts said that eSafety could, at most, have issued take-down notices once the live-stream had occurred, but could not have pre-emptively taken action. 

In 2019, the Criminal Code Amendment (Sharing of Abhorrent Violent Material) Bill was passed. This was in response to the live-streaming of the Christchurch massacre. This made it an offence for internet service providers to fail to remove or cease from hosting abhorrent violent material that can be accessed from within Australia on their platform. 

In order for content to qualify as abhorrent violent material, it must involve a terrorism, torture, murder, rape or kidnapping. For the purposes of the amendment, ‘it is immaterial whether the abhorrent violent conduct was engaged in within or outside Australia’. At the time of writing, this amendment has not yet resulted in any convictions. In 2024, eSafety abandoned its attempt to get X to remove footage of a stabbing in a Sydney church. But, earlier this year, eSafety initiated court proceedings against Telegram for failing to remove violent footage of (among other things) the Christchurch massacre from its platform.

An execution carried out by a government, in according with its own laws, would not have fallen within any of the categories that would allow the live-stream to be classified as abhorrent violent content.

Platform Policies

Most Social Media Platforms have policies that prohibit certain violent material. This raises the issue of whether the live-stream would have been in contravention of those policies.

The first thing to note is that these policies are not enforceable by any independent authority, and so there is nothing stopping a platform from making an exception to their policies whenever they wish. Hence, even if the live-stream had been unambiguously in contravention of a social media platform’s community guidelines, that social media platform would still be at liberty to ignore those guidelines and host the live-stream anyway.

Furthermore, as some experts have pointed out, many social media policies demure from outright banning content, always allowing wiggle room based on context. Still, the planned live-stream put many social media and streaming services in an awkward position (especially those that have community guidelines designed to prohibit this kind of content). The decision of any such platform to host the live-stream could have been seen as a politically expedient move made at the expense of the safety of its users. 

Tiktok’s Community Guidelines prohibit ‘extremely graphic, violent, or disturbing content—especially when it could cause viewers emotional distress’, but notes potential exceptions for material that is ‘less graphic or shared in the public interest’. ‘The shooting of an individual’ is listed as among the types of video that is straightforwardly not allowed on the platform. This may be why Tiktok announced it would not be live-streaming the execution, back when the live-stream was still on the cards. Tiktok is one of only two platforms that made this resolution. 

Meta’s transparency centre explicitly lists ‘Live streams of capital punishments’ among its ‘Do Not Post’ list of things that will be removed. It does also say that the platform will consider the content of any graphic or violent material, such as whether the content is shared to ‘shed light on or condemn acts’. But there is no reason for thinking the official live-stream of the execution would have fallen into this category; the US government would not have been sharing the live-stream in the hopes of condemning the violence it portrays. This suggests that the live stream would have contravened the community guidelines of Meta platforms like Facebook, Instagram and Threads. Though, again, whether or not these platforms would have opted to enforce their community guidelines in this instance is an open question. 

Youtube’s guidelines around violent of graphic material do not explicitly address the live-streaming of capital punishments. It says that whether or not violent and/or graphic content is removed depends on certain contextual factors like whether it has educational or artistic merit, and whether it is in the public interest. But it does list the following kind of video that may not be allowed regardless of context: ‘Footage filmed by the perpetrator during a deadly or major violent event, in which weapons, violence, or injured victims are visible or audible.’ The planned live-stream execution did not fall squarely within this category; this clause is clearly aimed at those who film themselves committing a mass terrorist attack, and this is not what would have been featured in the live-stream. On balance, Youtube’s community guidelines have sufficient grey area that they avoid outright prohibiting the live-stream. 

X’s policies on violent material are the most lax of the social media platforms discussed in this briefing, and it is likely X would have agreed to host the live-stream if it had gone ahead. Their policies state that ‘We may request the removal of images or videos that were taken at the point of, immediately before, or after an identifiable individual’s death, if we receive a request from their family or an authorized representative.’, but this would have been unlikely to apply in the current context. Furthermore, X’s policy on violent attacks explicitly allows for ‘The use of force by law enforcement and military personnel, as part of the scope of their official functions, that resulted in casualties’, and this seems to describe the events planned for Hasan’s execution. Finally, X has refused to take down footage of a violent attack in a Sydney church at the request of eSafety, and so there is precedent for X platforming violent and graphic material. Taken together, these factors all suggest that X would have very likely hosted the live-stream if it had gone ahead. 

What about platforms that are specifically designed for live-streaming? Twitch is the biggest such platform, and its community guidelines expressly forbid ‘content that displays realistic gore including death’. This seems to straightforwardly prohibit the live-streaming of an execution.

Kick, another major streaming platform, has community guidelines that are much more permissive, stating that while ‘Extreme violence’ is not permitted, ‘Context is always considered’. As such, it was possible that the context of the planned live-streamed execution would have made it permissible. But, somewhat surprisingly, Kick was the only other platform (in addition to Tiktok) to say explicitly that they would not host the live-stream, precisely because it contravened their community guidelines.

As others have pointed out, the CEOs of some major social media platforms have a close relationship with the White House. This means (i) that they were unlikely to be penalised if they did decide to host the live-stream, and (ii) they may have felt political pressure to do so. Given that most platform’s guidelines have clauses that allow for grey area based on context, it is likely that at least some would have opted in to host the live-stream. It is also a distinct possibility that platforms would have opted not to enforce their community guidelines, even if the live-stream did contravene them. Furthermore, it’s hard to see how eSafety could have pre-emptively stopped the live-stream being viewable in Australia. Taken together, these factors imply that, if the live-stream had been broadcast, it probably would have been accessible on Australian screens. 

Thankfully, the live-stream was cancelled. Still, this situation revealed weaknesses in online safety for the Australian public. Firstly, eSafety needs to have stronger prevention powers, in addition to their retroactive powers to have content removed. Secondly, the policies of social media platforms cannot be relied upon to protect the Australian public, as they can always opt to ignore their own rules on a case-by-case basis, depending on whether or not doing so is within their interest. 

The post A Live-Streamed Execution: Would Social Media Platforms Have Protected Australian Users? first appeared on Online Hate Prevention Institute.

Since then, officials have reported that the suspect shared a manifesto with the same colleague that he contacted after the attempted shooting. In it, he described himself as a ‘sociopathic white supremacist Neo Nazi filled with hatred, fantasizing about mass murder nearly every day’. He also referred to people who aren’t white as ‘subhuman’. 

This event parallels other attacks in which religious minorities were targeted at their place of worship, often also during religious holidays. There was a recent shooting at a Synagogue in Ontario, Canada on Yom Kippur, and a few months prior we saw a shooting at a Mosque in San Diego in which three people were killed. Pardeep Kaleka, whose father Satwant Singh Kaleka was killed at a mass shooting at a gurdwara in 2012, said that the purpose of these attacks is to instill fear within the targeted community; ‘Their belief is if you can attack people in the space they hold most sacred, it plants a deep terror in communities.’

In response to the attempted shooting in Illinois, a representative of the Coalition of Hindus of North America, Pushpita Prasad, drew a connection between the incident and the high volumes of anti-Hindu and anti-Indian hate that we see online. Raja Krishnamoorthi, a US Congressman who worships at the temple (and was there at the time when the attack was attempted) also made this connection, stating ‘We know this type of hate is coursing through social media online, it’s exploded’.

When discussing the recent attempted shooting in Illinois, Pushpita Prasad said ‘You see vitriolic posts associating Indians with dirt and creating disgust about their appearance, food and cultural practices’.

Last year, the Online Hate Prevention Institute reported on the high volumes of anti-Indian hate that we had observed on social media, and identified specific trends that could help explain the explosion of this kind of online racism. In that briefing, we too noted that much of the anti-Indian sentiment seemed to be designed to elicit feelings of disgust towards Indian people. This is important because multiple sources have connected the feeling of disgust with prejudicial beliefs. It is possible that the feelings of dehumanisation that the attempted shooter evidently felt towards Indian people had been influenced by the barrage of online content that seeks to portray them as physically repellent. If this is the case, then it constitutes another case in which online hate-speech has real world, and potentially deadly, consequences. 

OHPI has observed the online reaction to a number of attacks on racial and religious minorities. While they typically contain a majority of well-wishing and unproblematic comments, a significant minority are reliably hateful. These problematic responses typically include content that glorifies the attacks, as well as content that casts doubt on the attack by implying that it either never occurred, or did occur but was orchestrated by someone other than the attacker. We observe this same pattern of response in relation to this recent attempted shooting on the Hindu Temple. 

Below are a number of posts that were made in response to news stories about the attempted attack and which, in various ways, celebrate it. These posts constitute incitement to violence against Indians and Hindus, and are an extremely serious form of hate-speech. 

The following comments all attempt to deny or distort the facts surrounding the attempted shooting. They imply either that the attempt never really took place (and was ‘staged’), or that it was ultimately orchestrated by someone other than the actual perpetrator. This is offensive to the victims of the attempted attack because it downplays the reality of the hostility towards them. The fact that someone got so close to carrying out a mass-shooting against them, and was only foiled because their gun jammed, speaks to extreme anti-Hindu and anti-Indian sentiment in society that needs to be acknowledged and addressed. By claiming the incident was faked, commentators undermine the plight of the Hindu and Indian community.  

Note that in this context, the claim that the attack was staged makes little sense; the attack never actually took place, and there is no video footage of the events other than the CCTV of the suspect’s car at the Temple. As such, it is difficult to imagine what it could mean for this attempted shooting to have been ‘staged’. 

The following user describes the attempted shooting as ‘another psyop’ which was intended to distract the ‘goyim’. The word ‘goyim’ is a Hebrew word often used to describe non-Jews. In some online spaces, it has become associated with antisemitic conspiracies about Jews running the world and trying to subvert non-Jewish society. In this context, the commenter is not only claiming that the attack was a false-flag, but also that it was conducted by Jews. This comment is therefore deeply offensive both to the Indian community who were the target of this attempted shooting, and also to Jews who are now being unfairly blamed for it without evidence. 

Many of the problematic comments that we see in response to this incident engage in specific anti-Indian narratives that OHPI has identified previously. The user below jokes that the suspect ‘just got tired of the SMELL’, while another responds ‘No Doedorant huh’. This plays into racist tropes about Indians having bad hygiene, and which can elicit feelings of disgust from social media users exposed to this material. 

Other users took this event as an opportunity to express the view that Hindus were incompatible with Western Society. These comments engage in a persistent form of online anti-Indian hate according to which Hindus and/or Indians make for poor members of society, and should therefore be deported from the West. 

The nature and quality of racist abuse differs depending on its target. Anti-Indian racism is different from anti-black racism, which is different to antisemitism. Despite this, there are some recurring themes that we see online whenever a minority group is attacked. The recent attempted shooting against Hindus suggests that these patterns will re-occur regardless of the victims, and regardless of whether the event was thankfully botched before any physical violence could occur. There will always be those who glorify the attack, and those that seek to deny it. Responses of this kind are always deeply offensive, and can signal a lack of empathy that ultimately makes violent attacks possible. The hostility towards Hindus and Indians online is real and virulent, and this incident serves a stark reminder of how devastating its ramifications can be. IT also highlights the important need for platforms to proactively remove such hate from their systems, before it leads to violence.

The post Disturbing Responses to Attempted Hindu Temple Shooting first appeared on Online Hate Prevention Institute.

Read OHPI’s new report here: https://ohpi.org.au/analysing-the-new-normal/

Read the full article in The Times of Israel: https://www.timesofisrael.com/online-antisemitism-hits-record-high-three-years-after-october-7-study-finds/

The post ‘Online antisemitism hits record high three years after October 7, study finds’ – The Times of Israel on OHPI’s new report first appeared on Online Hate Prevention Institute.

Read OHPI’s new report here: https://ohpi.org.au/analysing-the-new-normal/

Read the The Jewish Independent article here: https://thejewishindependent.com.au/traditional-antisemitism-online-spike/

The post ‘Traditional antisemitic myths dominate online antisemitism: new study’ – Article from The Jewish Independent about OHPI’s new report first appeared on Online Hate Prevention Institute.

Read OHPI’s new report here: https://ohpi.org.au/analysing-the-new-normal/

Read the full article in The Australian Jewish News here: https://www.australianjewishnews.com/online-antisemitism-at-record-high/

The post ‘Online antisemitism at record high’ – Article in The Australian Jewish News about OHPI’s new report first appeared on Online Hate Prevention Institute.

Read our new report: https://ohpi.org.au/analysing-the-new-normal/

Read the full article in J-Wire: https://www.jwire.com.au/online-antisemitism-reaches-record-levels/

The post ‘Three years after October 7, online antisemitism reaches record levels’ – Article in J-Wire covering OHPI’s new report first appeared on Online Hate Prevention Institute.

Three years after the 7 October 2023 terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians, our monitoring reveals that online antisemitism remains at significantly elevated levels. No platform monitored by OHPI has returned to pre-7 October levels. The initial attacks triggered an enormous surge in antisemitic content, which has continued until today. Antisemitism across the platforms we monitor has risen significantly since the initial post October 7 spike, with the most recent three-months having the highest levels observed in any period since OHPI began monitoring.

Alongside this sustained increase in antisemitism, there have been efforts both online and offline to erase the memory of October 7 and empathy for the victims. Pro-Palestine protests on October 7 2026 were advertised online with imagery glorifying the October 7 attacks and portrayed those responsible as martyrs or honourable fallen soldiers. 

Analysing the data we see that traditional antisemitism remains dominant across most platforms (and in total). This finding is significant in the context of recurring claims that seek to deny or minimise the problem of antisemitism. These claims often suggest the rise can be explained away as a result of anti-Zionist or pro-Palestinian content being “misclassified” as antisemitism. Our data does not support this. The nature of the antisemitism is largely of an older and more traditional kind, from claims of Jewish power to the accusation of deicide.

This is not to accept the argument of misclassification. Too many who argue “anti-Zionism isn’t antisemitism” are pushing for a free pass to engage in antisemitism, of whatever form, without consequences. Pro-Palestinian advocacy need not be antisemitic, yet too many seek to engage in antisemitism under the cover of calling it political advocacy, and too many stand by and allow it. Our data track antisemitism related to Israel, Israelis, Zionism and Zionists as a distinct form of antisemitism, what was once called “new antisemitism”. It is concerning that LinkedIn and Reddit together make up 15% of our data, yet account for 30% of this type of antisemitism. LinkedIn is the only platform where antisemitism related to Israel and Zionism is dominant and consistently accounts for more than 70% of the antisemitic material collected.

The nature and distribution of antisemitism also varies across platforms in other ways. Traditional antisemitism is most prevalent on almost all platforms monitored, but dominates particularly strongly on Gab and Telegram, platforms particularly popular with the far right. Surprisingly most Holocaust denial content is now on mainstream platforms. Rising levels of incitement to violence, particularly material promoting extremist ideologies such as Nazism, can be seen on YouTube and TikTok, usually in comments.

OHPI’s analysis demonstrates that since the spike in online antisemitism after October 7, 2023, there is a new normal where antisemitism is pervasive across social media. Its nature varies across platforms. Understanding the patterns is essential to identifying emerging threats, challenging antisemitic narratives, and informing effective responses. Continued monitoring is critical to ensure corrective measures, including regulation, have a meaningful impact.

Media coverage

• Zev Stub, “Online antisemitism hits record high three years after October 7, study finds“, Times of Israel, 15 October 2026 (also in the French Edition)
• “Online antisemitism at record high“, The Australia Jewish News, October 15, 2026
• “Three years after October 7, online antisemitism reaches record levels“, J-Wire, 14 October 2025
• Deborah Stone, “Traditional antisemitic myths dominate online antisemitism: new study“, The Jewish Independent, 15 October 2026
• “ONLINE ANTISEMITISM: Study Finds Anti-Jewish Content Remains At Record Levels Three Years After October 7“, The Yeshiva World, 15 October 2026
• Talia Ben-David, “Global Online Antisemitism Reaches Record Highs, Demanding Advanced Cyber Monitoring“, QDay, 15 October 2026
• “Antisemitismo en línea en un máximo histórico tras el 7 de octubre“, Enlace Judío, 15 October 2026
• Tamar stein, “Three years after October 7, online antisemitism hits a record high, and it is mostly the old Jew-hatred“, Israel365News, 20 October 2026
• Marion Rice-Oxley and Joshua Swanson, “Pentagon Preps for Renewed Iran Strikes as Netanyahu Highlights Jordan Security Wall“, Christian Broadcasting Network, 16 October 2026
• “Ny mätning bekräftar rekordnivåer av antisemitism på nätet efter 7 oktober“, Med Israel for Fred, 18 October 2026
• Alessandro Carmi, “Antisemitismo online, nuovo record a tre anni dal 7 ottobre“, SETTEOTTOBRE, 19 Ovtober 2026
• “Rekordszintre emelkedett a globális online antiszemitizmus a Hamász 2023. október 7-i terrortámadása után“, Szombat, 18 October 2026
• “Három évvel az október 7-i terrortámadás után rekordszinten az online antiszemitizmus“, Neokohen, 16 October 2026

The post Analysing the new normal first appeared on Online Hate Prevention Institute.

We have monitored and documented the sharp rise in online antisemitism following the October 7 attack. Detailed analysis can be seen in our past reports:

• Online Antisemitism Before October 7 provides a baseline before the rise.
• Online Antisemitism After October 7 reflects the sharp rise in the months that followed.
• Social Media and the Normalisation of Hate: October 7 Two Years On reflects the long term trend and the creation of a new far more antisemitic normal. 

On Thursday 15 October, we will publish our new report examining three years of trends in online antisemitism since 7 October 2023. The report draws on OHPI’s data from the past three years as we monitored antisemitism across 10 (and more recently 11) different social media platforms. The report places those findings in the context of our earlier work. Consistent with our previous reports, our newest data shows a massive and sustained increase in overall antisemitism on social media since the October 7 attacks. 

The report also examines how different forms of antisemitism have changed over time, using the major categories of antisemitism as applied in OHPI’s monitoring.

Our new report will look in more detail at trends across individual platforms and at changes in the specific forms antisemitism is taking on those platforms. Three years on, continued monitoring remains essential to understanding how online antisemitism is evolving, where it is being normalised, and how it is spread.

Today is a day for remembering the victims of the Hamas atrocities on October 7, 2023. We are dismayed at those who have sought to use today to protest, to seek to push the victims of Hamas terror out of sight and memory. Their aim is to focus media attention away from Jewish victims, and away from Hamas responsibility. Their aim is to make the false narratives they promote more dominant, and the facts and recent history less relevant. Such efforts to erase and mock Jewish suffering is also a feature of our new report and it is how hate targeting Jews is being normalised. 

The abuse of today is leaving many in the Jewish community feeling sick. October 7 denial and distortion is rising and functions in a very similar manner to Holocaust denial and distortion. Like Holocaust denial and distortion, it aims to take a horrific past and make it once again repeatable. It takes people of good will to stand up against this, and many have. Those who support the minimization and distortion of October 7 ought to be ashamed. That is not political advocacy, it is not pro-Palestinian advocacy, it is simply bigotry. Such a position asserts that some people’s lives, like the 36 children killed, are worth less and should be denied recognition. 

Our full report will be out on October 15th.

The post Up-Coming report from the Online Hate Prevention Institute: Online Antisemitism 3 Years on from October 7 first appeared on Online Hate Prevention Institute.

On the evening of Yom Kippur, 20 September 2026, in Belleville, Ontario, Canada, a gunman carried out what police described as “a deliberate attack directed at members of the Jewish community”. The attack targeted the Sons of Jacob Synagogue and resulted in an exchange of gunfire between the assailant and a police officer stationed outside, with bullets passing through the synagogue’s windows. While none of the worshippers were injured, the officer, Constable Jeff Smith, was shot and hospitalised in a critical but stable condition. The assailant, Sean Ward, was shot by police and later died in hospital.

This report examines the online response to the attack across eight online platforms. It shows glorification of the attack, disappointment Jews weren’t killed, denial the attack was real, denial it was targeted at the Jewish community, and claims it was a false flag carried out by the Jewish community, Mossad, Israel, or Canadian intelligence. This pattern of celebration and denial follows what we have seen in response to other attacks on the Jewish community around the world. 

The responses advance the normalisation of antisemitism and antisemitic violent extremism. One narrative seeks to normalise the killing of Jews, and the public acceptance of violence targeting Jews. The other seeks to undermine empathy with the Jewish victims, eroding public and political will to confront antisemitism. 

We saw these narratives erasing Jewish victimhood in the pro-Hamas disinformation campaigns after the October 7 terrorist attack, and in Iranian disinformation following multiple Iranian sponsored attacks on Jewish targets around the world. While the Belleville attack did not come from the same source, it highlights how these narratives have been normalised in online culture, particularly when Jews are the target. 

The report also shows how some people immediately asserted the attacker was Muslim, using news of the attack to promote anti-Muslim hate. In another section it explores the link between the attack and the spread of Covid conspiracy theories.

This report highlights the urgent need for greater action on online antisemitism, mis/disinformation, and extremism. When people are attacked in a place of worship on a holy day, the response online should be empathy, unity, and support. Online content that seeks to subvert that response, that justifies, excuses, or denies the violence undermines religious freedom, liberal democratic values, and society itself.

Other material

See the preliminary report into this incident

See the Jerusalem Post’s reporting on the preliminary report

The post Belleville Synagogue Shooting Report first appeared on Online Hate Prevention Institute.