Pro-Palestinian Encampments in Canada: Who are the Supporters and Opponents?

By Robert Brym and Jack Jedwab
May 31, 2024 [Updated September 28, 2024]

The encampment at the University of Toronto, May 2024. Credit: David S. Koffman

The Rise and Decline of Pro-Palestinian Encampments 

Between April 22 and June 10, 2024, twenty-five pro-Palestinian encampments were established at Canada’s seventy-eight public universities.ii At their most numerous, encampments stretched from Halifax to Nanaimo. Many of them housed a few dozen people, with the largest attracting two hundred or more individuals at their peak. If the McMaster University and University of Toronto encampments just before their demise are anything to judge by, university encampments were populated by about 0.3 percent of their student bodies—about one hundred of 36,500 students at McMaster and two hundred of 62,000 students at the downtown campus of the University of Toronto. Some of the people who participated in the encampments were university students while others were not. Judging by the names of most participants who spoke to journalists on behalf of the encampments, Muslim students featured prominently in the encampment movement.  

An organization called National Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) was instrumental in mobilizing students to form encampments across the United States and at McGill University, which arguably housed the most raucous and destructive encampment in Canada. SJP’s largest sponsor is an organization called American Muslims for Palestine (AMP). Recent US lawsuits allege that AMP is affiliated with Hamas. Many AMP leaders were in organizations that were found to be associated with Hamas and were subsequently forced to disband by the US government.iii 

At a few universities, administrators got police to break up the encampments soon after they were established. The shortest-lived encampment was York University’s, which existed less than a day. At most universities, encampments endured for months. The longest-lived encampment was the University of Vancouver Island’s, which began on May 1 and ended on August 15. Because authorities enjoy considerable discretionary power, variation in the duration of individual encampments depended largely on the propensity of university presidents to initiate their closure, the inclination of judges to issue injunctions, and the disposition of police chiefs to order officers to remove encampment participants.  

The aims of encampment participants closely mirrored those of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement. They demanded that universities disclose all their investments, divest from companies with ties to Israel’s military industries, and abandon academic collaboration with Israeli institutions of higher learning. For the most part, universities refused to accede to these demands. The most conciliatory universities were in southern Ontario: the University of Windsor, the University of Waterloo, McMaster University, and Ontario Technical University (OTU) in Oshawa. For example, the OTU encampment, established on May 7, was peacefully dismantled just thirteen days later, after OUT’s administration agreed to (1) publish a report by the fall outlining all its investments and financial holdings; (2) strike a committee to review best practices and make recommendations about future investments with “particular attention to companies involved in arms manufacturing and delivery and/or benefitting from military action in Palestine;” (3) fund three undergraduate scholarships for Palestinians displaced by the Israel-Hamas war beginning in the fall; and (4) protect students and faculty who participated in the encampment from “academic and/or employment-based retaliation.”iv  

Supporters and Opponents

The encampments were supported by just over 16 percent of the country’s adults according to a poll of 1,519 Canadians undertaken by Leger for the Association for Canadian Studies. Conducted by web panel over the period May 17-20, 2024, the poll results were weighted by population characteristics taken from the 2021 Census of Canada. A probability sample of this size would have a maximum margin of error of ±2.5 percent, nineteen times out of twenty. The poll also showed that 40 percent of Canadians opposed the encampments and almost 44 percent said they neither supported nor opposed them, replied “don’t know,” or declined to answer the question (Table 1). 

Who are the supportive 16 percent and how do they differ from the opposing 40 percent of Canadians?

Age

For one thing, encampment supporters tended to be young (Table 2). Excluding individuals who replied “don’t know” or did not supply information about their age, those who strongly supported the encampment ranged from nearly 18 percent of eighteen- to twenty-four-year-olds to 0.0 percent of those over the age of seventy-four (all of the following percentages are based on the same exclusions). Contrariwise, those who strongly opposed the encampments ranged from nearly 46 percent of those over the age of seventy-four to under 14 percent of eighteen- to twenty-four-year-olds.  

Ideological Orientation

Encampment supporters also tended to be on the left wing of the ideological spectrum (Table 3). For example, just over 39 percent of those who said they are on the hard left strongly supported the encampments compared to a little more than 3 percent of those who said they are on the hard right. Conversely, nearly 58 percent of those on the hard right strongly opposed the encampment movement compared to under 17 percent of those on the hard left.  

Also relevant to ideological orientation is the question of how many encampment supporters held a positive view of Hamas. Among Canadians who strongly supported the encampments, 36 percent said they have a “very positive” or “somewhat positive” view of Hamas. This result is more than three times higher than the percentage for Canadians who strongly opposed the encampments. Note too that an unusually large percentage of strong encampment supporters—41 percent—refused to answer the question on Hamas support. Such widespread reticence leads us to suspect that the actual percentage of Hamas enthusiasts among strong encampment supporters was higher, perhaps substantially higher, than 36 percent. 

Racialization

A third characteristic of encampment supporters is that they tended to be racialized. Respondents were asked, “Which of the following best describes you?” This question was followed by a list of twelve ethnic and racial labels from which they could choose. Table 4 shows the breakdown for those who claimed to be White and those who did not. Non-White respondents were more than twice as likely as White respondents to strongly support the encampments (about 14 percent versus 7 percent, respectively). On the other hand, White respondents were more than 9 percentage points more likely to strongly oppose the encampments than were non-White respondents (around 32 percent versus 23 percent). 

Pride in Canada

When asked to respond “yes” or “no” to the statement, “I am proud to be a Canadian,” only a small percentage of respondents said “no.” However, strong supporters of the encampments were nearly twice as likely as strong opponents to say “no” (approximately 13 percent versus 7 percent). 

Urban, Suburban, Rural

Dividing the population into urban, suburban, and rural areas, strong opposition to the encampments was most widespread in rural areas (about 38 percent) and least widespread in urban areas (around 27 percent). Contrariwise, strong support was most widespread in urban areas (approximately 12 percent) and least widespread in rural areas (about 4 percent). 

Attitudes towards Jews

Finally, Canadians with a strong positive view of Jews were more than 4.5 times more likely to strongly oppose the encampments than strongly support them (43.6 percent versus 9.6 percent; see Table 5). Moreover, strong opponents of the encampments were three times more likely than strong supporters to think that Jews are “the most likely” group to be “the victim of prejudice or hate in Canada” (more than 32 percent versus under 11 percent). On this last point, police hate crime statistics are in line with the view of strong encampment opponents.  

In sum, encampment supporters were more likely than encampment opponents to be young non-White urban dwellers on the left wing of the political spectrum who support Hamas. At the same time, encampment supporters were less likely than encampment opponents to take pride in being Canadian, regard Jews highly, and believe that Jews are the country’s top victims of prejudice and hate.