Criticism is not fear or hate

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 27/08/2025 (211 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

To condemn the actions taken by Hamas against Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, is not Islamophobic. Likewise, to condemn the subsequent actions taken by the state of Israel against Palestinians is not antisemitic.

As a social anxiety disorder (SAD), phobias are an irrational, persistent, and excessive fear of people or social situations. However, Islamophobia is primarily a form of religious or cultural bigotry which stereotypes all Muslims as a single homogeneous racial group, a geopolitical threat, and a source of terrorism. It has spiked severely since the end of the Cold War for myriad geopolitical reasons, prompting the United Nations in 2022 to proclaim March 15 as International Day to Combat Islamophobia.

Antisemitism, in contrast, is more generally understood as hate rather than fear. Vented for millennia, antisemitism surged in response to the ethnocultural nationalist movement of Zionism that emerged in late 19th-century Europe supporting re-establishment of a Jewish homeland via the colonization of Palestine, which was realized in 1948.

As defined by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance in 2016, antisemitism is “a certain perception of Jews which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.” Their definition also lists 11 examples of antisemitism, including “holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.” Notably, they also acknowledge that “criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”

Contrary to recent actions taken by the Trump administration against universities, the IHRA definition of antisemitism cannot reasonably be weaponized as a hate speech code used to suppress criticism of the actions of the state of Israel, nor to suppress pro-Palestinian free speech and activism, including that of anti-Zionist Jews.

Fear is usually a temporary, situational, rational or irrational emotion. However, regarding social categories such as Muslims or Jews, it can also be an enduring negative sentiment. As a primary emotion/sentiment, fear can also combine with another primary emotion of anger to produce the secondary emotion of hate. But unlike fear, hate can be criminalized when spoken or enacted, though not when it remains an internal, hidden hostility.

According to Statistics Canada, hate crime rates have risen alarmingly in the last five years, with the most frequent predictably based on race/ethnicity and religion. The next most frequent categories are sexual orientation and gender.

As alleged phobias, homophobia and transphobia are by nomenclature irrational fear of entire social categories. Yet some persons labelled homophobic are neither fearful nor hateful, but rather are simply rendering a moral judgment like those denouncing recent actions of Hamas and the state of Israel. Granted, psychotherapist George Weinberg’s original formulation of homophobia in the 1960s included not only irrational fear of homosexuality in others, but fear of homosexual feelings in oneself, or self-loathing due to acknowledging one’s own homosexuality. Nevertheless, fearless moral denunciation of sexual minorities can in turn be criticized as homoppression without fearing or hating the mislabelled homophobe.

Regarding gender, it is entirely possible to disapprove of the speech or behaviour of the women-hating misogynist or the man-hating misandrist without hating the whole person in return. Whether that male is a violent domestic partner, a secretive member of the manosphere, or simply a traditional patriarchal oppressor, confronting one aspect of who they are is not denunciation of their total personhood. Neither is criticizing the rare opposite extreme of feminist misandry.

Indeed, it is also entirely possible that criticism and especially “constructive correction” is an act of love as defined by the critic, not an expression of fear or hate. “Love the sinner, hate the sin” is common positive practice in unequal parent-child, teacher-student, and employer-employee relationships, as well as in equal marital, sibling, and friend relationships.

Nonetheless, at least two challenges persist in voicing fair criticism. One is to moderate the inflammatory hyperbole so rife in clickbait media by neither overstating nor understating critique, but rather by expressing criticism proportionately, comparatively, and hence more accurately. The other challenge is for all critics to acknowledge the bias of their own worldview, ideology, and standpoint (their location in social structure) when criticizing others.

All things considered, thoughtful yet strident criticism of actions taken by individuals or groups that belong to a social category is not emotional fear or hate of all members of that category.

To caricature all criticism as such is itself provocative, and thus part of the problem.

Dennis Hiebert teaches in the department of sociology and criminology at the University of Manitoba.