December 9, 2019: Canada’s sudden shift on support for Israel at the UN

By Michael Regenstreif

The Jewish community in Canada, and the broader pro-Israel community (you don’t, as the old ad said, have to be Jewish to like bagels – or to support Israel), were shocked on November 19 when Canada reversed its position and voted “yes” on a nonbinding motion at the United Nations (UN) General Assembly affirming Palestinian self-determination; attacking Israel’s occupation of “Palestinian territory,” including East Jerusalem; and the construction of the separation wall by “Israel, the occupying Power.”

The motion – sponsored by North Korea, Egypt, Nicaragua, Zimbabwe, and the “State of Palestine” – was one of the same recurring, one-sided anti-Israel votes that are passed each year at the UN. This year, the motion was supported by 164 countries while nine (including Australia) abstained.

The only countries to vote against the motion this year were Israel, the United States, and three Pacific island nations – the Marshall Islands, Nauru and the Federated States of Micronesia – that are heavily dependent on U.S. aid and generally follow its lead on UN votes.

Between 2006 and 2018, under prime minister Stephen Harper, and during Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s first term, Canada reliably voted against this motion and the other one-sided, anti-Israel motions at the UN.

Although Harper’s Conservative government may have been slightly louder than Trudeau’s Liberals in its support for Israel, until now, at least, there was little difference between the two approaches. Official government policy including support for a negotiated two-state solution and opposing settlements in occupied territories, has remained unchanged.

So why the sudden change in that particular UN vote?

As Joel Reitman and Jeff Rosenthal, co-chairs of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) said in a statement the day after the vote, “the reversal of 15 years of Canadian opposition to the annual UN ritual of Israel-bashing represented far more than a let-down. It contradicted explicit commitments made by Liberal candidates during the recent election to maintain the principled opposition to the 20 annual resolutions whose sole purpose is to isolate and delegitimize Israel. This about-face felt more like a betrayal.”

The timing of the sudden shift was strange. There was absolutely no indication during the campaign for the October 21 federal election that a change in direction of Canada’s support at the UN was being contemplated.

Israeli Ambassador Nimrod Barkan told the Globe and Mail that Israel was only given a few hours notice that Canada intended to vote yes on the UN resolution.

“It was a surprise … We had no inclination or hint that Canada would change its vote on the regular annual UN resolutions and we trusted Canada, knowing that this is a circus of anti-Israeli resolutions,” he said.

Further to the timing of the vote, it took place just weeks after the election, and less than 24 hours before the new cabinet was sworn in. By then, Chrystia Freeland would have been well aware that she would no longer be our foreign affairs minister, and the identity of the new foreign affairs minister was still to be confirmed.

So where did the impetus to change the vote come from? Was it from bureaucrats at Global Affairs or officials in the Prime Minister’s Office? Was it from the outgoing cabinet or incoming Liberal caucus? Was it from Freeland or Trudeau? Or from Freeland’s successor, François-Philippe Champagne? We don’t know the answers to those questions.

A number of explanations have been floated for Canada’s about-face on the motion. One unnamed source at Global Affairs Canada told the CBC the vote was an objection to the Trump administration’s announcement the day before that the U.S. no longer considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank to be illegal. If that’s the case, the decision was sudden and made at the very last moment.

Another possible explanation is that the move was part of Canada’s campaign to win a temporary seat on the UN Security Council in 2021. Canada’s support for Israel was the explanation for Canada not winning a seat there in 2010. But, surely, Canada’s “no” votes on other anti-Israel motions won’t make a Security Council seat any more likely.

As I write, on November 29, Trudeau has offered no explanation, while Champagne after being sworn in as foreign affairs minister said only, “I think people in the Jewish community in Canada and across the world see Canada as an ally but there are times when we must express our opinion and our position as we did yesterday at the UN.”

Meanwhile Liberal MP Michael Levitt reflected the views of many in the Jewish community when he wrote on Facebook: “If the intent of yesterday’s resolution on Palestinian self-determination was to affirm international support for a two-state solution, its lack of context, failing to recognize the historic and current security threats faced by Israel, undermines that cause.”

The sudden turn on the motion by a government that until now has maintained solid support for Israel at the UN – and, indeed, Canada voted no on other anti-Israel motions at the UN last month – and which embraced the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, and absolutely rejected the anti-Israel BDS movement, while also supporting Palestinian self-determination and a two-state solution, is highly concerning. CIJA has launched a campaign to demand the government return to its previous position.

Campus anti-Israel acts show antisemitism

Meanwhile, there have been two recent incidents on Ontario university campuses in which criticism of Israel blatantly crossed over the line to antisemitism.

On November 14, the University of Toronto Graduate Students’ Union (UTGSU) rejected a proposal to support the availability of kosher food at university cafeterias specifically because the group lobbying to make kosher food available was the university’s Hillel branch, which it deemed pro-Israel. After much coverage in the local media, the UTGSU issued an apology for the wording of its original response to the proposal for kosher food availability, while stressing it had not yet actually “deliberated the request.” Meanwhile, the University of Toronto Students’ Union, which represents undergraduate students, did offer its support for the availability of kosher food.

And at York University, a pro-Israel event on November 20, was attacked by a violent mob chanting slogans like, “Intifada, Intifada, go back to the ovens,” references to the violent Palestinian uprisings that killed more than 1,000 Israelis, and to the Holocaust, in which the Nazis murdered six million Jews.

As the IHRA definition of antisemitism clearly states, “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.” These incidents, though, went well beyond legitimate criticism into antisemitism.

May 27, 2019: Fighting hate crimes in Ottawa – and online

 By Michael Regenstreif

“The Ottawa Police Service hate crime unit is investigating incidents of antisemitic graffiti at Ottawa’s two largest synagogues and at a home in the Glebe neighbourhood used as a Jewish Renewal prayer and study centre,” was the lede to the front page story I wrote for the November 28, 2016 edition of the Ottawa Jewish Bulletin.

The reason I referred to that article was that reports surfaced this month questioning the very existence of the Ottawa Police Service (OPS) hate crime unit – and even whether it ever actually existed.

Early this month, a black family’s home in Ottawa was spray-painted with disgusting racist graffiti. According to CBC reporter Amanda Pfeffer, when CBC News asked if the hate crime unit was investigating the case, the police spokesperson said the unit had been “retired.”

Pfeffer reports that a follow-up statement by Superintendent Chris Renwick of the criminal investigations directorate said, “The Ottawa Police Service does not have a Hate Crime Unit, in fact we never had a dedicated investigative unit for hate crimes.”

Renwick added that criminal acts “motivated by hate are assigned and investigated by our General Assignment Units (GAS).... Our Security and Intelligence Section (SIS) can offer investigative support to the GAS investigators during an investigation [into a crime] which is motivated by hate or extremism.”

And in yet a further clarification, Renwick explained that a constable’s position was created in the in the 1990s “to address hate crimes,” but that the position “has an intelligence focus and not an investigative one.”

According to Pfeffer, “that appears to contradict specific references to a hate crime unit in public statements and media reports dating back years, including a reference on the OPS website and in an internal policy document obtained by CBC.”

As of this writing, the OPS website still includes a hate crime unit information page.

Also, according to Pfeffer, “several police sources tell CBC the hate crime unit did exist, but has not had dedicated officers assigned to it in more than a year.”

Finally, after several days of confusion, Interim OPS Chief Steve Bell told CBC News that the hate crime unit was “renamed or moved over to the Security and Intelligence” section in January 2017.

Although Bell noted that OPS takes hate crimes seriously, he admitted “you go to our website and it directs you to a hate crime unit, and we actually don’t have that specific entity.”

The confusion and contradictions about the hate crime unit is unacceptable. Hate crimes have been on the increase in Canada and around the world and Jews are the most targeted minority in many places. Dedicated police units with specific expertise in preventing and investigating hate crimes can be an important component in helping minority communities at risk feel secure in contemporary society.

The Internet and social media, which provide great opportunities for people of common interests to come together, also provide opportunities for hate-mongers to spread their beliefs. The most heinous hate crimes in recent years have included murderous attacks on two synagogues in the U.S. and on mosques in Canada and New Zealand, and the killers in these cases have been shown to be active on social media sites – the gunman in the Christchurch mosque attack in March even livestreamed part of his killing spree on Facebook.

To begin a concerted international effort to combat online hate, the leaders of many major countries, including Canada, New Zealand, France, the United Kingdom and the European Union met in a “Christchurch Call” summit in Paris this month that also included representatives of Google, Microsoft, Twitter and several other tech companies.

These leaders and companies are well aware of the scope and magnitude of the problem. As Shimon Koffler Fogel, CEO of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, noted in a statement commending Canada’s participation in this effort, “Online radicalization has quickly become one of the most urgent and complex challenges facing security officials. As demonstrated in recent attacks on synagogues in Pittsburgh and Poway, as well as the attack on mosques in Christchurch, there is a clear link between online radicalization and real-world violence.”

Sadly, the Trump administration in the United States has declined to participate in this international effort.

April 15, 2019: Passover is a time to celebrate freedom

By Michael Regenstreif

During Passover we celebrate freedom. Specifically, we celebrate the release from the slavery endured by the Jewish people in ancient Egypt. The story is told in the Torah, in the book of Exodus.

Although our freedom from slavery came in biblical times, the Haggadah tells us that every generation must see themselves as moving from slavery to freedom.

Thousands of years later, we have a broader understanding of what freedom means and many view Passover as an opportunity to celebrate freedom in all of its forms and to pledge to strive toward a world where all are free.

Freedom of religion – which does not yet exist in many places around the world – is something we have come to take for granted in liberal democracies. Here in Canada, for example, freedom of religion is enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Freedom of religion is also enshrined in the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. And yet, late last month, the government of Quebec introduced Bill 21, “An Act Respecting the Laicity (secularism) of the State.” The law, if passed, will restrict freedom for persons of authority in the public sector who wear certain items – including kippot, hijabs, turbans, Stars of David, crucifixes, etc. – as expressions of their religious beliefs.

Knowing the law flies in the face of guarantees under both the Canadian and Quebec charters, the Quebec government will invoke the “notwithstanding clause” to override the charters. I’ve always felt that including the notwithstanding clause in the Canadian charter was a huge mistake. The purpose of a charter of rights should be to protect fundamental rights from the whims of ephemeral politicians or the “base” they might cater to. The notwithstanding clause means that rights are only as protected as a government of the day thinks they should be.

One would have thought the issue of public sector workers having the right to wear such religious symbols in Canada was settled decades ago. In 1990, RCMP officers who practice the Sikh religion won the right to wear turbans – as their religion mandates them to do – while on duty. It was a precedent that has been respected in the public service in Canada for nearly 30 years.

Bill 21 is a solution to a problem that should never have been seen as a problem. A problem that rose to the surface in Quebec in 2007 when Hérouxville, a small village northeast of Shawinigan, passed a “code of conduct” for immigrants. The village, entirely white and francophone, had no immigrants – but its code sparked a long debate in Quebec about so-called “reasonable accommodation” that ultimately resulted in the introduction of the current bill.

The bill is in the initial stages of working its way through committee and second and third readings before it can be passed, and opposition to it is strong.

In a statement, Rabbi Reuben Poupko, Quebec co-chair of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, said the Jewish community is “firmly opposed to any restriction of the freedom of religion of individuals in the name of secularism.

“Our community believes that the secularism of the state is an institutional duty and not a personal one. The commitment to secularism does not rest on the outward appearance of individuals. Any legislation that aims to restrict individual freedoms must pass the test of its constitutionality and in this regard, we are troubled by the inclusion of the notwithstanding clause to shield this legislation from a legal challenge.

“We are closely studying this Bill and are committed to participating constructively in the special consultations in order to voice our community’s concerns and its opposition.”