March 9, 2020: Updates – Israeli election, IHRA definition of antisemitism

By Michael Regenstreif

Israeli election

As this issue went to press on February 28, I can’t comment yet on the results of the March 2 election in Israel – its third in less than a year after governing coalitions were not formed after the first two.

The latest opinion polls still showed Likud and Blue and White running neck-and-neck, with each winning 33 to 35 of the Knesset’s 120 seats – although it appears that Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu may be closer to finding enough coalition partners needed to form a government than he was after the last two elections.

IHRA definition of antisemitism

In my column last issue, I wrote about the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism and noted that Canada – which adopted the definition in 2017 – was among the growing list of countries (now 33) to recognize the definition.

I also mentioned that Bill 168, An Act to Combat Antisemitism – a private member’s bill introduced by MPP Will Bouma – would, if passed, make Ontario the first province to adopt the definition. I’m pleased to report that Bill 168 passed second reading unanimously at Queen’s Park on February 27.

Bill 168 has now been sent to the standing committee on justice policy for review – including public input – before it returns to the legislature for third and final reading before final passage.

You can be sure that there will be briefs and/or testimonies at the committee opposed to Bill 168. Despite the fact that the IHRA explicitly states that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic,” groups and individuals seeking to delegitimize the very existence of the State of Israel push a nonsensical narrative that the IHRA definition “criminalizes” any and all criticism of Israel.

As I pointed out last issue, the IHRA definition does provide parameters pointing out how criticism of Israel can cross the line into antisemitism by “applying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation,” or “using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis,” or “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis,” or “holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.” But such antisemitic criticism in and of itself will not result in criminal charges. However, when such criticism motivates criminal acts, police and the courts could be guided in determining when criminal acts are also hate crimes.

So, when Ontario’s standing committee on justice policy does ask for public input on Bill 168, it is important that we make our voices heard in support. In an era when antisemitism and antisemitic hate crimes are on the rise, a commonly accepted definition of what constitutes antisemitism is important.

February 24, 2020: IHRA definition of antisemitism needed

By Michael Regenstreif

Last June, the federal government adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism as a component of its anti-racism strategy. At the time, Canada was the 17th country to adopt the definition.

The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) – the advocacy agent for Jewish federations in Canada, including the Jewish Federation of Ottawa – has been encouraging provincial and municipal governments across the country to endorse and adopt the IHRA definition as well.

In an era when, sadly, antisemitism and antisemitic hate crimes are on the rise, it is important to have a common definition of antisemitism that can guide law enforcement officials, the courts, the educational system, and all of us. The IHRA definition does that by defining both classic antisemitism and pointing out examples of how criticism of the State of Israel can and does cross the line into antisemitism. However, the IHRA definition of antisemitism explicitly states that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”

The line is crossed, though, by “applying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation,” or “using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis,” or “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis,” or “holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.”

In other words, criticism of specific Israeli government policies or Israeli politicians are as legitimate as criticism of specific Canadian or American policies. For example, as I write, environmental protest actions by several Indigenous nations in Canada have stopped Via Rail service across the country and it is not anti-Canadian to criticize the government on how it has handled the protests or even how it has handled the totality of relations – and reconciliation – with Canada’s Indigenous peoples. But it would be anti-Canadian to say that Canada has no right or legitimacy to exist as a country because of how it has acted on the protests specifically, or even on Indigenous relations generally.

Bill 168, a private member’s bill introduced by Ontario Conservative MPP Will Bouma, would make Ontario the first province to adopt the IHRA definition. The bill passed first reading at Queen’s Park two months ago and is now at committee.

At the municipal level, few cities have yet taken any action on adopting the IHRA definition. On January 28, the day after International Holocaust Remembrance Day, the city of Vaughan, a Toronto-area suburb became the first city in Canada to adopt the definition.

On International Holocaust Remembrance Day, a motion was presented at Montreal’s city council calling for the city to adopt the IHRA definition. The motion was presented by Councillor Lionel Perez, an observant Jew, who told the Canadian Jewish News that he “believes the city should take this position because of the increase in hate crimes against Jews.”

However, when the matter came before the city council, Perez withdrew the motion when Mayor Valèrie Plante said defining antisemitism was “far from a black and white issue” and suggested sending the issue of antisemitism to a council committee which could devise a “Montreal model” to define antisemitism.

The following week there was no such hesitation when the city council of Westmount – the suburb next to downtown Montreal where I lived for 27 years before moving to Ottawa in 2007 – unanimously adopted the IHRA definition of antisemitism.

I hope Ottawa City Council will also soon act to adopt the IHRA definition.

October 15, 2018: Solidarity from federal leaders

By Michael Regenstreif

How rare is it to see the leaders of the federal Liberal, Conservative, New Democratic, and Green parties come together quickly to take a common stand on an issue?

But that is what happened just before Rosh Hashanah when two Liberal MPs – Anthony Housefather (Mount Royal) and Michael Levitt (York Centre) – were subjected to an antisemitic tweet from prominent anti-Israel activist Dimitri Lascaris.

In his tweet, Lascaris, chair of the board of Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East, tweeted that Housefather and Levitt, who are both Jewish, “are more devoted to apartheid Israel than to their own Prime Minister and their own colleagues in the Liberal caucus.”

As Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs CEO Shimon Koffler Fogel pointed out in a statement on September 9, Lascaris’ tweet suggests the two MPs are disloyal to Canada, “a textbook example of antisemitism as defined by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA),” the definition of antisemitism that has been adopted by many governments and organizations in democratic countries.

Among the examples of antisemitism cited in the IHRA definition is, “Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.”

“Vile antisemitic smears like this are completely unacceptable, and should always be called out. Thank you @LevittMichael and @AHousefather for standing up to this and for everything you do for your communities and our country,” tweeted Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Official Opposition Leader Andrew Scheer tweeted: “It’s shameful to see two MPs subjected to such antisemitism, accused of dual loyalties, simply because they’re Jewish & support Israel. The entire [Conservative Party] caucus & I stand w/ our colleagues across the aisle, proudly supportive of all Jewish Canadians.”

“Antisemitism has no place in Canada. I know what it’s like to experience racism & discrimination, and to have my loyalty to Canada questioned. @LevittMichael and @AHousefather, I stand with you today,” tweeted NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh.

And, from Green Party Leader Elizabeth May: “Just saw the attack on you both. So unacceptable. Your loyalty to Canada is unquestioned. See you soon. Sending love. @AHousefather @LevittMichael.”

I was particularly pleased to see May standing in solidarity with the other leaders, as Lascaris was a Green Party candidate and justice critic in the party’s shadow cabinet in the 2015 federal election. He also led the pro-BDS campaign within the party in 2016 – a campaign that led May to briefly consider her future as party leader.

As Fogel also pointed out, some of those seeking to demonize and delegitimize the State of Israel “through BDS and other toxic forms of advocacy, are becoming bolder and more aggressive. They are letting the veil slip on the false distinction between anti-Zionism and antisemitism … some of them openly seeking to undermine our rights as Jewish Canadians to be accepted as equals in Canadian politics, democracy, and civil society… It is a powerful statement to have federal party leaders unite, despite their many other differences, in defence of our community when we are targeted for antisemitism.”

As encouraged as I was to see the federal leaders come together in a united stance against antisemitism just before Rosh Hashanah, I was also concerned, at about the same time, to learn that Premier Doug Ford’s new Progressive Conservative government had ordered the dismantling of four sub-committees of Ontario’s Anti-Racism Directorate – including a sub-committee charged with developing provincial strategies to combat antisemitism – apparently as an austerity measure. The other affected sub-committees were charged with fighting racism directed at Blacks, Indigenous people and Muslims.

August 13, 2018: We must protect democratic values

By Michael Regenstreif

About 25 years ago, I returned to Concordia University in Montreal to do a master’s degree in political science. One of my courses, “Impediments to Democracy,” examined challenges to democratic systems posed by institutions like the Canadian Senate in which appointed senators have the power to delay or even stop legislation passed by the elected members of the House of Commons.

I have thought of that course lately while observing new impediments to democracy being thrown up by powerful politicians in advanced democracies – including the United States, Israel, and right here in Ontario.

On July 27, the very day that the nomination-filing period for Ontario’s municipal elections on October 22 ended, Premier Doug Ford announced that the size of the city council in Toronto would be slashed from 47 councillors to 25.

Changing the size of Toronto’s city council was not something Ford mentioned even once in the campaign for the June 7 Ontario election that brought him to power; or in his new government’s Speech from the Throne delivered by Lieutenant-Governor Elizabeth Dowdeswell on July 12 – just two weeks earlier.

Moreover, the announcement that the number of city council seats in Toronto would be cut almost in half was made without any consultation with the people of Toronto or their elected representatives at the municipal or even provincial levels. With nominations for the mayoralty and city council seats open since May and closing that day, Ford, essentially, announced he was unilaterally changing the rules in the middle of the game.

Prior to taking office as premier, Ford’s only previous experience in elected office was as a one-term Toronto city councillor from 2010 to 2014. During that term, he also served as the righthand man to then-mayor Rob Ford, his late brother. Few will deny that Rob Ford’s tenure in office, fuelled by substance abuse and marked by sometimes-bizarre behaviour, was less than successful. The Ford brothers were frequently at odds with their city council colleagues. When Rob Ford withdrew his candidacy during the 2014 election campaign due to a cancer diagnosis, to which he later succumbed, Doug Ford stepped in but lost the election to John Tory (ironically, a former Ontario Progressive Conservative Party leader).

With that history in mind, it is hard not to see the premier’s move to slash the size of Toronto’s city council as anything but vindictive payback to his former colleagues. Such vindictiveness is profoundly undemocratic.

If this measure is passed (as I write on August 3 it hasn’t yet), Toronto – with a population more than three times larger – will have a city council almost the same size as Ottawa: we have a mayor and 23 councillors. Following Ford’s Toronto logic, we should have about eight councillors. But, Ford says, he has no plans to tamper with the size of Ottawa’s city council – thus adding credence to the theory that the Toronto move is simple vindictiveness.

Meanwhile, south of the border, the daily news is dominated by myriad challenges to democracy posed by U.S. President Donald Trump – too many to mention but not the least of which is his constant campaign to discredit the mainstream media as “the enemy of the people” or “fake news.” A free press is essential to the functioning of democracy and it is protected by the first amendment to the United States Constitution, which, as president, Trump has sworn to protect and defend.

And, in Israel, whose inspiring 1948 Declaration of Independence established the country as a Jewish state while guaranteeing “complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex,” as well as guaranteeing “freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture,” there are aspects of the new nation-state law that serve to contradict those notions of equality.

Even Jews in the Jewish state do not seem to have complete freedom of religion given the monopoly the haredi Orthodox Chief Rabbinate holds over so many aspects of Jewish life in Israel. Just last month, a Conservative rabbi was arrested in Haifa for performing a non-Orthodox Jewish wedding.

In these times, we need to be increasingly vigilant about protecting our democratic values and in holding our elected officials to high standards of democratic conduct.