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.”

March 9, 2015: Canada takes a strong stand against global rise of antisemitism

By Michael Regenstreif

There were a couple of disturbing stories out of Montreal late last month as we worked on this issue of the Ottawa Jewish Bulletin. The first involved a swastika attack, February 23, on four cars in the garage of an apartment building in the west end neighbourhood of Notre Dame de Grâce – more popularly known by its initials, NDG – an area and building with many Jewish residents. Not only were the cars defaced by crudely painted Nazi swastikas, envelopes were left at the scene with single bullets and the message, “You Will Die.”

“This was not just an act of simple vandalism, but a crime targeting the Jewish community,” said Rabbi Reuben Poupko, speaking on behalf of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs.

To their credit, Montreal police are investigating the attack as the hate crime it clearly was – at press time, there had yet to be any arrests – and Quebec’s provincial legislature, the National Assembly, unanimously passed a motion condemning the crime.

Incidents of antisemitism have been on the rise globally in recent months, most spectacularly in Europe where four Jewish shoppers were murdered in a terrorist attack on a kosher supermarket in a Paris suburb and a Jewish volunteer guard was murdered outside a synagogue in Copenhagen.

In Ottawa, this rise in global antisemitism has not gone unnoticed by our political leaders. On February 24, the House of Commons unanimously passed a motion condemning the “alarming increase in antisemitism worldwide,” noting “the firebombing of synagogues and community centres, the vandalizing of Jewish memorials and cemeteries, incendiary calls for the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people, and anti-Jewish terror.”

The motion, which followed a four-hour discussion introduced by Multiculturalism Minister Jason Kenney and Liberal MP Irwin Cotler, a former justice minister, noted, “This global antisemitism constitutes not only a threat to Jews but an assault on our shared democratic values and our common humanity.”

Our parliamentarians also recognized the role of delegitimization efforts against the State of Israel in promoting antisemitism by reaffirming the statement in the 2010 Ottawa Protocol on Combating antisemitism that “criticism of Israel is not antisemitic, and saying so is wrong. But singling Israel out for selective condemnation and opprobrium – let alone denying its right to exist or seeking its destruction – is discriminatory and hateful, and not saying so is dishonest.”

The other disturbing story from Montreal involved Judge Eliana Marengo of the Quebec Court refusing to hear the case of Rania El-Alloul, who was trying to get her impounded car returned, because she was wearing a hijab, the headscarf worn by many Muslim women.

“Decorum is important. Hats and sunglasses, for example, are not allowed, and I don’t see why scarves on the head would be. The same rules need to be applied to everyone,” the judge explained.

While the appropriateness of the niqab – which covers the face – may be debatable in court proceedings, there is nothing about a hijab, which does not cover the face or hide a person’s identity in any way, that should have been called into question. So far as I know, this was the first time a judge in Canada has made such a ruling.

From this judge’s statement, a Sikh wearing a turban or a Jew wearing a kippah would be similarly barred from court. This should not be an issue in our multicultural society.