October 21, 2020: Is the Trump era about to end?

By Michael Regenstreif

I’ve just reread my “From the Editor” column written exactly four years ago today, and published in the October 31, 2016 edition of the Ottawa Jewish Bulletin.

The subject of that column was the U.S. presidential election, in particular the candidacy of reality TV show star and real estate mogul Donald Trump.

“It’s been like watching a train wreck these last 16 months. Horrifying for too many reasons but impossible to look away from,” I wrote in a column that assumed Hillary Clinton would be elected president.

Even though my assumption that Trump would lose the election in 2016 turned out to be wrong (Clinton won the popular vote by millions of votes but Trump won the presidency in the Electoral College), there is much in that column that could have been written today.

“It is astounding that the least qualified candidate (at least in modern times) to ever win a major party’s nomination for the U.S. presidency, a man with no experience in public service (and, apparently, little experience in paying federal taxes), still maintains a base of support of about 40 per cent of the American electorate despite all that he has said and done – and all that has been revealed about him,” I continued.

“As it has become obvious to all that he is losing the election, Trump has ramped up his attacks … most appallingly, on democracy itself.

“Trump has been complaining that the American electoral system has been ‘rigged’ against him and that the only way he can lose the election is if it is rigged. And he absurdly claims the American media has entered into a conspiracy against him,” a claim that Trump continues to echo four years later.

“It is a tradition in Western democracies that when the votes are counted and the winner of an election is determined, the defeated candidate(s) concedes the loss and the government proceeds to an orderly transition of power. But Trump is refusing to say he will concede a loss; only that he will accept the result if he wins,” a refusal he has repeated again in 2020.

“And, as a candidate for the most important office in the world, he has shown almost no real understanding of the myriad important issues he would face on both domestic and international fronts,” I concluded four years ago.

And while I was appalled at Trump’s attacks on democracy during his first presidential campaign (and again in this one), his attacks on democratic norms and institutions have been unrelenting during his time in office. Just a few of many examples include his vicious and baseless attacks on the mainstream media, and on people ranging from Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer and Dr. Anthony Fauci, the highly respected director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, to his Democratic opponents, former vice-president Joe Biden (who Trump says is the head of a “crime family”) and Senator Kamala Harris (who he calls a “monster”). On the world stage, Trump has repeatedly attacked the leaders of allied democracies while praising some of the world’s most brutal dictators, and he has withdrawn the United States from the Paris Climate Accords during the global climate-change crisis, and from the World Health Organization during COVID-19 pandemic, the worst worldwide health crisis in a century.

Speaking of the COVID-19 pandemic, Trump’s policies have been a major factor in the United States having 20 per cent of the cases and 20 per cent of the deaths around the world despite having just four per cent of the world’s population; and even led to his own COVID case and many cases among his family, staff, inner circle and followers due to his lax masking and distancing behaviour, and his hosting of super-spreader events at the White House and on the campaign trail. Still, despite COVID striking literally in his own home as cases of the disease continue to spike higher and higher, he continues to claim the pandemic is all but over – thanks to him.

According to a new poll released earlier this week by the American Jewish Committee (AJC), the vast majority of American Jews, 75 per cent, are set to vote (or have already voted) for Biden over Trump at 22 per cent – and that is not withstanding the fact that Trump has attempted to make Israel a wedge issue in the campaign stating that Jews who do not vote for him are disloyal to Israel.

“I think any Jewish people that vote for a Democrat – it shows either a total lack of knowledge or great disloyalty,” Trump said in remarks to the press in the Oval Office last year. He has also told American Jews that Benjamin Netanyahu is “your prime minister.”

Despite actions including moving the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, recognizing Israeli sovereignty in the Golan Heights and helping to broker diplomatic relations between Israel and two Arab Gulf states, Bahrain and United Arab Emirates, a majority of Jewish voters (54 per cent to 42 per cent) indicated in the AJC poll that Biden would be better than Trump at strengthening U.S.-Israel relations.

As well, according to the AJC poll, the same proportion of Jewish voters (75 per cent to 22 per cent) that would vote for Biden over Trump also said Biden would better handle antisemitism than Trump.

Antisemitic incidents in the United States have increased greatly with perpetrators of hatred emboldened by the atmosphere Trump has, knowingly or unknowingly, seemed to encourage. These have included the Pittsburgh synagogue massacre in 2018 in which 11 Jews were murdered and six more wounded, and the Poway synagogue mass shooting in which one Jew was murdered and three others, including the synagogue’s rabbi, were wounded. Memories of Trump’s initial description of white supremacists marching in Charlottesville in 2017 as “very fine people” after their chilling chants of “Jews will not replace us” remain strong for American Jews; as do his recent refusals to condemn the followers of QAnon, a discredited far-right conspiracy theory movement that incorporates old antisemitic tropes among its beliefs.

So, is the Trump era about to end? Two weeks before the American election in 2016, the polls indicated a Clinton victory over Trump and now, two weeks before the 2020 election, polls indicate a Biden victory. Looking deeper at the polling, particularly in the swing states that Trump won by tiny margins four years ago, I suspect the ultimate result this time will be different than it was last time.

July 14, 2020: From Charlotte Whitton and Lionel Groulx to Oscar Peterson

By Michael Regenstreif

In the spring of 2011, the City of Ottawa cancelled plans to honour Charlotte Whitton by naming the city’s new archives facility for the first woman in Canada to serve as the mayor of a major city. Whitton was Ottawa’s mayor from 1951 until 1956 and again from 1961 until 1964.

The plan to name the new facility for Whitton was abandoned following a campaign against the move led by the Jewish Federation of Ottawa and the Canadian Jewish Congress (which was soon to be absorbed by the newly restructured Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs) because of Whitton’s antisemitism.

During the Second World War – as millions of Jews were being murdered in the Holocaust – Whitton was director of the Canadian Council on Child Welfare and lobbied the federal government to keep Jewish war orphans out of the country. Later, as mayor of Ottawa in 1964, Whitton refused to accept a $450,000 donation from supermarket chain owner and philanthropist Bertram Loeb to establish a medical research centre at the Ottawa Civic Hospital. “Some observers suspected that Ms. Whitton cringed at the thought of seeing a Jewish name on a city facility,” noted the Globe and Mail in its obituary when Loeb died in 2006. (In 1988, long after Whitton’s death, the Loeb Research Centre opened at the Civic Hospital following a $14 million fundraising campaign spearheaded by Loeb in honour of his parents.)

I was recently reminded of the effort to fight bestowing that honour on Whitton because there is currently a grassroots campaign in Montreal to rename the Lionel-Groulx metro station in honour of legendary jazz pianist Oscar Peterson. An online petition to that effect has currently has more than 22,400 signatures.

Lionel Groulx (1878-1967) was a Catholic priest and historian whose writings on language and Quebec nationalism have influenced Quebec politics for generations. Claude Ryan, the former editor of Le Devoir who was leader of the Quebec Liberal Party from 1978 to 1982 and the province’s minister of education from 1985 to 1989, has referred to Groulx as “the father of modern Quebec.”

However, Groulx, as well documented by historian Esther Delisle in her 1993 book, The Traitor and the Jew: Anti-Semitism and the Delirium of Extremist Right-Wing Nationalism in French Canada from 1929–1939, was an unrepentant antisemite. Delisle found hundreds of antisemitic and pro-fascist quotations attributed to Groulx during the period in question, many of them from articles he wrote under verified pseudonyms. Groulx’s antisemitism persisted well after the period of Delisle’s book. For example, in an article about the current effort to rename the metro station, the Globe and Mail notes that Groulx in 1954, wrote that Jews have a hunger for money which he described as “an often monstrous passion which lacks all scruples.” A counter-petition by Groulx loyalists who want to retain the station’s name has received over 10,600 signatures.

I lived in Montreal until I moved to Ottawa in 2007 to work at the Ottawa Jewish Bulletin and (notwithstanding restricted travel during the COVID-19 pandemic) I return there frequently. As a metro user, I have passed through the Lionel-Groulx station countless times over the years (it’s one of the two transfer points between the metro’s two most important lines) and every time I’m in that station I am reminded of Groulx’s antisemitism and the influence it had on Quebec society. So, changing the name of the station is something I strongly support.

This current campaign is at least the third effort to change the name of the Lionel-Groulx station. In 1990s, after the revelations published in Delisle’s book, Jewish community activists unsuccessfully petitioned the city to change the station’s name. And a previous effort to change the name to honour Oscar Peterson (1925-2007) was launched after his death.

Peterson would be a most-worthy figure to honour with the name of the metro station. Peterson, who I would argue was Canada’s most significant jazz musician – for that matter, one of the world’s greatest – grew up in the very neighbourhood where the station is located (while Groulx had no connection to the area). I had the opportunity to see Peterson perform numerous times over the years – he was always brilliant – and I still enjoy his many recordings.

It’s also worth noting that although visible minorities comprise 31 per cent of Montreal’s population, not one of the city’s metro station’s bears the name of a person from a visible minority background. Renaming the station for Peterson, a celebrated Black Canadian, would begin to address that failing.

The Jewish community was right, almost a decade ago, to fight the City of Ottawa’s efforts to honour a historically-important former mayor because of her antisemitism. In many ways, it was about the soul of the city. And now, the campaign to rename a Montreal metro station to honour a most-worthy Montreal musician rather than the most influential Quebec antisemite of his era, is also very much about the soul of that city.

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.