September 26, 2016: Canadian values change and evolve over time

By Michael Regenstreif

One of lowest points during the 2015 federal election campaign was the proposal made by Conservative candidates Kellie Leitch (then minister of labour and minister for the status of women) and Chris Alexander (then minister of citizenship and immigration) for an RCMP tip line to which citizens could anonymously report “barbaric cultural practices.”

The proposal was widely seen as an example of “dog whistle politics,” which is the use of code words to signal something to the greater population while scapegoating a specific group. In this particular case, it was seen as an attack on the Muslim population.

In any case, a tip line was totally unnecessary because so-called “barbaric cultural practices” – honour killings or female genital mutilation, for example – are crimes in Canada that must be reported to the police by anyone with knowledge they are or will be occurring.

The proposal didn’t fly with the electorate and was seen as a factor in the Conservative Party’s loss. After the election, the party, under interim leader Rona Ambrose, turned a corner and distanced itself from such proposals.

Months later, by then a candidate for the Conservative leadership, Leitch appeared on the April 21 edition of CBC News Network’s “Power & Politics” and emotionally said she wished she’d never made that announcement.

“I’ve had a lot of time to think about this since the campaign took place and, if I could go back in time, which I can’t, I would change things,” Leitch told host Rosemary Barton.

Five months ago, Leitch appeared to be through with dog whistle politics.

This month, though, Leitch, still a candidate for the Conservative leadership, floated the idea of screening potential immigrants to see if they believe in “Canadian values.”

But Leitch hasn’t really defined just what Canadian values she would be screening for.

And the thing about values is that they change over time.

For many decades, successive Canadian governments used the cruel residential school system to strip First Nations peoples of their languages and cultures. That was a Canadian value for many years.

Speaking of First Nations and Canadian values, Leitch was minister for the status of women in a government that refused, time and again, to establish a commission of inquiry into the obscene numbers of missing and murdered Aboriginal women.

During the Holocaust, it was a Canadian value that “none is too many” was the right number of Jewish refugees fleeing the Nazi genocide to admit into Canada.

There are many, many other examples from Canadian history of changing Canadian values that could be mentioned.

And it’s not just a matter of history. We continue to see the constant evolution of Canadian values.

For example, same-sex marriage is now legal and a well-accepted value in Canada. But it has only been legal in parts of Canada since 2003 and everywhere in this country since 2005. The whole nature of family values – and what constitutes a family – has changed dramatically in Canada in recent years.

And what are the “Canadian values” Leitch would screen immigrants for?

I would presume, for example, that freedom of religion and religious equality would (or should) be Canadian values. But, here in Ontario, the government privileges one religion over all the rest by publicly funding its faith-based school system and refusing to fund the schools of all other religions. Is such inequality a Canadian value?

Since the 1970s, we’ve considered multiculturalism to be a Canadian value. But the province of Quebec rejects the very concept.

I would presume that national unity is or should be a Canadian value. But there are several members of Parliament whose party is dedicated to breaking up the country.

The point is that, in a liberal democracy, one’s values are not necessarily the same as everyone else’s and they change and evolve over time. So, too, do our collective values.

Immigrants to Canada should be screened on many levels – and they are – almost always successfully.

Leitch is again playing dog whistle politics with her proposal for “Canadian values” screening. Tellingly, the interim Conservative leader, and Leitch’s fellow leadership contenders have called her on it. And that is a great Canadian value.

September 5, 2016: Tell your MP how important it is to prohibit genetic discrimination in Canada

By Michael Regenstreif

The House of Commons is scheduled to resume sitting on September 19, and one of the pieces of legislation expected to be on the fall agenda is Bill S-201: An Act to Prohibit and Prevent Genetic Discrimination – a bill that was originally put forward by Liberal Senator James Cowan in 2013.

The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) is encouraging members of Canada’s Jewish community to write to their members of Parliament to encourage their support for the bill and ensure its passage.

As CIJA Chair David Cape points out in an August 25 email to the community, “Canada is the only G7 country without specific protections in place to prevent discrimination based on DNA.”

This is a matter that should be of serious concern to all Canadians. As Cape points out, when we are without a law protecting us from genetic discrimination, there is nothing to prevent such bodies as insurance companies, employers (and potential employers) from demanding individuals take genetic tests and disclose private information to them.

“This poses serious problems when it comes to finding or keeping a job, advancing in a career, or buying insurance,” Cape notes.

And this is a matter that is specifically of concern to the Jewish community as there are a number of genetic diseases that are much more prevalent among Ashkenazi Jews than in the general population. These include Gaucher disease, cystic fibrosis, Tay-Sachs disease, familial dysautonomia, and Canavan disease.

A genetic condition that runs in my own family is hereditary angioedema – a condition that can cause swelling, sometimes very painful swelling – in almost any part of the body at almost any time. My great-grandmother, grandfather and father all had it and there was a 50 per cent chance that I would have it. Luckily, I don’t. But one of my brothers does, as do a number of my cousins.

As well, I know many Jewish individuals who suffer from Crohn’s disease, for which Ashkenazi Jews have a higher genetic disposition than the general population.

And there is a too-long list of other genetic diseases – some of them, like hereditary angioedema, that are quite rare – affecting Ashkenazi Jews in much higher proportions than other communities.

Genetic testing can help individuals at risk for these diseases manage their health. However, without a law protecting them from the types of genetic discrimination I’ve mentioned, many people are afraid that being tested and testing positive would put their livelihood or ability to be insured at risk. So too many people avoid being tested at all and don’t receive the help or knowledge they need.

It is unacceptable that Canada remains the only G7 country that has not yet enacted protection from genetic discrimination. Contact your MP and let them know how important it is that Bill S-201 be passed as soon as possible.

August 22, 2016: Green Party vote puts Elizabeth May in difficult position

By Michael Regenstreif

Elizabeth May may or may not (pun intended) be the leader of the Green Party of Canada by the time you read this issue of the Ottawa Jewish Bulletin.

May – the party’s long-time leader and the only federal MP ever elected under its banner – was put in an awkward, difficult and, in my opinion, unsustainable position at the party’s convention this month in Ottawa when it voted to support the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel despite May’s fierce and often-stated opposition to the movement.

In June, when it emerged that the proposal to support BDS had been put forth for the convention, May told many media outlets – including the Bulletin – that she would oppose the proposal at the convention.

And May, who was supported by 93.6 per cent of the Green Party membership in a leadership review earlier this year, did stand firmly against BDS at the convention, noting she believes the BDS movement is “polarizing, ineffective, and unhelpful in the quest for peace and security for the peoples of the Middle East,” adding, “I will continue to express personal opposition to BDS.”

May’s position is untenable because the Green Party membership – or at least the majority of voting delegates at its national convention – knowing her strong feelings on the BDS issue, put her in the position of having to represent a party platform containing a policy with which she fundamentally disagrees.

And, indeed, May now says the Green Party’s BDS vote calls into question whether she can stay on as party leader. In a revealing CBC radio interview that was scheduled to air August 13 on “The House,” but posted online in advance, May said she was “heartbroken” and would spend an upcoming vacation thinking about whether she can continue as leader and consulting with her family about her future.

May added that representing her constituents – she is MP for the West Coast riding of Saanich-Gulf Islands – was a much higher priority for her than being leader of the Green Party and that a decision to step down might come very soon.

“I would say, as of this minute, I think I’d have real difficulties going not just to an election but through the next month,” May said. “There are a lot of issues I want to be talking about with Canadians, and this,” referring to BDS, “isn’t one of them.”

This past February, the House of Commons passed a resolution condemning the BDS movement against Israel. The resolution was supported by the governing Liberals and the Conservatives, now the official Opposition, while the NDP voted against. May, herself, did not show up for the vote in the House.

In the debate preceding the vote, NDP members and May spoke against the motion, saying the motion itself was an attack on freedom of speech and dissent while stressing their opposition to BDS and their support for a two-state solution to Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians.

May is absolutely correct in recognizing BDS as “polarizing, ineffective, and unhelpful” in the quest for a solution to the conflict. For one thing, it puts 100 per cent of the onus for the lack of progress in the peace process on Israel and completely absolves the Palestinians of any responsibility.

While the case can certainly be made that certain policies of the current Israeli government stand in the way of progress toward a solution, there are also policies and actions – including incitement to violence and glorification of terrorists – of the Palestinian Authority which, perhaps, do even more damage to the pursuit of peace.

At least Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu keeps calling for direct negotiations with no preconditions between Israel and the Palestinians, while Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas keeps refusing to even come to the negotiating table.

And let us not forget the Palestinians have walked away, refusing further negotiations, when offered peace agreements by previous Israeli governments.

And let us also not forget that Gaza is governed by Hamas, a terrorist group that rejects peace and compromise with Israel.

Groups that advocate for peace between Israel and the Palestinians – for example Peace Now, J Street, the New Israel Fund, etc. – reject BDS as a tactic for the same reasons cited by May: the tactic is “polarizing, ineffective, and unhelpful.”

While some BDS advocates sincerely believe that BDS is simply a tactic to push Israel toward a peace settlement with the Palestinians (May said she thought that was what motivated its support in the Green Party), the reality is that support for BDS comes primarily from anti-Zionist individuals and groups seeking to delegitimize the State of Israel as the Jewish homeland.

And that brings us to the issue of antisemitism. As renowned human rights activist Irwin Cotler, a former justice minister of Canada, has pointed out, there is a “new antisemitism,” in which Israel is targeted as “the collective Jew” among the nations.

BDS, which singles out Israel, is an aspect of the new antisemitism. It is a tactic not meant to bring the sides together; it is meant, as May points out, to polarize them, to drive them further apart.

Even U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, a harsh critic of the current Israeli government, rejects BDS and points to its inherent antisemitism.

So, what will happen with Elizabeth May? Will she stay on as leader or resign? Will she stay in the party or cross the floor? Could a post in Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s cabinet be in her future?

And, if she does resign as party leader, will there be a future for the Green Part of Canada.