February 20, 2017: The worst form of democracy ‘except for all those others’

By Michael Regenstreif

“We are committed to ensuring that 2015 will be the last federal election conducted under the first-past-the-post voting system,” said Liberal leader Justin Trudeau during the last federal election campaign. A commitment that was reiterated after the Liberal Party formed a majority government and Trudeau became prime minister.

Trudeau charged his minister of democratic institutions, Maryam Monsef, with finding a consensus that would allow for an alternative system. Trudeau, it was said, favoured a ranked ballot in which voters would somehow rank the candidates so that votes for candidates who don’t cross a threshold would be redistributed to the voter’s second choice.

Conventional wisdom had it that Trudeau favoured a ranked ballot on the theory that the Liberals would be many voters’ second choice thus almost guaranteeing Liberal majority governments in the future.

Meanwhile the New Democratic Party and the Green Party favoured some sort of proportional representation so that parties would hold the number of seats in Parliament reflective of their share of the popular vote. The theory being that the NDP and Greens would see their share of seats increased in a system of proportional representation.

And the Conservative Party, it seems, was OK with first-past-the post, the system in which the candidate receiving a plurality of votes in a riding wins the seat and the party with the most seats is given the opportunity of forming government.

Monsef – who was moved out of the democratic institutions portfolio in last month’s cabinet shuffle – did not find that elusive consensus, and it was left to her successor, Karina Gould, to announce that the search for an alternative to first-past-the-post was over. Despite Trudeau’s oft-stated commitment, the first-past-the-post system will endure for the next election and, likely, well into the future.

But, most Canadians, it seems, are fine with first-past-the-post.

Count me among them. I’m reminded of Winston Churchill’s famous quote from 1947, when he said, “No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

That’s the way I think of first-past-the-post. It’s probably the worst form of democracy “except for all those others.”

A ranked ballot system that would permanently favour one party doesn’t seem like a democratic ideal, and I fear that proportional representation would not serve us well.

I say that because I pay a lot of attention to Israeli politics, and the system there is proportional representation, a system that encourages many small, often single-issue parties rather than the kind of big-tent type parties that have to appeal to a broad electorate.

Because the parties are small, it is virtually impossible for any party to win a majority of seats in the Knesset. Coalition governments are always the rule. In the 2015 Israeli election, Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud was first among the many parties with 23.4 per cent of the vote, and he was able to form a coalition by making deals with the small parties. Thus, we see the two religious parties, which together received just over 10 per cent of the vote, able to impose haredi Orthodox control on many aspects of Israeli society – from who may marry and divorce, to what kind of prayer services may be undertaken at the Western Wall, and much more.

And, when Netanyahu sought to strengthen his weak coalition, Avigdor Liberman – leader of a party that received just five per cent of the vote – was able to demand and receive control of the Defense Ministry, Israel’s most important department.

I’m relieved we won’t be seeing small parties in Canada wheeling and dealing and taking control of important ministries.

February 6, 2017: On International Holocaust Remembrance Day, we remember

By Michael Regenstreif

I’m writing this column on International Holocaust Remembrance Day, marked annually on the anniversary of January 27, 1945 when the Soviet army liberated Auschwitz-Birkenau, the largest of the Nazi death camps, a place where more than a million Jews were murdered in a genocide that killed six million.

In cities around the world solemn ceremonies are being held to mark the day – including here in Ottawa where a ceremony is being held at City Hall as I write.

Throughout the day, I’ve read statements from political and communal leaders commemorating this day of Holocaust remembrance. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, for example, issued a moving statement:

“Today, on the 72nd anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau, we remember the more than six million Jews murdered during the Holocaust and the countless other victims of Nazi brutality.

“The Holocaust serves as a tragic reminder of the horrors that can be born of racism and hate. We must always remember those who experienced the worst of humanity – in ghettos, cattle cars, and Nazi death camps – and never forget our collective responsibility to prevent the seeds of intolerance and hate from taking root in our communities, country, and world.

“As we take time today to reflect on the haunting legacy of the Holocaust, let us pay tribute to the strength and spirit of the Jewish people and the many others who persevered during one of the darkest periods of human history.

“Today, and every day, we reaffirm our commitment to stand against antisemitism, xenophobia, and prejudice in all its forms. It is through this commitment that we remember those we have lost and honour those whose stories must never be forgotten.”

I’ve also read several sad – if not disturbing – reports in recent days of things that serve to trivialize the Holocaust. For example, some young people were taking selfies at Germany’s national Holocaust monument in Berlin and then posting them with mean-spirited or goofy captions on social media.

Another example, from the Czech Republic, was an “Auschwitz game” in which players are trapped in a room simulating a “gas chamber” and have to use game clues to figure a way out. “You are waiting for your last shower! But you can stay alive if you get out,” was one of the game’s marketing slogans.

When faced with criticism from the Federation of Jewish Communities in the Czech Republic, the game’s promoters claimed their intent was to promote Holocaust education. They offered tickets to the game at a special price for International Holocaust Remembrance Day.

And in Milan, Italy, the first installation there of Stolpersteine (stumbling stones), commemorative cobblestones marking the homes of Jews murdered during the Holocaust, were covered over with black paint within a day of their installation on January 19.

Such stories – and others like the week-long spate of antisemitic, racist and Islamophobic graffiti we experienced here in Ottawa in November – underscore the need for ongoing Holocaust commemoration and, particularly, for effective Holocaust education in our schools.

And, to that, I will add that the trivialization of the term “Nazi” must stop. Too many people throw that term around for almost any reason – particularly, it seems, on social media.

But this kind of thing began long before Facebook and Twitter came along. About 25 years ago, I wrote an op-ed in the Montreal Gazette about the scourge of second-hand smoke and called for smoking to be banned in restaurants and in bars during concerts. I was called a “health Nazi” for that column. After mass shootings, I’ve seen people calling for gun control referred to as “gun Nazis.” I’ve even seen people who want folk music or jazz festivals to actually centre on folk music or jazz called “folk Nazis” and “jazz Nazis.” And that’s not to mention sitcom soup vendors who want their line-ups to flow in a prescribed way.

Such use of the word “Nazi” is offensive and cheapens its meaning. On International Holocaust Remembrance Day, we remember what real Nazis did.

January 23, 2017: Should the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s Rabbi Marvin Hier offer a prayer at the Trump inauguration?

By Michael Regenstreif

As I write, at noon on January 13, we are exactly seven days – to the minute – to when Donald Trump will be sworn in as president of the United States of America.

Late in the U.S. election campaign, I wrote a column in which I noted that Trump’s candidacy had endured “despite a seemingly endless string of ongoing insults variously hurled at women, Hispanics, Muslims, the handicapped, prisoners of war, leaders of his own party, and so many others.” Like most observers, I had read the polls and predicted Trump would lose to Hillary Clinton. (From the Editor: Trump’s campaign is an attack on democracy itself, October 31, 2016)

And, like most observers, I was proven wrong on election night when Trump managed to reach and pass the magic number of 270 Electoral College votes (even though Clinton won the popular vote with about three million more votes from the U.S. population at large).

Among the clergy scheduled to offer prayers at the Trump inauguration is Rabbi Marvin Hier, apparently the first rabbi to take part in an U.S. presidential inauguration in 32 years. The conventional wisdom is that Trump wanted a rabbi to participate in the inauguration because his daughter, Ivanka Trump, and his son-in-law and close adviser, Jared Kushner, and their three children, are Jewish.

Rabbi Hier is well known as the founder and dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center. Named in honour of the famed hunter of Nazi war criminals, the Wiesenthal Center is a major institution dedicated to Holocaust remembrance and education, and to combating antisemitism, racism and other forms of bigotry and hatred.

Personally, I also remember Rabbi Hier from when I was a student at the Vancouver Talmud Torah in the mid-1960s and he was the spiritual leader of Congregation Schara Tzedek, a modern Orthodox shul just a few blocks away.

Many in the American Jewish community – particularly among the 71 per cent of U.S. Jewish voters who supported Clinton – object to Rabbi Hier’s participation in the Trump inauguration. They cite the divisiveness stirred by Trump during the campaign as well as his hiring of Steve Bannon – the former CEO of Breitbart News, a website that has blurred or crossed the line with antisemitic articles and is embraced by the so-called alt-right. A petition asking Rabbi Hier to withdraw from the inauguration garnered thousands of supporters.

Many of those in the Jewish community who object to Rabbi Hier’s participation in the inauguration would likely have objected to the participation of any rabbi in the event. Last summer, Rabbi Haskel Lookstein, the prominent New York Orthodox rabbi who sponsored Ivanka Trump’s conversion to Judaism, was scheduled to offer a prayer at the Republican Party convention that formally nominated Trump as the party’s candidate. However, Rabbi Lookstein cancelled his appearance at the convention due to the ensuing controversy.

But Trump was elected president, and I don’t object to there being some measure of diversity among the religious figures offering prayers at the inauguration; that there will be a rabbi among the clergy from various Christian denominations. But it would be an even better message of inclusivity if a Muslim imam and clergy of other faiths were also scheduled to participate.

However, I question whether Rabbi Hier, as founder and dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, is the right rabbi for this role. So much of Trump’s rhetoric during the campaign, and over the years prior, would seem to be in direct conflict with what the Wiesenthal Center – and its Museum of Tolerance – is about. Will his participation be interpreted as the Wiesenthal Center’s tacit acceptance, if not approval, of Trump’s ugly rhetoric?

For his part, Rabbi Hier said he accepted the invitation to participate in the inauguration because “it was the menschlichkeit (honourable) thing to do and I am proud to do it,” adding that petitions and other calls for him to withdraw “are not going to change my mind.”

According to Rabbi Hier, his participation in the inauguration will not affect how the Wiesenthal Center does business – that politics and personal relationships will not be a factor. (The Wiesenthal Center did criticize Trump for his anti-Muslim rhetoric early in the campaign.)

I hope he’s right.