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.”

April 1, 2019: New survey looks at Jewish life in Canada

By Michael Regenstreif

In 2013, the Pew Research Center released “A Portrait of Jewish Americans,” the results of a comprehensive survey of Jews in the United States covering everything from demographics and religious observance and attitudes, to levels of Jewish education, levels of intermarriage, attitudes toward the State of Israel, domestic politics and much more. Now, Toronto-based Environics Institute for Survey Research, in partnership with the University of Toronto and York University, has released its “2018 Survey of Jews in Canada,” a similar study of Jews in this country.

The survey sampled 2,335 Jews living in four cities – Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver. Those four cities currently boast Canada’s largest Jewish communities and are home to about 82 per cent of Canada’s estimated Jewish population of 392,000 (about one per cent of the entire Canadian population).

While Ottawa Jews were not sampled, we can reasonably assume that the “national” results are close to what would have been found here. The survey authors did note that the Jewish populations of Ottawa, along with Toronto, Calgary (also not sampled in the survey) and Vancouver are growing, as is the Jewish population of Canada as a whole, while the Jewish populations of Montreal and Winnipeg are declining.

For several years, Ottawa’s Jewish community has been close in size to Winnipeg’s – and with our community continuing to grow while Winnipeg’s continues to decline, I expect Ottawa will soon be Canada’s fourth largest Jewish community.

Asked to define their Jewish identity, almost half of respondents identified one of three main characteristics: culture (22 per cent); ancestry (15 per cent); or religion (12 per cent). The other half of the respondents identified either two of the three characteristics (16 per cent) or all three (33 per cent). The vast majority of respondents said being Jewish was either very important (64 per cent) or somewhat important (27 per cent). Only eight per cent said being Jewish was of little or no importance to them.

More than 60 per cent of Canadian Jews identified with a particular denomination. The largest denomination in Canada is Conservative Judaism at 26 per cent. Orthodoxy and modern Orthodoxy represents 17 per cent of respondents; Reform Judaism is at 16 per cent; and Reconstructionist Judaism at four per cent. A high number, 28 per cent, said they had no denomination or were “just Jewish.”

About 58 per cent of Canadian Jews said they belong to a synagogue – but asked how often they attend services other than for special occasions like bar/bat mitzvahs, weddings or funerals, only about 15 per cent said they attend once or more per week. Another 13 per cent attend once or twice per month. Forty per cent said they attend services a few times per year, while 31 per cent said they seldom or never attend.

Forty-seven per cent of Canadian Jews belong to Jewish organizations other than synagogues (JCCs for example), but fully 80 per cent of Canadian Jews live in households that made contributions to Jewish causes in 2017 – a remarkable level of engagement.

We are also a highly educated community, with 80 per cent of Canadian Jews aged 25 to 64 holding at least a bachelor’s degree – compared to 29 per cent of the Canadian population at large. And with 37 per cent of Canadian Jews holding a post-graduate or professional degree, the study suggests that “it may well be that Canadian Jews form the most highly educated ethnic group in the country.”

In terms of Jewish education, 43 per cent of Canadians attended Jewish day school for all or part of their elementary and high school years while 58 per cent have attended a Jewish overnight summer camp. As well, 67 per cent participated in some other type of Jewish educational program (supplemental schools, teen programs, etc.) while growing up.

While the 2013 Pew survey showed that the intermarriage rate had reached 50 per cent in the United States, it is much lower in Canada. Fully 77 per cent of Jewish Canadians over 18 who are married or in a common-law relationship have a Jewish partner. Perhaps surprisingly, the age group in which both partners are most likely to be Jewish is 18- to 29-year-olds at 84 per cent.

Canadian Jews also report a high level of connection to Israel. Forty-eight per cent say they are very attached and 31 per cent somewhat attached to the Jewish state. Only 11 per cent report being not very attached while eight per cent feel no attachment to Israel. Interestingly, the combined total of very and somewhat attached, 79 per cent, mirrors the proportion of Canadian Jews who have visited Israel at least once.

I’ve only had space in this column to scratch the surface of the results of the 2018 Survey of Jews in Canada. I hope to delve into more in a future column. In the meantime, though, you can visit https://tinyurl.com/jews-in-canada-survey to read or download the entire survey.

March 18, 2019: Ilhan Omar repeatedly crossed the line

By Michael Regenstreif

On March 7, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 407-23 to approve a resolution condemning racism, hatred and intolerance – specifically including antisemitism and Islamophobia – that was sparked after recently-elected Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, one of the first two Muslim women ever elected to the U.S. Congress, repeatedly used antisemitic tropes while criticizing Israel.

For example, Omar suggested that AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), the largest of the pro-Israel lobby groups in the U.S., uses money to control the U.S. government via campaign contributions that make senators and congressmen beholden to Jewish money. “It’s all about the Benjamins, baby,” Omar tweeted, a reference to the U.S. hundred-dollar bill which features a portrait of Benjamin Franklin.

In fact, AIPAC does not make campaign contributions.

Another antisemitic trope Omar used was to imply that American Jews are more loyal to Israel than to the U.S. or that they have divided loyalties.

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism has become the standard in recent years. Reflecting how anti-Zionism has often become a cover for antisemitism, the IHRA definition does specify that anti-Zionism can be a form of antisemitism.

Some critics of Israel, particularly on the far left, reject any conflation of anti-Zionism and antisemitism because, they suggest, it stifles debate and legitimate criticism of Israeli government policies and leaders. That’s nonsense, of course. Virtually every Israeli I know is not shy about offering such criticism.

To offer criticism of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or his policies or actions is not antisemitic. Just as criticizing Donald Trump, Justin Trudeau or Theresa May and/or their policies and actions does not make someone anti-American, anti-Canadian or anti-British. Open criticism and dissent are essential components of democratic societies. It is part of what distinguishes us from authoritarian dictatorships.

But there are antisemitic lines that must not be crossed. A couple of them that the IHRA definition notes are, “Making… stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective – such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions”; and, “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.” Omar crossed both of those lines and that’s why she was called on the carpet by many of her colleagues.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was one of those who criticized Omar. Pelosi said she didn’t think Omar was antisemitic but that she just didn’t understand the inherent antisemitism in the tropes she used.

Hopefully, Omar has come to understand the antisemitism in her rhetoric. She joined all of the other House Democrats and voted in favour of the resolution. All 23 nay votes were by Republicans.

March 4, 2019: Campaign wheeling and dealing in Israel

By Michael Regenstreif

With Israel’s system of proportional representation and its many political parties – many of which are focused on a single issue or represent a specific cultural or religious community, and many of which come and go – it’s virtually impossible for any party to form a majority government without bringing together a coalition.

For example, Benjamin Netanyahu put together a governing coalition with the support of other parties in 2015 – mostly by promising control of certain cabinet ministries to other parties – after his Likud Party received 23.4 per cent of the vote to win 30 of the Knesset’s 120 seats.

Two deals between parties announced late last month could have major effects on the outcome of the April 9 Israeli election, and on the wheeling and dealing between parties that will take place after the votes are counted in order to assemble a governing coalition.

The first deal merges three centrist parties – two of them newly-formed – under prominent military and political figures to create the new Blue and White Party (named for the colours of the Israeli flag). Combining to form what could be the most significant new political force in Israel in many years were Benny Gantz’s Israel Resilience Party (a former general, Gantz was chief of the Israel Defense Forces’ general staff from 2011 to 2015); Yair Lapid’s Yesh Atid Party (a former journalist, Lapid served as Israel’s finance minister from 2013 to 2014); and Moshe Ya’alon’s Telem Party (Ya’alon is also a former general and chief of the Israel Defense Forces’ general staff who served as Netanyahu’s minister of defence from 2013 to 2016).

Gabi Ashkenazi, another former general and chief of the Israel Defense Forces’ general staff, is also part of the Blue and White Party’s leadership team.

Under terms of the merger Gantz and Lapid would rotate the prime-minister-ship after two-and-a-half years.

The Jerusalem Post reported that polling immediately after the merger was announced suggested that the Blue and White Party could overtake Netanyahu’s Likud and perhaps win 36 seats to become the leading party in the race to form a governing coalition.

The other deal brings together two parties on the right and extreme right: Jewish Home and Otzma Yehudit. Jewish Home was part of Netanyahu’s 2015 coalition but its two most prominent members – Education Minister Naftali Bennett and Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked – recently split off to form the New Right Party.

Otzma Yehudit (Jewish power) is an extremist party which advocates the relocation of West Bank Palestinians and Israeli Arabs to Arab countries – in other words, ethnic cleansing. The party is the successor to Meir Kahane’s Kach Party – a party that has been banned from running for the Knesset due to its racist ideology since 1988 and banned outright since 1994.

The electoral threshold for a party to obtain seats in the Knesset is 3.25 per cent of the popular vote – which would mean four seats. Polling has suggested that neither the current version of Jewish Home or Otzma Yehudit would crack the threshold on its own – but jointly they may win four or five seats.

And as the leading parties scramble to assemble a governing coalition after the election, those four or five seats would be crucial for Netanyahu’s chances. Knowing this, it was Netanyahu himself who reportedly brokered the deal by apparently promising two seats at his cabinet table to the joint ticket.

While it’s highly unlikely that a cabinet position would go to one of the Otzma Yehudit candidates, it’s frankly appalling that Netanyahu would broker a deal that would lend political legitimacy to a group that should never have moved beyond the fringe.

And there is still another wild card which could affect the outcome of the election as Israeli Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit is widely expected to announce this month whether he will accept police recommendations that Netanyahu be indicted on several corruption charges. Although the prime minister denies the validity of the allegations against him and has said he will not stand down if indicted, it remains to be seen if his support will weaken significantly enough if he is indicted to change the outcome of the election. Some Israeli analysts suggest that it would.