multiculturalism – Jewish Independent

Canada’s faith mosaic

Jewish tradition says that the chanukiyah should be illuminated in a window where it can be seen from the outside. This intersection of private celebration and public visibility is part of the holiday and, in places like Canada, where multicultural diversity is celebrated, this tradition fits nicely with the idea that we should all be proud of our various heritages.

The intersection of religiosity and public life, while not exactly parallel to this example, was addressed in a newly released study that threw a lot of accepted wisdom into doubt. The Vancouver-based Angus Reid Institute, in partnership with Cardus, a non-partisan, faith-based think tank, undertook a study on faith in the public square – and it appears almost everyone was surprised by some of the conclusions.

The study included a survey of 2,200 people across Canada, who responded to questions about their attitudes toward religion and its role in aspects of public life. The respondents divided quite neatly into thirds: the researchers identified public faith proponents (37% of the population), public faith opponents (32%) and the uncertain (32%).

Respondents were asked what they thought of the role of faith in areas such as education, social services, healthcare (such as hospitals, clinics and homes for the aged) and social justice causes (such as poverty, peace and overseas development). Overall, Canadians would like to see less faith-based involvement in these issues (56% of respondents say this), while 44% would like to see more influence. What surprised researchers, though, was who fell into the various categories.

“Notably, the results may challenge a traditional view of who Canadians within the proponent group are,” says the introduction to the study’s findings. “While one may assume this group is more likely to be made up of older and more Conservative-voting Canadians, this study finds proponents more likely to be younger, more highly educated, and largely Liberal-supporting.”

The authors continue: “This suggests that a range of Canadians – not just the highly religious – appear willing to accept certain elements of faith in public life. In fact, one-quarter of those who are most accepting of public faith have never read a religious text. Similarly, those with more strongly held religious beliefs may not necessarily be accommodating of the beliefs of others, or want to see them participating in the public discourse.”

The study’s authors seem to infer that some religious Canadians might seek to limit faith-based involvement in public life if it is extended to religious groups other than their own.

More interesting, perhaps, is the flip side: younger, more highly educated and apparently liberal (or, as the study categorized them, Liberal) Canadians who do not choose to participate in a religious tradition themselves can nevertheless see value in faith-based organizations doing good things for society. Why?

While we do not have the opportunity to probe the reasons for respondents’ answers, the surprise result might make more sense if we assume that, as multiculturalism has encouraged Canadians to recognize and celebrate difference in our heritages and traditions, a similar openness to difference has imbued itself in our attitudes to religious difference. Canadians, in general, may be less religiously affiliated, but we may, at the same time, be more open to accepting the presence of the religiosity of others – and their engagement in the delivery of public services.

Most people can probably understand that a person who has lived their lives observing Jewish traditions would, later in life, seek an assisted living or care facility that reflects their identity rather than one where the food choices, holiday celebrations and other cultural activities accentuate their difference and make them feel like outsiders. Similarly, it is natural, when in need, to seek help from an agency that is part of the community to which one belongs. Probably because we know that government cannot do all things for all people – perhaps in the roaring economy of the 1950s and ’60s we may have thought so, but those days are over – we recognize that, whatever theological differences we have, religious organizations are irreplaceable partners in caring for the sick, in-need and at-risk in our society.

Jews in North America, particularly in the United States, have been at the forefront of the movement to ensure the separation of church and state. There should certainly be vigilance against any creeping proselytization or overt theological mission within the delivery of public services. But we should recognize the difference between that and the positive impacts that people of various faith traditions have in dedicating themselves to good works. We call it tikkun olam and probably every religion has its parallel. Even as Canadians in general become less religious, it turns out we may be increasingly willing to see faith-based organizations deliver services that make our communities better.

Good neighbours, good work

Students in grades 6 and 7 hand out sandwiches on the Downtown Eastside Nov. 15. (photo from RJDS)

On Nov. 15, 60 students from Richmond Jewish Day School and Az-Zahraa Islamic Academy went to the Downtown Eastside to meet the people in the neighbourhood and hand out food that had been prepared earlier.

photo - Students in grades 6 and 7 hand out sandwiches on the Downtown Eastside Nov. 15 — Students in grades 6 and 7 hand out sandwiches on the Downtown Eastside Nov. 15. *(photo from RJDS)*

“The students, staff and administration of Richmond Jewish Day School have always been committed to doing what we can to improve the lives of those less fortunate among us,” said Reesa Pawer, student life coordinator at RJDS. “One of the ways we have done this is by actively participating in a week of Random Acts of Chesed.”

As part of Random Acts of Chesed Week, Grade 6 and Grade 7 RJDS students worked together with their neighbour school, Az-Zahraa, to put together 700 bags of food and more than 500 sandwiches.

Symposium provides healing

The Jewish Seniors Alliance fall symposium on Oct. 28 was about aging across cultures. (photo from JSA)

The Jewish Seniors Alliance fall symposium, Aging Across Cultures, took place on Oct. 28. The program dealt with inclusivity while Jews everywhere were trying to cope with the horrors of what hatred can do. Still newly mourning the victims of the shooting at the Tree Of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, attending the symposium seemed strange, but it had healing properties.

The afternoon program was a time of unity and solidarity with other cultures. Attendees learned that loving and caring for seniors in our community and for our family elders is a universal value and touches all hearts in much the same way, as well as presenting similar challenges.

In welcoming the crowd, Ken Levitt, president of Jewish Seniors Alliance, turned the subject of the Pittsburgh shooting over to Rabbi Philip Bregman, who was the event chairperson. Bregman served as senior rabbi at Temple Sholom from 1980 to 2013. He is a founding member of Jewish Christian Dialogue (since 1995) and he now functions as Jewish chaplain for the University of British Columbia and is involved with Hillel BC.

Bregman spoke about the brutal murder of people at prayer. He highlighted the many calls he has received expressing sympathy and condolences. He recalled standing outside a mosque in Vancouver after the shootings at a Quebec City mosque in 2017, where six Muslim worshippers were murdered and 19 others wounded. Among the condolences he received after the murders in Pittsburgh was a message of sympathy from the imam in Quebec.

Bregman emphasized the difference between the word “killing,” which he categorized as meaning accidental, and the word “murder,” which is intentional.

“Where do we go from here?” he asked. “We bury our dead, we mourn and we meet as a community,” he said. “We must never allow hatred to win.”

The audience stood for a moment of silence in commemoration of the 11 murdered and those injured, including several police officers.

The afternoon’s program featured a panel consisting of three accomplished women of diverse ethnic origins.

• Zarghoona Wakil is the manager of the Settlement and Integration program at MOSAIC, a nonprofit organization that helps newcomers to Canada. She also supervises MOSAIC Seniors Club, which provides services to seniors of different cultural backgrounds.

• Sinder Kaur is the executive director of health services at SUCCESS, providing a continuum of quality, culturally appropriate care services to seniors with different needs. She has worked in different leadership roles with a passion to help seniors age in place.

• Deanna Lewis, known as Kalkalath, her ancestral name, was recently elected to the Squamish Nation Council, focusing on elders and their care. Kalkalath is a former teacher, working to preserve her Skwxwu7mesh culture, spirituality and language. Raised with the teachings of her grandfather, she knows the importance of knowing who you are and where you come from.

When Bregman introduced the three panelists, he asked them to share a little about themselves and to address the issue of how their various cultures celebrate seniors.

Wakil shared that she is originally from Afghanistan, then lived in Russia. She came to Vancouver 12 years ago and is now studying at Simon Fraser University for a master’s degree in public health. Kaur is Punjabi-born, lived for 20 years in Hong Kong and moved here 17 years ago. Kalkalath’s Squamish Nation family was removed from Khatsahlano (Kitsilano) in the early 1900s and her main efforts are to teach both adults and children the Squamish language.

Despite differing cultures and traditions, Wakil and Kaur both emphasized that it is seniors who hold history in their hands and only upon opening up their hearts are they able to tie generations together and build upon that knowledge for the future generations.

It was difficult to hear that Kalkalath had to learn about her heritage from others, as her history was erased and harshly taken from her elders. It was she who sought to learn about that past and is now feeling connected again, through the learning of her own language and the ways of her people from her grandfather.

A common thread between all the panelists was that grandparents and grandchildren have a special link that allows them to relax and truly enjoy one another while parents are occupied with the comfort and needs of both these family groups.

All three speakers provided vivid descriptions of the issues and areas of concern regarding elders in their cultures. JSA thanked them for their willingness to share personal stories and stories from their communities. The similarities between cultures superseded any differences.

Claudine Malto, director of community programs at Mount Pleasant Neighbourhood House, then spoke about the house’s new initiative: multicultural circles, where seniors share stories, food, textiles, cooking classes, dance and exercise. She noted that people generally like to sit in “pockets,” which creates a divide. The motivation for this project is to answer the question, “How can we best coexist?”

Larry Shapiro, JSA board member and second vice-president, wound up the afternoon with one of the best vocal advertisements for the Jewish Seniors Alliance that we have ever heard.

Attending the symposium made the sun come out, even on a rainy, tear-filled day.

Binny Goldman is an honorary life board member of Jewish Seniors Alliance.

Canada, Israel, Jews

When Canada belatedly opened its door to Jewish refugees – to some of the surviving remnant after the Holocaust – it did so not out of an abundance of humanitarianism but because of economic necessity, the need for skilled and unskilled workers in a booming economy.

Regardless of the motivation, that influx of refugees redefined Jewish identity in Canada. The increased Jewish population and the institutions they spawned essentially built the community we know today.

As former Vancouverite Adara Goldberg described in her book Holocaust Survivors in Canada: Exclusion, Inclusion, Transformation, 1947–1955, the institutions that we now see as the organized Jewish community were created for and by the refugees and immigrants who came after the war. By contrast, those who came to the United States after the war were greeted by and largely assimilated into a strong Jewish community already in progress.

This has had several corollaries. The worldview of Canadian Jewish institutions – and, though not easily verifiable, probably a majority of Jewish Canadians individually – is imbued with the understandable anxieties imprinted on those who witnessed the rise of fascism and lived through it.

On the flip side, the Canadian Jewish community as we know it can be said to have been born almost contemporaneously with the state of Israel. Again, while Zionism is entwined with the American Jewish community, that community had many other preexisting cultural and political dimensions. In Canada, the rebirth and survival of the Jewish state occurred at the most impressionable period in the community’s history. As well, the idea of Jewish self-determination as the surest path to individual and collective security resonated powerfully with a community disproportionately made up of survivors of the Shoah. Moreover, Canada’s approach to multiculturalism, especially after 1967, differed from the American “melting pot” and suspicion of “dual loyalties.”

So, the nature of Diaspora-Israel relations is different for Canadians versus Americans. Yet, some of the challenges are the same.

A new essay by David Hazony, editor of the American Jewish magazine The Tower, takes a new tack on the topic of American Jewry’s existential challenges. The Jewish population is not only declining, he notes, but changing. The only demographic that is flourishing is the Orthodox, which is not necessarily reflective of what would have been recognized as “American Jewry” in the 1950s and ’60s. The two most-recognized paths to avoid assimilation, he says, are currently orthodoxy and aliyah – but he suggests a third way.

Hazony posits that the answer to challenges facing American Jews right now is a little more Israel. The essay reviews concerns that American (read: Diaspora) Jews and Israelis are talking across a widening divide. Hazony’s suggestion is that Americans, who have for generations viewed Israel as a political cause, begin to integrate Israeliness as a cultural characteristic and embrace it as the future of their Diaspora identity. For instance, he says, Diaspora Jews immersing ourselves in Israeli cinema, even with subtitles, will give us a remedial entry point into the culture.

Language – not an easy thing to learn, particularly for notoriously unilingual Americans, Hazony acknowledges – is another important entry point.

“Without Hebrew,” he writes, “any approach to Israeliness will be like walking into an enormous library in a foreign language but relegated to the tiny English-language section.”

He suggests a network of Hebrew language and culture centres modeled on the French example. How many times have you driven by the Alliance Française building south of Oakridge?

Finally, travel. Just 27% of Americans have visited Israel more than once, he notes. To understand a place, you have to go there.

The essay is fascinating and offers ideas that could both strengthen Diaspora communities and narrow the gap between us and our Israeli cousins.

As Canada Day festivities unfurl in the coming days, we will see the familiar dictum “The world needs more Canada.” In some ways, we can proudly say, the world would indeed be a more peaceful, cooperative and respectful place if Canadian models were emulated elsewhere. Like any country, we have our flaws, our oppressive history and current inequalities. But, as countries go, we’re pretty good.

Hazony is taking a similar tack, arguing that Diaspora Jews need a little more Israeliness.

In Vancouver, we are very fortunate that our Jewish community centre has, for longer than we can remember, recognized the vital importance of connections with Israel. A plethora of other Israel-related organizations keep these bonds strong.

While pondering what is great about Canada in the coming week, we might also reflect on the value of integrating more Israeli culture into our lives. It can enrich us individually and enhance Canadian multiculturalism, too.

B.C. NDP leader talks with JI

B.C. NDP leader John Horgan (photo from B.C. NDP)

Horgan says he likes how British Columbians have come together across racial and religious differences during recent times of strife. In a wide-ranging interview with the Independent, the New Democratic party leader also promised to restore the B.C. Human Rights Commission, said he would like to see religious studies in the school curriculum, expressed opposition to boycotts against Israel and said ethnocultural groups play an important role in the delivery of social services.

Horgan, the provincial opposition leader who hopes to be premier of British Columbia after the May 9 election, said that public reactions to antisemitic and anti-Muslim incidents recently have been encouraging.

“What I’ve been seeing … is an unprecedented coming together of diverse groups – ethnic and people of faith – to support each other, whether it be [after] the horrific shootings in Quebec City or the threats of bombings here in the Lower Mainland,” he said. “I’ve seen people crossing traditional faith boundaries to embrace one another and that gives me great hope and optimism for the future here in B.C. When I look south of the border to the rise of hatred, antisemitism, Islamophobia – and without it being brought into check by the leadership, at least the executive branch of the United States – I’m absolutely concerned about that. But I think the advantage for us here in Canada and in B.C. is it gives us an opportunity to reaffirm our tolerance. I’ve been quite moved by it.”

Leaders, he said, have a role not only in legislating but in expressing attitudes that should exemplify the values of the community they serve. “The broader public often criticize politicians for participating in ethnic celebrations or ceremonies,” he said. But he believes it sends a crucial message about respect for multicultural and faith communities, so he attends Chanukah menorah lightings at the legislature and Kristallnacht commemorations, as well as events of many other communities.

Horgan said there must be a means for people who believe their human rights have been violated to seek redress and a body to spearhead education about human rights. An NDP government, he said, would re-establish the Human Rights Commission that the B.C. Liberals dismantled in 2002.

“Every other jurisdiction in the country has a commission for educational purposes, for bringing forward examples of human rights abuses, and I don’t know why British Columbia wouldn’t have that opportunity,” he said.

Also on the education front, Horgan said he would like to discuss with stakeholders the potential for adding religious studies to the B.C. school curriculum.

“I’m a student of history, I have a master’s degree in history and I look back as much as I look forward in terms of shaping my personal views,” he said. “I would see some benefit to having part of the curriculum have a religious studies component in the middle school or high school curriculum.” It might not be a mandatory course and he would seek consultation with school boards, teachers, parent advisory committees and others, but, he said, the idea has come up repeatedly in conversations with members of different religious communities.

Governments partner with community agencies to ensure culturally sensitive and appropriate delivery of services such as addiction, settlement and immigration and seniors’ programs, and this is something Horgan strongly favours.

“It’s not just ethnocultural and faith-based organizations,” he said, “it’s community organizations. In my world, the role of government is to try to unite and bring people together whenever possible and foster understanding and tolerance. You don’t do that by not having discussions or relationships with various organizations, you do that by stimulating that participation.”

Providing culturally appropriate foods for patients in the medical system is a small example of accommodation, Horgan said, but one that has been made more difficult by the outsourcing of food services in the health-care system.

On the security front, Horgan supports the $100,000 the province recently announced in funding for Jewish community security, though he would have done it differently had he been premier, he said.

“Anytime we can improve security for any community, I would support that,” he said. “I don’t want to take shots of the government in this interview but, for me, I would have reached across the floor and said to my counterparts, were I in the premier’s office, this is something that we’re going to do, can we have a resolution of the legislature to make this cross partisan lines, rather than making it a statement of, ‘the Liberals are doing this and the NDP or Greens or Conservatives are not.’ But, beyond that, I support it, absolutely.”

Horgan said he personally opposes the anti-Israel boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement, but he’ll let party members have their own opinions.

“On these issues, as a provincial leader, what I try to do is allow people to have their point of view. I don’t necessarily have to agree with them,” he said, adding that foreign affairs is a federal matter. “I hold fast to the hope that our federal government, which has diplomatic responsibility for these issues, will show leadership that divestment and sanctions are not a solution.”

He added: “I believe in a two-state solution to the challenges in the Middle East and that’s a personal view and I’ll share that with anyone who asks me. But I try in my interactions with various community members to focus on how do we provide unity here in British Columbia. I look at, just as an example, the sanctions on Cuba. They’re not comparable, I appreciate that, but it is an attempt to have a state outcome in another jurisdiction based on economic pressure, and all that’s happened as a result of that is increased poverty and a lack of understanding. I think we want to reduce poverty wherever possible and increase understanding and, by cutting ties, severing relationships, you’re never going to achieve that. My approach, personally, is always to engage rather than disengage, so I think the BDS movement is not something I support, but people have their own personal will. They can choose to invest their resources wherever they want to.… My own personal view … is that reducing interactions never leads to a better understanding, it leads to less understanding.”

Horgan noted he has met with several organizations in the Jewish community on issues around economic cooperation and trade with Israel.

“I’m excited about the prospects of increasing our ability in British Columbia to take advantage of the cultural linkages we have to grow stronger economic linkages,” he said.

As British Columbians ponder their electoral choices, Horgan said he wants Jewish voters to know that “what they want for themselves and their community I want for them as well.”

“That’s a tenet of social democracy,” he said, paraphrasing J.S. Woodsworth, an early leader of the Canadian left, who said, “What we desire for ourselves, we wish for all.”

“That is a tenet of the Jewish faith and that is something that I think those who have not looked to the NDP in the past may want to do so in the coming election campaign,” he said. “I want growth and prosperity for our communities, I want tolerance and peace and understanding – and those are the issues that I think most British Columbians want, regardless of their faith. I believe that if we focus on the mainstream values that unite us, rather than the issues that divide us, we’ll all be better off here.… My answer is to lead by example and to highlight always tolerance and welcoming and cooperation over intolerance, hate and division.”

The Jewish Independent’s provincial election coverage continues with interviews with other candidates in future issues.

Note: This article has been edited to reflect that the B.C. government allocated $100,000 for security measures in the Jewish community.

Jewish values in Trump era

The April 9 panel discussion Israel, Canada and Me in the Age of Trump will feature, clockwise from top left, Dr. Shayna Plaut (photo from Shayna Plaut), Ofira Roll (photo from Ofira Roll), Rabbi Susan Shamash (photo by Robert Albanese) and Eviatar Bach (photo from Eviatar Bach).

Israel, Canada and Me in the Age of Trump will be the topic discussed by a panel of four Jewish speakers on April 9 at the Peretz Centre for Secular Jewish Culture.

“Trump’s election in the U.S. has shifted the relationship that Diaspora Jews in general, and progressive Jews in particular, have with Israel,” Yom-Tov Shamash, one of the organizers, told the Independent. “I believe that most Jews in Vancouver, young and old, Zionist or not, affiliated, religious or secular, feel uncomfortable with the Israel-Trump alliance. Bringing four progressive Jewish leaders from different walks of life provides an opportunity for all Jews supporting values of social justice to hear different points of view, to find common ground, to develop relationships and hopefully to get involved in common causes.”

One the participants, Dr. Shayna Plaut, is research manager of the Global Reporting Centre. She is currently teaching courses on migration and social inequalities at the University of British Columbia and is adjunct professor in international studies, Simon Fraser University.

“Ashkenazi Jews in Canada and the U.S. are in greater positions of safety than we have ever been,” two or three generations removed from the Holocaust, said Plaut. “Ashkenazi Jews can pass for white. We have a responsibility to do something with this privilege, [to uphold] the tradition of tikkun olam.

“As a descendant of refugees, I have always felt connected to refugees,” she continued. “I work to make my ancestors proud and, right now, that means standing in solidarity with this generation of refugees.

“We all have different strengths. And we have a responsibility to see, and use our strengths. My strengths are in education and connection.”

Plaut said, “The level of intolerance in Canada and the U.S. has increased. I was born and raised in the U.S. I became a Canadian because I was having a hard time recognizing my own country. It’s not like racism didn’t exist before – we are a country built on colonization and slavery – but we are also a country built on ideals and resistance. I have always worked in this positive vein of how to make things better. I view patriotism as a commitment to make my country better. It’s easier to talk about what’s wrong than to present alternatives to make things better and work together. It was in December 2015 when I [began to feel] that perhaps I was able to do this better from Canada … as a Jew, as a dual citizen of the U.S. and Canada, and as an educator and worker for human rights and social justice.”

Ofira Roll, another of the panelists, is a PhD candidate in education at UBC. Born and raised in Israel, she reflected on what is involved in activism in Israel as opposed to Canada or the United States.

“Our activism here has productive aspects. However, it feels as if we do it by remote control,” said Roll. “I truly miss the messiness in Israel – the messiness of communication, liveliness and opinions, of cultures and interests. People have opinions and they share them and embody them. I know the darker sides of living there – it’s a nationalistic state, undemocratic, racist, capitalist and anti-human rights – but it feels more real to me, where I feel pushed to the edge in all aspects of life. I am asked to speak up for what I truly care about and act on it. For me, being ‘pro-Israel’ means criticizing what’s wrong.”

Roll is critical of recent Israeli legislation excluding supporters of boycotts from entering Israel. “Personally, I don’t believe in boycotting countries. Still, I can’t accept the idea that if I came to Israel and had decided to boycott, I’m on this list. Friends of mine would be on this list. I don’t understand how a democratic country can pass such an undemocratic law. It’s not just stopping people who don’t support Israel – it stops more Palestinians than anyone else so, in a way, it really is a racist law.

“As several philosophers I am influenced by – Martin Buber, Hannah Arendt – say, engaging in dialogue doesn’t mean that we are in agreement. Dialogue is more about the process we go through in the search for new understandings. Now, when I see everyone coming together, it’s a strong moment for me. In the time of Trump, that’s what I’m happy about. People start understanding that all these divisions are fake. We are not different at the core. The women’s marches we had all over the world – for women’s rights, which are human rights – ironically, thanks to Trump.

“It’s not about convincing, but about sharing. It’s an invitation to talk, first of all, as humans. I don’t believe in all these divisions and borders. I have a hard time with flags, anthems. I think home is within you. Home is not something defined by others. It doesn’t need always to be in the name of a country.”

Roll has found the atmosphere in Vancouver’s Jewish community fairly open. “When [Israeli singer] Ahinoam Nini came here,” she noted, “people fought to bring her, with the support of the Jewish Federation, against groups who did not believe she should be invited because she supports Palestinians’ causes. I wrote a collective letter [to the Federation] on behalf of my Hebrew-speaking community theatre group. They read our letter at a Federation meeting, and they were brave enough to take a stand, and Nini was invited. In the end, they made an extra effort to bring us all together to meet Nini after the show. The Jewish community here includes many other voices, even among synagogues. There are many small groups, which don’t follow one way.”

Panelist Eviatar Bach is graduating from UBC in physics and computer science. He is involved with the Social Justice Centre at UBC, is a co-founder of the UBC Progressive Jewish Alliance and a founding editor of the Talon, a progressive online student magazine.

“With the Trump administration, it appears that the U.S. has abandoned the pretense of an ongoing ‘peace process,’ with Trump expressing indifference at the choice between a one-state and a two-state solution, and the appointment of settlement backer David Friedman as ambassador to Israel,” said Eviatar.

“At the same time,” he continued, “there is perhaps more disagreement between mainstream Jewish organizations, which tend to uncritically support Israeli actions, and young Jews in North America, than ever before. New groups such as IfNotNow, predominantly composed of young Jews, emerged during Operation Protective Edge in 2014, and have taken more confrontational stances than, say, J Street, by protesting Jewish organizations that defend occupation and killings directly.

“On university campuses, the Open Hillel movement has sought to challenge Hillel International’s guidelines, which narrowly constrain the range of views that speakers at Hillels around the world are allowed to express. Several Independent Jewish Voices chapters have started at university campuses in Canada, and the Progressive Jewish Alliance was started at the University of British Columbia.”

Rounding out the panelists is Rabbi Susan Shamash, who was recently ordained by ALEPH: Alliance for Jewish Renewal. She is a retired lawyer and an active member of Congregation Or Shalom.

“As a recently ordained, progressive rabbi, my focus is always on the Jewish values that propel me towards acts of social justice, including engagement in interfaith dialogue and commitment to family and community, which includes my Jewish family and my Jewish community.

“As a born and bred Canadian (like both my parents), my relationship with Canada is foundational to my identity,” she said. “I have a deep and abiding faith in our legal and judicial systems and in our system of government which, though imperfect, is based on values of inclusion, social welfare and multiculturalism.

“As a religious Jew, my relationship with the Jewish community in general and Israel in particular is complicated, varied and nuanced. I often find myself interceding on behalf of a different perspective, of more open thinking and understanding. There is much more to Israel than the occupation and conflict with the Palestinians, but, unfortunately, that is what defines its current reputation in the world community.

“We live in troubled and troubling times,” said Shamash. “U.S. President Trump has already changed the world order in unprecedented ways. More worrisome is that he has a lot of support both within and without the United States. This is not just an American phenomenon.

“How do my Jewish values help me to live, survive and even thrive in this new world order? There are many that we repeat over and over again: seek peace, pursue justice, love your neighbour, welcome the stranger, be a holy people, steward the earth, perform acts of loving-kindness, repair the world.”

The April 9 event is sponsored by Independent Jewish Voices, Vancouver. It begins at 1 p.m. and the suggested donation is $10.

Carl Rosenberg is a member of the United Jewish People’s Order and Independent Jewish Voices Canada. For many years, he edited Outlook: Canada’s Progressive Jewish Magazine.

Yuzyk Award nominations open

Canadians are invited to submit nominations for the seventh annual Paul Yuzyk Award for Multiculturalism. New this year, candidates may now be nominated in one of three categories: youth, organization (private or nonprofit) or lifetime achievement/outstanding achievement. One recipient can be chosen in each of the three categories.

Citizenship and Immigration Canada added new categories for youth and organizations to allow for the recognition of a wider range of Canadians. With these changes, youth aged 15 to 24 who have contributed to the success of Canada’s pluralism can now be nominated. In addition, Canadian businesses and other organizations may also be nominated for their contributions to multiculturalism.

These two new award categories are in addition to the lifetime achievement/outstanding achievement category, which has been awarded annually since 2009. The achievement category recognizes an individual or group that has recently made a significant contribution to promoting and embracing Canada’s long tradition of peaceful pluralism. It honors an individual who has demonstrated the same dedication over a period of at least 10 years. Each award recipient will receive a $10,000 grant to be directed to a registered not-for-profit Canadian organization of their choice.

The deadline for 2015 Paul Yuzyk Award for Multiculturalism nominations is March 31, 2015. All entries must be postmarked by that date to be considered for the 2015 award. Late entries will not be considered. Visit CIC’s website for all the details and nomination forms.

The award commemorates the legacy of the late Senator Paul Yuzyk, who was a member of the Senate of Canada from February 1963 to July 1986 and played a key role in the development of Canadian multiculturalism policy.

Multiculturalism only solution

The murder of 12 at Charlie Hebdo and the murder of four at a kosher supermarket in Paris last week were not just examples of mass murder, violence to which we as a society have become sadly accustomed. These were deliberate attacks on the core values of a free, democratic, pluralist country.

We have long feared that the West might not respond in a stalwart way to such an incident, so the massive march in Paris Sunday, featuring world leaders, was an inspiration and a signal of hope that the people of France will stand on guard for the values of civilization that are epitomized by the rallying cry of that country’s revolution: liberté, égalité, fraternité.

What happens next will truly impact the future of our democracies. On the one hand, there is the potential that media will legitimately and understandably take baby steps in the direction of self-censorship, for fear that gun-wielding self-proclaimed editors will burst through the doors and kill everyone in range.

On the other hand, there is the potential that, in an effort to prove the opposite point, media (and now, with social media, everyone is a publisher) will saturate the discourse with material that is offensive to Muslims. Already, there has been a spike in attacks against mosques in Europe. Extremists on both sides could enflame this situation badly.

More optimistically, voices of reason, like those on the streets of Paris and at the Vancouver rally last week, may more positively affect the course of events.

Freedom of expression is paramount. In a democracy, where rights come with responsibilities, we would hope that people, including media, would use this right responsibly. Yet, even if they don’t – and it is both outrageous that we have to say it and that it is also at the absolute root of this discussion – there’s no case where gunning offenders down or bombing them is justifiable.

Freedom of expression is central to this discussion but, in a way that seems far too obvious to even state, the bigger issue is that people shouldn’t kill people. The four Jewish men who died at the supermarket are not martyrs to free expression. They are martyrs to just being Jewish.

Ultimately, events will probably lead more people in Europe to conclude, as many have already, that multiculturalism is a failed experiment. Certainly, multiculturalism is imperfect, as is any human endeavor. But it remains the best answer, given the unthinkable alternative, which is racial nationalism of the kind we have seen too much.

More bluntly, multiculturalism is unavoidable. We need to make it work. We cannot run to our corners and demand – what? – that they – whoever “they” are – stay on their side of the world and we – who are “we”? – should stay on ours? Because that is, effectively, the only alternative to multiculturalism. And that is plainly impossible, even if it were desirable in some cases. In today’s world, more than ever before, we are truly one people. We need to start acting in ways that reflect this reality.

There is a great deal of anger and incivility in the world today. In the car, in customer relations, certainly on the relative anonymity of the internet, the things people are saying to one another are rife with intolerance, divisiveness and rage. There are no laws that force us to be civil. Yet, there is a spectrum of the way human beings treat one another and many of us probably envision ourselves as more civil than we may deserve to self-regard.

Good citizenship is not only an obligation for newcomers, remember, it is a duty for all of us. As the people who marched in Paris demonstrated, like those around the world who have stood up, including here in Vancouver, acts of inhumanity are precisely the catalysts for us to redouble our own humanity.

Justin Trudeau meets community leaders, chats with JI

Justin Trudeau, leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, was in Vancouver on April 10, and addressed a roundtable lunch organized by CJPAC. (photo by Cynthia Ramsay)

The Canadian Jewish Political Affairs Committee (CJPAC) hosted a community roundtable lunch on Thursday, April 10, with Justin Trudeau, leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.

“CJPAC seeks to activate the Jewish community in the Canadian political process, and roundtables such as these provide opportunities to build relationships and engage with elected officials from all political parties,” explained Mark Waldman, CJPAC’s executive director, in an email after the event.

“CJPAC is a multi-partisan, national organization that has been active in Vancouver for many years,” he added. As an example of the organization’s work locally, he noted, “Recently in Vancouver, CJPAC hosted an event called Women in Politics, which was attended by more than 30 women. Participants engaged on a personal level with former and current female politicians from a number of political parties and levels of government.”

Thursday’s lunch meeting took place in a boardroom at Blake, Cassels and Graydon LLP downtown. It seemed like a couple of dozen community members were in attendance. As they were leaving, Trudeau spoke briefly with the Jewish Independent before heading to another appointment.

“… I’m glad to say that any government of Canada will be supportive of Israel, not for ideological or political or strategic reasons, but because the values Israel stands for are Canadian values of openness, of respect, of democracy, of equality, and we need more of that, particularly in the tough neighborhood that Israel is in.”

“It went great,” he said about how the roundtable went. “We talked about, obviously, Canada’s support of Israel, which is extremely important to me and the point I made is that I am an unequivocal supporter of Israel. We need a two-state solution of a Jewish state on one side and a Palestinian state. Where I take issue a little bit with the prime minister these days is just that he’s tended to make it a little more of a domestic football, with some people being more supporters of Israel than others, and I’m happy to say that I love the prime minister for his support of Israel and thank Mr. Mulcair for his personal support of Israel as well, and I’m glad to say that any government of Canada will be supportive of Israel, not for ideological or political or strategic reasons, but because the values Israel stands for are Canadian values of openness, of respect, of democracy, of equality, and we need more of that, particularly in the tough neighborhood that Israel is in.”

Domestically, there have been changes made or proposed at the federal level over the years that, in the opinion of some, challenge those very values of openness, respect, democracy and equality, a recent example being Bill C-23, or the Fair Elections Act. When asked to describe his vision of the role of a federal government, Trudeau responded, “First of all, we have to understand that Canada is a federation, not a unitary state, so how we engage with different levels of government as a federal government – partnership with provinces, partnership with municipalities – and understanding the work together that we do as different levels of government all serves the same citizens.

“Giving a government a majority doesn’t give them the capacity to perpetuate themselves indefinitely by tricking the rules; that’s what happens in developing countries, that’s not what’s supposed to happen in Canada.”

“But even within the way Parliament functions,” he continued, “I made a strong commitment last June towards open Parliament, which would mean less whipped votes; open nominations, which would mean no omnibus bills, no misuse of prorogation, a lot more openness, the transparency around online posting of our expenses. Actually, what we announced in June last year then triggered similar announcements from everyone and now all of Parliament is starting to post online, and that was something that we triggered. So, I think when you look at that, when you look at the partisan approach to the Fair Elections Act – which is a very unfair elections act – I’m certainly trying to get the message out to Canadians that we do not need elections to be fixed in advance in favor of the Conservatives, and that’s exactly what’s happening. Giving a government a majority doesn’t give them the capacity to perpetuate themselves indefinitely by tricking the rules; that’s what happens in developing countries, that’s not what’s supposed to happen in Canada.”

With the defeat of the Parti Quebecois on April 7, there is reason to believe that its proposed Charter of Values will also go by the wayside. However, at least some of the sentiment that allowed it to be proposed in the first place – fear over immigration – likely still exists and, over the last few years, more than one European government has called multiculturalism a failure. In light of this, the Independent asked Trudeau what he thought about the future of multiculturalism in Canada.

“Multiculturalism in Canada is about building a diverse, flourishing fabric of a country that is strong, not in spite of its differences, but because of those differences.

“The German model of multiculturalism failed because they brought over temporary workers from Turkey and never allowed them citizenship, didn’t treat them like Germans and, even a few generations in, they never became [citizens]. Multiculturalism in Canada is about building a diverse, flourishing fabric of a country that is strong, not in spite of its differences, but because of those differences.

“And, I’ll say two things on Quebec. First of all, I, as of last fall, spoke very strongly in a number of editorials to Canadians to not get overly worked up about this Charter of Values, to trust Quebecers because Quebecers were not going to accept this, and I was pleased to see them show that on Monday night, and show that very strongly.

“But the second element: it does demonstrate how politicians can twist perceptions, and a lot of Quebecers who initially expressed support for the idea of the charter did so thinking they were sticking up for equality; you know, ‘liberating people from the oppressive yoke of religion,’ because, of course, in Quebec, that’s what happened through the sixties with their Quiet Revolution. But, as soon as people explained to them, no, this is about people having to choose between their religion or their job, Quebecers said, well, that doesn’t work at all, and that’s exactly what we have.”

When asked if he had any final words before the interview ended, Trudeau said, “Just what a pleasure it is to be out here in Vancouver. I had a great conversation with a number of strong members of the Jewish community and, unfortunately, we didn’t have enough time, so I look forward to coming back and doing this again soon.”

Bigoted values lose in Quebec

With the defeat of the Parti Quebecois in Monday’s Quebec provincial election, Canada as a whole dodged a bullet. Yes, one could say the bullet we dodged was the risk of Quebec separatism and a third in the series of referendums that threaten to tear the country apart. Many commentators are saying that the PQ’s devastating loss represents the end of separatism as a force for a generation or more. But, according to opinion polls, most Quebeckers – anglo-, franco- and allophone – were already opposed to both a referendum and to separation. The bullet we dodged was more immediate.

While the threat of a sovereignty referendum is probably what led to the PQ’s defeat, the more immediate issue was the PQ government’s Charter of Values, which would have almost certainly become law had the results turned out differently Monday. The proposed charter would have prevented government employees, and perhaps recipients of government services, including students at public universities, from exhibiting prominent displays of religious affiliation. The draft charter was the latest in decades of struggle in Quebec to preserve the majority French language and culture.

Quebec has always been the place in Canada where preservation of the majority culture (in Quebec’s case, most exemplified by the French language) has been of greatest priority. But a large proportion of Muslims in Quebec come from French-speaking North Africa and, therefore, the “values” that the charter would protect were no longer solely associated with linguistic assimilation. Marois’ PQ identified a broader range of defining characteristics under the umbrella of “secularism.”

The rhetoric around the proposed charter overwhelmingly centred on Muslims and Muslim practices, but we have, in Canada, concepts of equality that encourage us to treat in ways that are alike people who are different. So, rather than addressing whether there is a qualitative difference between, say, a full-face-covering veil and a turban, the charter attempted a sort of equal-opportunity bigotry. Even in distinct-from-the-rest-of-Canada Quebec, a law that would discriminate against people based on observant religious identity would have to discriminate equally. Crucifixes, turbans, kippot and other “ostentatious” evidence of religiosity would have been restricted under the charter along with Muslim head and face coverings – but with notable exemptions for certain symbols related to Christianity in public spaces and government buildings.

In his speech after resoundingly defeating Marois, Liberal leader and premier-elect Philippe Couillard addressed Quebec’s diverse citizens. “We share the values of generosity, compassion, solidarity and equality of men and women with our anglophone fellow citizens who also built Quebec and with our fellow citizens who came from all over the world to write the next chapter in our history with us,” he said. “I want to tell them that the time of injury is over. Welcome, you are at home here.”

These inclusive words suggest the miserable, unnecessary social divisions sewn by Marois and the PQ will no longer have sway within the government. Yet, while the PQ exploited and exacerbated social conflict with demagogic intent, the root fears, concerns and prejudices that allowed them to do so remain.

PQ or no PQ, Canada will continue to address the role not only of religion in the public sphere, but the impact on society of immigration. Successfully for the most part, Canadians have struggled over the generations to respond to successive waves of immigrants – and newcomers have struggled to respond to the demands made of them in a diverse country of immigrants. We have integrated new Canadians who believe in different gods, or no god, who speak hundreds of different languages and practise myriad distinct rituals and cultures, and the debate over degrees of accommodation is continuous. In the absence of a PQ government in Quebec, hopefully it will proceed with more nuance, subtlety and intelligence.