Month: April 2016

More work left to do

Call It Democracy speakers, from left to right, Mira Oreck, Margot Young and Sharon Abraham-Weiss. (photo by Zach Sagorin)

“From the Holocaust, there is a lesson we can all agree about: ‘Never again.’ There are two paths: never again to us or never again to anybody,” said Sharon Abraham-Weiss, executive director of the Association for Civil Rights in Israel.

Abraham-Weiss was speaking at the event Call it Democracy, held at Temple Sholom on March 14. She was joined by Mira Oreck, director of public engagement at the Broadbent Institute, and Margot Young, a University of British Columbia law professor, who served as facilitator.

About Israel, Abraham-Weiss said, “The Declaration of Independence from 1948 is the establishment for this democracy, promising equality for all its citizens. When I’m saying citizens, 20% of the citizens of Israel are Palestinian-Israelis, Arab-Israelis, people that were in Israel in 1948. Speaking about the occupied territories, it’s a different story.”

She said, in contrast to Canada, Israel “does not have a constitution … so, our toolkit, as lawyers, [is] the Basic Laws that we consider higher laws.” Additionally, she said, “We don’t have any separation between state and religion and this is something very important to understand.” For example, “the only way to get married … is in the Orthodox rabbinical system for Jews or other religious systems for non-Jews.”

Moreover, she continued, “In 1967, we occupied areas known today as ‘the occupied territories,’ Judea and Samaria, Palestine, you can name it. There are about two million people there, Palestinians. When I speak about democracy, it does not apply to the occupied territories. It’s different [there] because these people do not have the status of citizens, they are refugees.”

Oreck thanked the Coast Salish peoples, “whose territory we are gathered on tonight,” when she began her remarks. “I think it’s a relevant acknowledgement to the conversation around civil liberties, civil rights and human rights.”

Oreck described the notion of civil liberties as a political one. “These are political decisions that are made from country to country and we often think of civil liberties in a fairly narrow sense. What are the personal guarantees and freedoms that the government cannot infringe on by law?” she asked, listing freedom of conscience, religion, press, the right to security. “We don’t necessarily think about poverty and housing and other rights that we may think of more generally as human rights that don’t fall into our more narrow definition of civil liberties,” she said.

Young shifted the conversation to the balance between security and liberty.

“Can security reasons be justified by everything we are doing? Abraham-Weiss asked. “The answer from my perspective is no, not at all, it has to be balanced. Can we completely dismiss the idea of security reasons? And the answer is no.” She spoke about profiling at airports as an example. “It’s hard, for on one hand, we don’t want any terror attacks; on the other hand, 20% of our population belongs to the Arab minority. Can we generalize … that they are all suspects?” She said, “How do you bring your citizens to be part of the society when you always blame them? How do you bring your citizens to be part of the society when their schools, per capita, are less than the schools I am going to in west Jerusalem and other places?

“In 2010, the government of Israel joined the [Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development] and the OECD said that, if you want to be a member of the developed countries, you must show us better numbers of Arabs in the job market and better participation of ultra-Orthodox in the job market. [With] this incentive, we showed better numbers … and this, in a way, is balancing the security risks.”

In the Canadian context, Oreck referred to the passing of anti-terrorism Bill C-51, noting that the NDP was the only party that voted against it. “There are real conversations around how we address very real security threats and what the tension is,” she said. “But, also, what are we willing to trade away?… Frankly, who would be in violation of that security based on C-51?… Would people that are protesting pipelines, for example, be a threat to national security? And, if so, who are those people? Who is being threatened? Who is being protected?”

Another prominent Canadian security discussion has been about the Syrian refugees, said Oreck. “When the new government talked about bringing in Syrian refugees, well, what is the threat?… There are still many questions around what the screening process was, should men be able to come in, or should families be prioritized?”

In Canada, there is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Young noted in changing the topic from security to equality. “We do have a lot of these questions being decided by our Supreme Court of Canada in an authoritative way,” she said.

In Israel, explained Abraham-Weiss, “Our main tool is the Basic Law of Human Dignity [and Liberty] and, when we take things to the Supreme Court … although it is about freedoms, the word that is not [there] is the word equality and the reason equality is not there, it is because … the Orthodox were against the word equality because of women’s rights.”

She explained how equality was written “into dignity” in the 1990s. “Humiliation and discrimination harms your dignity and that is how it was justified. It is a very famous case,” she said, referring to that of Alice Miller, who wanted to be a pilot in the Israel Defence Forces. “She was rejected because she was a woman. Now, the interesting story about her … is that she was a pilot already, she just made aliyah. She moved from South Africa and she was holding a civil pilot license and they told her she can’t be a pilot, and she said, I am.” Miller became Israel’s first female pilot.

In Canada, said Oreck, “we are probably also dealing with an outdated version of gender and needing to really reevaluate the way that we look at gender rights, what does that mean.” She pointed to some advances, commending “the work the Vancouver School Board has done around gender-neutral bathrooms.” She said, “What is once at the margins, eventually, becomes mainstream.”

“Our job as a human rights organization is to find out what is … marginalized, outlined, and bring it to the heart of the consensus,” agreed Abraham-Weiss. “I think especially as minorities, it’s important to be consistent and put question marks on things that can be taken for granted.”

Abraham-Weiss used the example of administrative detention. She said it “was used, traditionally, against Palestinians and, whenever we brought it up, they would say [for] security reasons. Now, recently, it is used against right-wing settlers, Israeli-Jewish settlers. Now we are consistent about it … we are consistent about the procedure and part of the reason we have success is that we are not partisan … we work in the parliament of Israel with various members of the political spectrum. So, on children’s rights, our best ally is from [Avigdor] Lieberman’s party, which is right-wing. On International Human Rights Day, we held a conference in the Knesset held by … two members of the Knesset, one was from the joint Arab-Jewish party … and the other was Likud.”

Abraham-Weiss said, “In terms of human rights, within Judaism, we are more tolerant, [but] we are still not doing good enough, with Ethiopian Jews for example.… It takes time, but I think we are moving to it.”

Young asked Abraham-Weiss and Oreck to discuss the “elephants in each of the country’s rooms, really, really tough issues that that people dance around on, but don’t always talk about.”

Abraham-Weiss said, “The elephant in the room is the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, so, while we have tolerance and multiculturalism within Judaism, we are less tolerant to multiculturalism with the Palestinian-Israelis and their culture and I have to admit … the last couple of years, we have been dealing with what we call the shrinking democratic space in Israel due to the conflict.”

During Protective Edge, the 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict, Abraham-Weiss said, “We saw that there were voices against the war and, the voices, people were calling to marginalize them. So, they were opening Facebook pages calling to fire these people from their workplaces. Now, these are private places.… Look at the government. There were ministers saying: ‘Hey, don’t let anyone do demonstrations against the war, it is not a good time for demonstrations.’ When is a good time if this is the idea? Now that bothers me in a democratic country. In a pluralism of ideas, we have many voices. If you do have only one voice, you don’t call it a democracy anymore.… [Recently], there was an idea, a draft bill, to impeach the elected minority. So, the elected majority, the Jews, can impeach the elected minority, the Arabs?… I think this is a problem in a democracy.”

Oreck said, “Canada views itself and prides itself on being a multicultural country and yet … multiculturalism is, of course, from the ’70s … was about immigrants and was about new Canadians and it never dealt with First Peoples of this country and it never addressed the historical inequalities that we are dealing with now through reconciliation…. I think that, as a Jew anyway, that makes a challenge in some ways.

“For many of us,” she said, “Canada was a refuge and our families came here for safety and security and yet, at that exact time, of course, kids were being taken from their homes and sent to residential schools. So, how do you reconcile, how do you pride yourself on multiculturalism when, for many people that time was a very dark history.… We are still really addressing those challenges. I would argue that not having clean water on reserves is a failing of multiculturalism and I would argue that the Cindy Blackstock case on the underfunding of First Nations education is a failing of multiculturalism.… There is clearly still enormous work to do.”

Similarly, Abraham-Weiss said, “I can criticize Israel because I care about Israel. I want a better Israel and I think we all deserve a better Israel.”

Call it Democracy was co-sponsored by the New Israel Fund of Canada and Temple Sholom with Beth Tikvah Congregation, Ameinu, Hillel BC Society and Or Shalom. NIFC president Joan Garson concluded the event.

Zach Sagorin is a Vancouver freelance writer.

In the UN, on campus

Canada’s foreign minister has called on the United Nations Human Rights Council to review the appointment of Canadian law professor Michael Lynk as its special rapporteur on human rights in Palestine.

Last week, Stéphane Dion tweeted (because that is how diplomacy happens these days): “We call on @UN_HRC President to review this appointment & ensure Special Rapporteur has track record that can advance peace in region #HRC.”

The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs has denounced the appointment of the University of Western Ontario academic, who has been associated with anti-Israel activities in Canada. Lynk has said that Israel should be prosecuted for “war crimes,” he accused Israel of “ethnic cleansing,” has spoken at conferences that reject a two-state solution and serves as a leader in a group that promotes Israel Apartheid Week.

While Dion questioned the wisdom of appointing Lynk, CIJA went further, arguing that the position itself is illegitimate.

“It is ludicrous that this is the UN’s only special rapporteur focused on the human rights of a particular community,” said Shimon Koffler Fogel, CIJA’s chief executive officer. “It is likewise shameful that the special rapporteur refuses to investigate the abuse of Palestinian rights by the Palestinian leadership, particularly Hamas in Gaza. In so doing, the special rapporteur obscures genuine human rights violations in the Middle East and the underlying obstacles to Israeli-Palestinian peace.”

A related conflict blew up in academia last week. Just as the appointment of an avowed anti-Zionist as UN rapporteur surely will not advance peace between Israelis and Palestinians, the complete disavowal of the existence of antisemitism on campuses will not promote intellectual discourse or peace.

In the wake of ongoing efforts by the BDS movement to boycott Israeli academics and force universities to divest from Israeli holdings, while occasionally nastily intimidating Jewish students on campuses across North America, the University of California board of regents recently passed a statement condemning antisemitism, along with 10 principles against intolerance as a whole. It is the result of several months’ research and consultation.

The statement that introduces the principles is an amended version of an earlier expression that would have condemned anti-Zionism. Instead, it condemns “antisemitic forms of anti-Zionism.” If the only state in the world targeted for elimination is the only Jewish one, it should be an uphill battle to continue the charade that anti-Zionism is not equivalent to antisemitism, or at least driven by it to a large degree. Nevertheless, the regents’ statement is a starting point for increased civility on campuses that have seen, they note, “an increase in incidents reflecting antisemitism…. These reported incidents included vandalism targeting property associated with Jewish people or Judaism; challenges to the candidacies of Jewish students seeking to assume representative positions within student government; political, intellectual and social dialogue that is antisemitic; and social exclusion and stereotyping.”

Some critics say the statement is designed to stifle opposition to Israeli policies. Others say it could harm free speech. Yet others say it didn’t go far enough, in that it didn’t condemn bigotry against other specific groups.

None of these objections holds water. While the working group’s report might have been initiated by concerns over antisemitism, the document speaks to many other forms of intolerance: “University policy prohibits discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender, gender expression, gender identity, pregnancy, physical or mental disability, medical condition (cancer-related or genetic characteristics), genetic information (including family medical history), ancestry, marital status, age, sexual orientation, citizenship, service in the uniformed services, or the intersection of any of these factors.”

As for free speech, including, presumably, that about Israel, the document stresses the importance of freedom of expression and of inquiry: “The university will vigorously defend the principles of the First Amendment and academic freedom against any efforts to subvert or abridge them.” And, it notes: “Each member of the university community is entitled to speak, to be heard and to be engaged based on the merits of their views, and unburdened by historical biases, stereotypes and prejudices.”

But: “Regardless of whether one has a legal right to speak in a manner that reflects bias, stereotypes, prejudice and intolerance, each member of the university community is expected to consider his or her responsibilities as well as his or her rights … mutual respect and civility within debate and dialogue advance the mission of the university, advance each of us as learners and teachers, and advance a democratic society.”

The UN – and many others – could learn a thing or two from UC’s regents.

Antisemitism’s blurry lines

Avi Benlolo, president of the Canadian Friends of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre for Holocaust Studies, was recently quoted in the National Post saying that Jewish university-bound applicants should consider options other than Toronto’s York University. The reason? A faculty association executive proposal to divest from weapons manufacturers. The proposal didn’t mention Israel by name.

According to Benlolo, this is a “campaign of censorship against Israel and the Jewish people.” The organization also issued a statement declaring that, in the wake of the proposal, it was “concerned for the safety and security of [York’s] Jewish students and faculty.”

I recently combed through the 2015 report of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre on antisemitism on American campuses, headlined: “A Clear and Present Danger.” Over the 26-page document, I discovered a few antisemitic incidents over the eight preceding years. (I selected an eight-year period to represent two generations of students at a four-year university or college.)

As the report detailed, at Harvard in 2013, to raise awareness of Palestinian home demolitions, activists slipped mock eviction notices into dorm rooms. There was no evidence to suggest whether Jewish students were targeted. And, in 2014-2015 at University of California-L.A., Rachel Beyda, a Jewish student, was barred admission to a judicial position by the student council following accusations that her Jewish heritage made her biased. After an uproar, the administration pressured the council to reverse itself. A similar dynamic played out at Stanford in 2014, when Molly Horwitz was asked, “Given your strong Jewish identity, how would you vote on divestment?”

The report also noted a “decade” of “increasing hostility” at the University of California-Berkeley in 2015, “including “vandalizing Jewish property, spitting at Jewish students, threatening violence, and physically assaulting Jewish supporters of Israel.”

Incidents like these should be called out strongly. But every other event chronicled since 2007 in the Simon Wiesenthal Centre report described political activity directed against Israel or its policies – not instances of antisemitism.

The latest mudslinging debate in the antisemitism wars is more nuanced. It concerns a talk by gender studies scholar Jasbir Puar at Vassar College, an event that authors of a Wall Street Journal op-ed described as antisemitic and a blood libel.

In the talk (of which I received a transcript), Puar made two particularly jarring claims. About the bodies of 17 Palestinian youth that Israel kept for two months at the end of 2015, Puar said, “Some speculate that the bodies were mined for organs for scientific research.” (These youth, it is important to note, had been attacking Israelis. Puar described these Palestinian youth as having been involved in “stabbing” and as part of a “peoples’ rumble” but called their deaths “field assassinations.”)

Puar also suggested that Israel engages in “weaponized epigenetics, where the outcome is not so much about winning or losing nor a solution, but about needing body parts, not even whole bodies, for research and experimentation.”

Puar did not respond to my requests for comment or clarification regarding her accusations.

While academic freedom is a principle meant to protect scholarly speech from legal censure, there is an equally important norm requiring a scholar to provide evidence when making empirical claims. On this, Puar failed.

But is Puar’s scholarly breach antisemitic?

Joshua Schreier, an associate professor of history at Vassar and part of the steering committee of the Jewish studies program that was one of the co-sponsors of the talk, doesn’t think so. He attended the event. “It’s really important,” he told me, “to protect free speech and protect academic speech,” adding that “we have a responsibility, as academics, when we talk about speculation, to note … whether it’s substantiated, whether we’re trying to give new life to those rumors, or not, but none of that makes it antisemitic.”

Unfortunately, the unsubstantiated charge of using “body parts for experimentation” cuts close to the bone of blood libel myths. It is also uttered in the context of a cultural moment on campuses when most criticism of Israel is inappropriately being cast as antisemitic. This surely means that there will be fallout from the talk that will serve to distract debaters from the pressing issues around the ills of occupation. It also means that amid the hyperbolic rhetoric about antisemitism on campuses, actual antisemitism is becoming more difficult to spot when it does occur.

Meanwhile, hundreds of faculty members from across the United States have issued a statement to Vassar’s president asking her to “write a letter to the Wall Street Journal … condemning in no uncertain terms the unjustifiable attack on Vassar and on Professor Puar.”

For its part, the Anti-Defamation League had nothing more damning to say about Puar’s appearance at Vassar than that she has sometimes accused Israel of pinkwashing.

Ian S. Lustick, a professor of political science at University of Pennsylvania, told me by email that he signed the statement “to show solidarity against the campaign to restrict the space of politically correct discussion on anything pertaining to Israel and Palestinians.” About the claim of organ harvesting, Lustick said that “the speculations about horrific

Israeli behavior with respect to organ harvesting from Palestinian bodies are as unlikely to be true as they are likely to be circulated as long as Israel refuses to quickly return bodies of dead Palestinians to their families.”

Debate over campus discourse on Israel (and even on things like armaments, weirdly perceived by some to represent Israel) will continue. Vassar’s president, for her part, invited parents and alumni to an online forum to discuss “current issues and tensions within our community related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

As for whether actions on campuses over the last decade constitute antisemitism, the ledger is mixed. Verbal or physical harassment directed at Jews for reasons related to their ethnic or religious identity is antisemitism. Same with leveling dual loyalty charges against Jewish students.

But consideration of divestment from weapons companies is not antisemitism. Criticism of Israeli policy is not antisemitism. Criticism of the occupation is not antisemitism. Criticism of violence – whether it is state-sponsored violence or violence carried out by individuals or groups – is not antisemitism.

Presenting unsubstantiated claims against agents of a state in a public lecture is irresponsible. And, if the symbolism chosen for these non-evidenced charges quacks like an infamous antisemitic myth, it will, not surprisingly, be heard by many as redolent of that scourge. But that does not necessarily make it, in and of itself, antisemitism.

Mira Sucharov is an associate professor of political science at Carleton University. She is a columnist for Canadian Jewish News and contributes to Haaretz and the Jewish Daily Forward, among other publications. A version of this article was originally published on haartez.com.

Fifth in Korczak series

The fifth lecture in the Janusz Korczak series “How to Love a Child” was titled Janusz Korczak’s Enduring Legacy: Social Pediatrics in Canada and Vancouver, and it was most enlightening.

The subject was building and nurturing a network of support around the child – the “Circle of the Child” discussed by pediatrician Dr. Gilles Julien, one of the keynote speakers on Feb. 18.

Julien is the president and founder of the Fondation du Dr. Julien, and he is affiliated with McGill University and the Université de Montreal. He has made it his mission to help children from disadvantaged backgrounds develop harmoniously and reach their potential. And he has created a preventive approach – community social pediatrics – to try and guarantee that each of a child’s fundamental rights as set forth in the Convention on the Rights of the Child will be respected. Over the years, he has mobilized people from Montreal’s lower-income neighborhoods by founding two social pediatric centres, one in Hochelaga-Maisonnueve and one in Cote-des-Neiges. The model of social pediatrics that he initiated has helped shape programs across Canada.

In Julien’s own words: “Janusz Korczak’s spirit remains with us in working to build strong children. He was, and still is, a powerful inspiration for all of us who strive to prevent children from being left hanging in limbo, and obtaining [for them] the services and accompaniment to enable them to fulfil their developmental needs and preserve their rights in accordance with the United Nations Conventions of the Rights of the Child.”

The second keynote speaker on Feb. 18 was Dr. Christine Loock, a developmental pediatrician at Children’s and Women’s Health Centre of British Columbia, including Sunny Hill Health Centre for Children and B.C. Children’s Hospital, where she is medical director of the cleft palate and craniofacial disorders program and specialist lead for the social pediatrics RICHER (Responsive Intersectoral Children’s Health, Education and Research) initiative. She is an associate professor in the department of pediatrics at the University of British Columbia faculty of medicine and a recipient of the 2012 Queen’s Diamond Jubilee Medal for community service awarded by the Governor General of Canada.

Early in her medical training at Harvard University and the University of Washington, Loock developed an interest in social pediatrics. Her early clinical and research work focused on children and youth with congenital conditions and developmental disorders, including fetal alcohol spectrum disorders and birth defects prevention. Over the past decade, she has been engaged in collaborative interdisciplinary research and practice to develop the RICHER health service delivery models for socially vulnerable children and families in Canada. The child- and family-centred model takes into consideration a family’s particular needs and circumstances when determining the provision of care, linking services to specialized care, if needed, and community-based support networks.

Ardith (Walpetko We’dalks) Walkem rounded out the panel of speakers. A member of the Nlaka’pamux nation, which stretches from the B.C. Interior into Washington state, she has a master of laws from UBC, with a research focus on indigenous laws and oral traditions. Walkem has practised extensively with different indigenous communities, assisting them to assert their aboriginal title and rights and treaty rights, with a focus on helping them articulate their own laws and legal systems. She has worked as parents’ counsel on Child Family and Community Service Act cases, and as counsel for indigenous nations in matters involving their child members. She has also helped design systems based on indigenous laws for children and families.

Moderating the evening’s program was Dr. Curren Warf, a clinical professor of pediatrics and head of the division of adolescent health and medicine of the department of pediatrics at B.C. Children’s Hospital and the UBC faculty of medicine. He has a longstanding involvement in the care of adolescents and working collaboratively with community agencies.

Finally, I spoke briefly about Korczak, how he reached out far beyond the core of his specialization as a pediatrician to care for needy children and how he filled many varied roles necessary to the well-being of children.

The final lecture in the series – How to Love a Child: Turning Rights into Action – will be held on April 6, 6:15 p.m., at the Robert E Lee Alumni Centre at UBC. There will be a wine and cheese reception, exhibits and speakers. For more information and to register, visit jklectures.educ.ubc.ca.

Lillian Boraks-Nemetz is a Vancouver-based author and a board member of the Janusz Korczak Association of Canada.

Mamma Mia! in town

Yael Reich understudies the role of Sophie and is in the ensemble of Mamma Mia!, which is at Queen Elizabeth Theatre until Sunday. (photo from Broadway Across Canada)

Yael Reich is making her national tour debut with Broadway Across Canada’s Mamma Mia!, which has returned to the Queen Elizabeth Theatre stage, and runs to Sunday.

Featuring more than 20 ABBA songs, Mamma Mia! is set on an island in Greece. Bride-to-be Sophie wants to find her father, who she has never met, so that he might walk her down the aisle. From her mother’s diary, she narrows her search to three men, all of whom she invites to the wedding to figure out which one is her dad. The situation threatens both her relationship with her mom, and her wedding.

Reich understudies the role of Sophie and is also in the ensemble of the tour, produced by Work Light Productions, that has made its way to Vancouver.

“Being an understudy is one of the most incredible things I have had the privilege to do,” Reich told the Independent. “It’s both challenging and rewarding. Probably one of the most challenging parts of being an understudy is maintaining focus on your own role in the show while becoming fluent in your understudy role.

“I’ve been a part of companies before where we’ve had to do four and five shows at a time in repertory – a different show each night – which can be confusing. I’ve actually found it more challenging to maintain two roles in one show because, often times, my ensemble character will be on stage at the same time as Sophie.

“I’ve had the privilege of going on for Sophie a few times so far and have had an absolute blast!” she continued. “It is extraordinarily rewarding to finally get the chance to embody a role that has been encompassing my headspace for months. It was particularly special getting to do the role with this company. The artists we are surrounded by in the cast and crew are all beyond supportive and encouraging, and it was incredible to have the opportunity to exchange dialogue, intention and creativity with them.”

Reich made her professional theatre debut with Bigfork Summer Playhouse in Montana. She played Anita in West Side Story in the summer of 2014 and returned to play Aldonza in Man of La Mancha and Lily St. Regis in Annie in 2015. “Between those two professional engagements,” she said, “I had the privilege of making my debut at the Hippodrome Theatre in Gainesville as part of their winter season.”

Reich received her bachelor of fine arts in musical theatre summa cum laude from the University of Florida in May 2015. By that time, she had already been working for more than 15 years.

“I began singing jingles for my father in 1999 and have been a lead vocalist for his advertising company, Sound Branding Ideas, ever since,” she said. “I got my start in theatre at age 8 with the Galaxy Centre for the Arts in Seminole, Fla. My training there ranged from pop voice, piano, percussion, studio recording and dance, alongside the shows we would put on. I auditioned for the arts magnet program and attended the Pinellas County Centre for the Arts for high school, majoring in musical theatre. Having specific major coursework at that age was incredibly valuable because it instilled a sense of purpose and perseverance in me, which has proven instrumental in the cutthroat professional world.”

Also instilling a sense of purpose and a strong foundation from which to face the world is her upbringing.

“Both Judaism and Jewish culture have always played a significant role in my life,” she said. “Coming from an incredibly traditional and religious family, I was brought up with strong beliefs. I spent most of my time in the synagogue and Jewish day school studying Judaics and practising Jewish rituals, most of which involved singing. I actually managed to lead every service involved in my bat mitzvah weekend, including the majority of the Torah portions and the Haftorah.

“Recently, having spent so much time focusing on my career and training, I have devoted much less attention to the religious aspect of Judaism, but have come to find a much greater appreciation for the cultural aspect. The Jewish people are such an incredibly resilient, eclectic and unique people. Their sense of community and commitment to the people as a whole is what I find most important.”

Remaining performances of Mamma Mia! include shows Friday and Saturday, 8 p.m.; Saturday and Sunday, 2 p.m.; and Sunday, 7:30 p.m. Tickets start at $35 and are available through ticketmaster.ca or 1-855-985-5000.

Adults ruin friendship

Samar, left, and Linor like each other from their first conversation. (photo from R2R)

If only adults could be as brave as children sometimes. The Israeli documentary Almost Friends screens as part of Reel 2 Real’s International Film Festival for Youth April 8-15. It shows just how insidious fear and racism can be, and how much a parent or grandparent can influence a child, for better and worse.

Bat mitzvah-age girls from two Israeli schools – a religious Jewish school in Tlamim and a mixed secular school in Lod – were brought together in a pen-pal program. For most, if not all, of the religious girls, this is their first exchange with non-Jews.

The success of the written exchanges leads to the Lod girls being bused to Tlamim to meet their pen pals. The teachers take the students through a couple of trust-building exercises and then give them time to interact. It is on this day that Arab-Israeli Samar and Jewish-Israeli Linor meet and become friends. They continue to write each other afterward, but the influence of Linor’s grandmother and mother overwhelms Linor and she stops writing. Samar’s concern for Linor’s safety, lest there be a terrorist attack if Linor visited her, consoles Samar over the loss of the friendship.

The most interesting development is Linor’s change of perspective. Initially, her mother is supportive of the pen-pal program and assures a then-worried Linor that there is nothing to fear from Arabs. Her grandmother is close-minded from the beginning, warning Linor that there will always be “a sting” in the Israeli-Arab relationship. Once Linor bonds with Samar, the ingrained distrust, racism, fear and insularity of Linor’s family presents itself. Their words sway Linor who, before the letter exchange, was calming her friends’ concerns about Arabs. After the negative reactions from her mom and grandmother, she is the one telling her friends how dangerous Arabs are, while one of her friends tries to convince her, “We’re alike. We’re brothers.”

There are many things powerful about this documentary. One is the reminder of how separate from each other most Arabs and Jews live in Israel. Another is how people who are kind and loving in so many ways can also be hateful and hurtful. But the documentary also reveals cause for hope – in both the religious girls’ reactions to their Lod peers and the friendships that do exist among Jews, Arabs and Christians in the Lod school.

Almost Friends is recommended for ages 13+. The hour-long film will be followed by a discussion with R2R artist-in-residence filmmaker Jessica Bradford and an R2R board member. It screens Wednesday, April 13, at noon, at Vancity Theatre. Tickets are $9 ($6 child/youth/senior, $5 each for groups of 10+) from 2016.r2rfestival.org or 604-224-6162.

Understanding Onegin

Lauren Jackson as Olga Larin and Josh Epstein as Vladimir Lensky in Arts Club’s Onegin. (photo by David Cooper)

Generally, I don’t think background research is something that should be required in order to fully enjoy a performance; but every now and then a play really needs context, and the viewer becomes lost without it.

So, I would suggest – even to those with extensive Russian literature under your belts – if you have not read Alexander Pushkin’s dramatic poem, “Eugene Onegin,” start there before you see the musical Onegin. The poem contains descriptions of the characters, homes and countryside that add depth of interest that could simply not be communicated on stage.

That’s not to say that Onegin (pronounced “Onyegin”), the musical interpretation of the poem, can’t stand on its own. The singular creation by Veda Hille and Amiel Gladstone, combining the poetry of Pushkin and the opera of Tchaikovsky, is highly entertaining from start to finish.

The supremely talented group of seven performers, including the Jewish community’s own Josh Epstein, executes so many complex harmonies and moving solos, I certainly wasn’t walking out at intermission.

Set in 1819 St. Petersburg, the poem centres on four main characters: a self-proclaimed rakish womanizer, Eugene Onegin; Vladimir Lensky, a romantic poet; Vladimir’s love interest, Olga; and Tatyana, Olga’s sister, who’s in love with Onegin.

At first, Onegin rejects Tatyana, breaking her heart, and turns his attention to Olga, incurring Vladimir’s jealousy and bringing about a duel. Years later, after extensive traveling, Onegin returns to St. Petersburg and wants to be with Tatyana. But, by then, she’s already married, and Onegin realizes he’s wasted his life chasing women he doesn’t care about.

Taking place primarily in rural vacation homes, these well-to-do look for anything to “deal with the boredom of long winters” and come up with hunting, dancing, dueling and falling in and out of love.

The script includes quite a bit of play-by-play, where explanations of who’s who and what’s going on are interspersed with the action on stage. One by one, we’re introduced, in song, to the characters, with tongue-in-cheek descriptions. At one point, even the details of an impending pistol duel are sung to audience – just in case we were a little rough on the regulations.

These “asides” help with the background and also offer some great comedic breaks, often picking up on the satire that winds its way through Pushkin’s original work.

As an added bonus, guests are encouraged to bring their alcoholic drinks into the theatre and raise a glass for a sip every time someone says lebov (love in Russian). This is even facilitated by the cast handing out cups of vodka during the performance.

But there are also some bizarre non-sequiturs, such as when a singer in what looks like a boudoir is given a mic and electric guitar to continue her performance. Though it provided a chuckle, the reason for that choice went over my head.

While the script tries to provide the context I mentioned, it simply can’t make up for what’s lost from the poem, and I couldn’t help feeling “left out” of the framework.

For example, according to one translation of the poem, Onegin’s house is described: “All of the rooms were wide and lofty/ Silk wall paper embellished the drawing room/ And portraits of czars hung on the walls / The stoves were bright with ceramic tiles / There was no need for these things at all / Because he would yawn with equal distraction / At an ancient pile or a modern mansion.”

This paints such a great picture of the lifestyle and ennui of the main character, but not one that I caught onto in the musical.

Besides detailed description of scenery, the poem delves extensively into philosophical discussions, particularly about love, that would come across far better on stage as verbal jousting rather than a sing-song.

Onegin runs until April 10 at BMO Theatre Centre. Visit artsclub.com.

Baila Lazarus is a freelance writer and media trainer in Vancouver. Her consulting work can be seen at phase2coaching.com.