Category: From the JI

Taking principled stand

Rahaf Mohammed al-Qunun, an 18-year-old Saudi woman, was publicly welcomed to Canada Saturday. She had spent a week in a hotel in Thailand, asking for asylum in a Western country, saying that she did not want to return to her allegedly abusive family, whom she says have threatened to kill her.

Whether her family is indeed abusive has not been proven. But two factors make that issue somewhat moot. First, guardianship laws in Saudi Arabia require women to get permission from a father, husband, brother, son or other male relative in order to work, travel, marry, receive certain medical treatments and even to leave the house. This is codified inequality and abuse against about half the population of the country. In principle, that law alone should make all Saudi women eligible for refugee claims in democratic countries. Additionally, al-Qunun renounced Islam, which is an offence punishable by death in Saudi Arabia.

The teen’s arrival was a bit of a media festival, with Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland embracing al-Qunun at Toronto’s airport.

The ostentatious greeting was extra-weighted because Canada is in an ongoing diplomatic spat with the Saudis. After Freeland tweeted a criticism of Saudi arrests of civil and women’s rights activists last year, the Saudis threw Canada’s ambassador out of the country and threatened to withdraw thousands of Saudi medical students from Canada, among other responses. The public greeting of a now-prominent Saudi dissident by a senior Canadian government official will be seen as a provocation, and perhaps it was intended as such.

Some commentators note that al-Qunun jumped the queue, not only flown to Canada to make a refugee claim, but accepted immediately as a refugee. The global visibility of her case resulted in a country – ours – leaping to accept her, even while one percent of refugees are resettled in a given year.

Also, some diplomats with Saudi experience are warning that the young woman should not be used as a political football – both because that could put her safety at risk and because it could unnecessarily enflame existing tensions.

David Chatterson, a former Canadian ambassador to Saudi Arabia, told the CBC that he worried about precedents.

“What happens the next time a teenage girl or adult woman from Saudi Arabia flees her family and declares herself to no longer be a Muslim, does that mean automatic sanctuary?” he asked.

Of course, diplomatic idealism is always tempered by economic and other realities. The CBC obtained, through an Access to Information request, evidence that the federal government heard concerns from Canadian businesses about their interests being jeopardized when Freeland’s tweets to the Saudis raised the ire of the kingdom’s rulers. On the flip side, Canada does not have as many economic ties to the Saudis as many European and other democratic countries, and this might give us a little more freedom to criticize. The U.S. president has already stated explicitly that he will not endanger American economic interests by contesting Saudi treatment of dissidents – including the murder and dismemberment of Washington Post writer Jamal Khashoggi.

Of 149 countries rated by the World Economic Forum in its annual report on gender equality, Saudi Arabia came 141st. Canada cannot free every one of the 16 million or so Saudi women, but we can ensure freedom for this one.

Yes, al-Qunun did effectively “jump the queue.” But, at the moment when the whole world was watching, that queue-jumping allowed Canada to take a principled stand for gender equality and for the freedom of – and from – religion.

Tax troubles start year

In a perfect world, no country would need a military. Countries and people would live in peace; the kingdom of heaven, as promised by almost every religion, at last realized.

As ideal as that wish might be for the first editorial of a new secular year, it remains true that countries need militaries. Places like Canada, which have not been forced to wage war on home turf in 205 years, nevertheless maintain a military, with our soldiers serving various roles around the globe.

In Israel, on the other hand, the military is the one thing standing between the country’s citizens and oblivion. Like the militaries of every country, the Israel Defence Forces protects the country’s borders and citizens from external and internal threats. More controversially, as a result of Israel’s complicated history, the IDF also controls parts of the West Bank under a military rule that is the cause of much international criticism.

Some of this criticism comes from Canada, including from a Palestinian-Canadian, Ismail Zayid, who has been complaining for years to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) over his assertions that the Jewish National Fund of Canada has been in contravention of Canadian tax law for providing material support to the IDF.

Well, it’s more than assertions, actually. In stories splashed across Canadian media last weekend, there is plenty of evidence that JNF Canada was, until 2016, openly fundraising for projects that support infrastructure projects on Israeli army, air and naval bases. These include a “new planned IDF Training Base City in the Negev,” “helping the development of the Bat Galim training base complex area” and new mess hall-type facilities at two air bases. Funds raised at Edmonton’s Negev Dinner in 2014 were explicitly and openly allocated to developing parts of the largest military training facility in Israel.

In October 2017, according to the CBC, Zayid filed another complaint to CRA “in concert with an Ottawa professor, a Vancouver rabbi and a retired nurse.” The complaint is that JNF was ignoring rules that forbid Canadian charities from issuing tax receipts for contributions that go toward foreign militaries. CRA would not confirm details of the investigation to the CBC and JNF said only that they are engaged in confidential negotiations with CRA.

There is nothing stopping any Canadian from sending a cheque to Israel’s Ministry of Defence, news reports noted, but rules forbid doing so via a charity that provides tax receipts for it. This is admirable policy. Even if some Canadians would be perfectly happy seeing our tax policy support the IDF, would we be as pleased to see tax receipts issued for funds directed to the militaries of other countries with whom we don’t have as good a relationship?

Whatever one thinks about the morality of the IDF or its presence in the West Bank, the JNF appears to have made a naive or foolish mistake – not once but apparently about a dozen times. The head of JNF Canada said they stopped funding IDF projects after CRA alerted them to the issue in 2016. But how could an organization of this calibre have done so for so long, especially when it knew there were a series of complaints being lodged regularly around this very topic?

Since 1948, countless Jewish Canadians have supported Israel, including its military, in myriad ways. For four generations, young Jewish Canadians have enlisted, even in times of war, to serve in the IDF. Canadians of all ages have volunteered in the various roles the IDF offers to overseas friends of Israel. Most Jewish Canadians recognize the life-and-death necessity of a strong Israel, supported by a strong IDF.

The Jewish National Fund is the reason Israel is the only country on the planet that ended the 20th century with more trees than when the century started. Beyond reforestation, the number of extraordinary initiatives JNF carries out all over Israel makes it an integral part of the Zionist project. Israel is Israel, in large part, thanks to JNF.

Because of JNF’s critical importance, Canadian supporters must be confident that our support is going to an organization that is transparent and scrupulously adhering to relevant regulations. To ensure that the irreplaceable work the JNF does in Israel does not waver, JNF Canada must ensure that Canadians trust the decisions and leadership of the national organization.

There remains darkness to light

A recent poll determined that a large number of Europeans hold views that are antisemitic and, at the same time, awareness about the Holocaust is decreasing.

More than 7,000 people were polled on behalf of the news network CNN. In each of seven countries – Austria, France, Germany, Hungary, Poland, Sweden and the United Kingdom – 1,000 people were surveyed.

One-third of those surveyed – and one in two respondents in Poland – stated that Jews exploit the Holocaust to advance their goals and that Israel uses the Holocaust as a tool to justify its policies.

One in 20 Europeans have never heard of the Holocaust. In Austria, 12% of respondents said they had never heard of it, while 40% admitted they know little about it.

About 40% of respondents in Poland and Hungary claim that Jews have too much influence on business and finances. One-third of Poles and Hungarians think Jews exert too much influence on global politics.

Other findings in the poll deliver a mixed bag. Half of respondents in all countries claimed to know “quite a lot” about the Holocaust, with 20% claiming to have “extensive knowledge.” Two-thirds of Europeans agree that commemorating the Holocaust helps ensure similar atrocities do not happen in future and half believes that Holocaust commemoration helps combat antisemitism today.

While Jewish people constitute about 0.2% of the total world population, 25% of Hungarians and 20% of Polish and British respondents believe that more than 20% of the world is Jewish.

The poll says that 54% of Europeans believe that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state. (One almost wishes they had been asked if France has a right to exist as a French country, or Poland as a Polish country.)

One-third of Europeans, according to the poll, believe that criticism of Israel is symptomatic of antisemitism, while 20% believe that it is not.

Deflecting blame for antisemitism away from its perpetrators and onto its victims, 28% of respondents contend that antisemitism in their respective countries is a direct response to Israel’s actions. Fully 18% of Europeans blame antisemitism on the behaviour of Jews themselves.

Polls like these are an important barometer of opinion. There is little in the results that will surprise anybody who has been paying attention to European developments in recent years. Previous surveys have indicated that Europeans (as well as North Americans and others) have what we would consider an inadequate grasp of the realities of the Holocaust. Likewise, nobody needed a survey to know that antisemitism in Europe is at a level unprecedented in recent decades. However, it is important to have empirical evidence like this, especially a survey that is both cross-national and includes enough respondents to make it statistically significant.

It would be no help at all to throw up one’s hands and declare Europe lost, as some people have done in recent days. But neither do we, in Canada, have all that much influence over what happens there.

We do, however, have the ability to influence things closer to home and we should redouble our efforts to ensure that trends in Europe are not transmitted to our shores. We are, by no means, immune to this kind of thinking. A similar study done in Canada or the United States would indicate some parallels with the European results, albeit, we hope, not to the deeply concerning degree that this study has indicated.

We must continue to support every area ofHolocaust education possible. The work being done at the Vancouver HolocaustEducation Centre and by organizations across Canada must be supported andstrengthened. As Prof. Jan Grabowski said in delivering the annual Vrba lecture(jewishindependent.ca/revealing-truth-elicits-threats), there is still verymuch primary research left to do about the Holocaust, unearthing basic detailsthat are still not recorded about that time in history.

On the front of combating antisemitism here, the Jewish community must continue being vigilant and raising alarms whenever antisemitic ideas or actions emerge because this work has fallen primarily to Jewish Canadians. We must continue to build strength through our allies in all the multicultural communities in the country. This is the surest method to combat the growth of antisemitism – and this has to be a two-way street. As a community, we must stand with other groups and individuals when they are unjustly targeted if we are to expect others to stand with us.

While the last lights of Chanukah our now extinguished, we still have the season of winter before us and it is our responsibility to continue bringing light where there is darkness.

Each one, and all one

The news is not good. Hate crimes are up almost everywhere in the world one cares to look. A Statistics Canada report on police-reported hate crimes in Canada erases whatever smug superiority Canadians may have been feeling when watching rampant racism south of the border, at least some of which seems a result of the licence granted by a president who flirts with the most incendiary elements in U.S. society. The number of hate crimes reported to Canadian police in 2017 far outstripped the number in 2016 (see story, page 1) – and the actual number of hate-motivated incidents may be up to three times larger than the number reported to police.

Similarly terrible phenomena are taking place across Europe, where xenophobic and racist rhetoric is manifesting into violence against Jews, Muslims, Roma, asylum-seekers from Africa and Asia and, really, anyone who does not fit an escalating nationalist and populist consensus.

The lines are not all clear, either. The perpetrators and the victims can, at times, overlap. In online posts, email threads and private conversations, we witness members of our own community attributing motives to entire groups of people, and spreading hatred based on religious or racial identities. Likewise, messages of anti-Jewish hatred are common in online locations addressing the Israeli-Arab conflict, often including antisemitic comments from members of victimized minority groups.

The range of hate-motivated incidents addressed in the Statistics Canada report varies – most are non-violent and involve graffiti or crimes against property. But, when they are violent, they strike with a precision that aims at the emotional, as well as physical, vulnerabilities of the victims. In three of the most horrific hate crimes of recent years, assailants struck in the very places where people should expect safety – in the spiritual sanctuary of Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church, in Charleston, S.C., where nine African-Americans were murdered by a white supremacist on June 17, 2015; at the Islamic Cultural Centre of Quebec City, a mosque, where six people were murdered by an Islamophobic killer on Jan. 29, 2017; and at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, where 11 were murdered during Shabbat services this past Oct. 27.

The idea that people should be safe in a place of religious observance seems to be precisely the reasoning behind such attacks. But there is another form of violent crime that seems oddly excluded from this discussion.

Thursday (Dec. 6) marked the 29th anniversary of the mass murder at the École Polytechnique, in Montreal, where 14 women were killed by a man with deep-rooted hatred against women. A commemoration took place at the Vancouver Art Gallery, in recognition of the annual National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women, with empty shoes representing the 545 women who have been murdered in British Columbia between 1997 and 2015 (the last year for which reliable statistics are available).

These victims include some of Canada’s murdered indigenous women, women working in vulnerable situations and women who were murdered because they were women and members of another marginalized group. Others were murdered by their domestic partners. In probably all of these cases, issues of differential power (of various forms) and attitudes about the value of women’s lives, factored into their fates. They are victims of gender-based violence.

It seems strange that, in a discussion about hate-motivated crimes, we exclude an entire gender, whose experience with violence is as prevalent, or more so, than that of other identifiable groups.

This is not an attempt to detract from one or another group’s experience with violence to emphasize something else; it is more an attempt to emphasize that every life should be respected and that membership in an identifiable group often diminishes that respect in the eyes of perpetrators.

But neither should the universal idea – every life is sacred and every individual deserves respect – detract from the more particular issue at hand. Every life is sacred and every individual is deserving of respect, but membership in particular groups can disproportionately impact on one’s experience with violence and discrimination. So, while we should be always conscious of the universal, we should likewise militate against the particular bigotries and prejudices that lead to disproportionate victimization of identifiable groups. In Canada and around the world right now, humankind could benefit from more emphasis on both the universal and the particular.

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.

JI awarded for its editorials

The annual American Jewish Press Association’s Simon Rockower Awards recognize excellence in Jewish journalism. Once again, the Jewish Independent has been honoured with a Rockower for its work, winning first prize in its circulation category for editorial writing.

The JI’s editorial board – Basya Laye, Pat Johnson and Cynthia Ramsay – were recognized for the op-eds “How we memorialize the past,” “Sukkah more than symbolic” and “The year it all changed.” All of these editorials – and other opinion pieces and articles published by the JI can be found at jewishindependent.ca.

“The year it all changed” (June 2, 2017) discusses the turning point that Canada’s 100th birthday represented, when we “came into our own as a country,” and the significance of that year for Israel and Diaspora Jews: “The Six Day War, which began June 5, 1967, literally and figuratively reshaped Israel, the Middle East, Diaspora Jewry and global diplomacy.”

“How we memorialize the past” (Sept. 1, 2017) uses the racist rally in Charlottesville, Va., which “was ignited, ostensibly, by the removal (or threatened removal) of Confederate commemorative statues and plaques,” as a jumping off point to talk about how communities and societies commemorate the people and events of the past, including here in Canada.

Finally, “Sukkah more than symbolic” (Oct. 6, 2017) notes, “For most of us, the sukkah is but a symbol of our wandering in the desert all those years ago, a symbol to remind us to be humble, empathetic, grateful. However, for many living in Metro Vancouver, including members of our own community, homelessness is a reality.” It highlights some of the initiatives undertaken by Tikva Housing Society and the barriers to finding housing. It notes that indigenous people continue to represent the highest proportion of homeless, and that there are tens of thousands of people at risk of becoming homeless. It concludes, “there is a lot of work to be done.”

This year’s awards – honouring articles published in 2017 – were presented at the 37th Annual Simon Rockower Awards banquet, held in conjunction with the AJPA’s 2018 annual conference June 17-19 in Cleveland, Ohio. Second place in the under-15,000 circulation category went to the St. Louis Jewish Light, based in St. Louis, Mo. Winners in the 15,000-plus circulation category were the Forward (New York, N.Y.), taking first place, and the Jewish Standard (Teaneck, N.J.) placing second.

Boring politics is good

When Prime Minister Justin Trudeau stood in the House of Commons this month and apologized for his predecessors’ decision to turn away more than 900 Jewish refugees on the ship MS St. Louis in 1939, he also made a plea for a better, more tolerant world.

Almost all Jewish Canadians – and probably most Canadians in general – thought this was the right thing to do.

The most recent public opinion polls indicate that most Canadians think that, on balance, what Trudeau has been doing since he became prime minister three years ago is generally OK. With the collapse in public support of the New Democratic Party and the Bloc Québecois, Trudeau seems to have an edge in a two-way race against the Conservative party of Andrew Scheer.

It is hard not to imagine that the leaders of most of our allied countries aren’t a bit jealous of Trudeau’s position right now.

In the United States, the mixed messages of this month’s midterm elections – which strengthened Republican control in the Senate and saw the Democrats retake control of the House of Representatives – leaves President Donald Trump with less power than he had a few weeks ago, although it does give him a scapegoat, in the shape of a Democratic House of Representatives, which will doubtlessly invigorate his 3 a.m. tweetstorms.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel is stepping down as leader after a remarkable 13 years at the country’s helm. At times, she has seemed the adult at an international kids’ table, holding Europe together while bailing out failing economies and managing influxes of refugees, among other things. But apparently she’s had enough of the excitement.

One-time wunderkind French President Emmanuel Macron is learning that coming out of nowhere to take the top job can leave one ill-equipped for the demands it entails. His popularity, according to polls, is spiraling downward.

In far worse shape are the governments to the west and east of these European powers. In both Israel and the United Kingdom, the leaders are unsure when they go to bed what their status will be when they wake. Between the time of writing and the time of reading this page, either or both of these governments may have fallen and new elections called – or some Band-Aid solution found for propping up or rejigging the existing coalitions.

In Britain, division at the top over the conditions of British withdrawal from the European Union has led to resignations of top cabinet officials (as well as lesser cabinet officials). Dissidents are penning letters that could lead to a leadership review for Theresa May, the Conservative prime minister, by her own caucus. Even if she survives that, the inevitable vote on the Brexit plan could see her government defeated just a few weeks hence.

For Jewish Britons, this situation is particularly serious. May’s Conservative government has been struggling in popularity almost since she took the helm. The Tories faced a surprisingly strong challenge from Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour party in last year’s general election, in which the Conservatives expected to glide to an easy majority and ended up having to cobble together a coalition with sectarian parties from Northern Ireland. A new Conservative leader might revive the party’s chances, though it seems impossible to see how anyone could paper over the seemingly irreparable divisions in that party between pro- and anti-Brexiteers.

The potential for a Corbyn-led Labour government is anathema to the vast majority of Jewish voters in that country. Corbyn himself has been a leading voice against Israel and in support of those who seek its destruction, including Hamas and Hezbollah, whom he has referred to as “friends.”

While extremists on the continent, like French far-right leader Marine Le Pen, do everything in their power to convince Jewish and other voters that they are not antisemitic, Corbyn seems to relish poking Jewish voters figuratively in the eye. And he is the proverbial tip of an iceberg. Websites are devoted to chronicling the extraordinary outpouring of overt antisemitism in the party he leads. One local chapter recently demurred on condemning the mass murder at the Pittsburgh synagogue, with one member complaining that there is too much focus on “antisemitism this, antisemitism that.”

In Israel, division among top cabinet officials over the response to the most recent violence from Gaza has led to the resignation of Avigdor Lieberman as defence minister, and extremely unfriendly musings from Education Minister Naftali Bennett. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s coalition government is hanging by a thread, though public opinion polls indicate that support for his Likud bloc may actually give him reason to look favourably on early elections.

An ancient Chinese curse speaks of living in “interesting times.” For the leaders of many of our closest allies, these are interesting times indeed. But they probably look enviously to Canada and realize what Jews have known for many generations: when it comes to politics, boring is good.

Not only grades matter

In the Wisconsin town of Baraboo, high school students in their final year before graduation take formal pictures on the steps of the town’s courthouse. Census figures say that the town of 12,000 in the country’s heartland is 94% white.

Among the pictures available for purchase on the website of a local photographer was one with only the boys and in which many – most, it appears – were performing a Nazi salute. (The photo disappeared from the site on Monday but is widely available online.) One of the students near the front did not make the Nazi salute – instead he made a hand signal made popular by far-right white supremacists. He’s the real rebel, we suppose.

Actions like these can often be sparked by the dumb idea of one or two kids, with others following along. It would be distressing and disgusting at the best of times but, now, when there is a clear, genuine resurgence of white supremacy, antisemitism, xenophobia and other forms of intolerance in the United States and worldwide, this takes on a deeper resonance. Is this an example of a bunch of high schoolers thinking (perversely) that this would be funny or kooky or somehow amusing? Or is there, among the crowd, a few or a lot who know what the salute really means, identify with the ideology behind it and, because of the mainstreaming of “alt-right” ideas in the country, felt emboldened to make this statement?

Certainly, there are worse hate crimes and other catastrophes in the United States – including racially motivated and gun violence – that deserve attention. Yet, this incident sticks out for a number of reasons.

The picture is jarring. Kids – young adults almost – well-dressed in their graduation suits, nearing a turning point in their lives, standing in front of the embodiment of justice and rule of law in their society, raising their arms aloft en masse in a motion determined to provoke.

But this is not the most alarming thing about the photo and how it came to be. Deep into the New York Times story about the incident, a recent alumna of the high school said she was disappointed but not shocked, knowing that a group of boys in the school were noted for bullying and offensive remarks. “I’m not surprised by them doing this,” she said.

Then she added: “But I’m surprised that there’s so many of them doing this. Photographers were there; the parents were there; community members were there.”

There’s more to the story. The photo was apparently taken months ago and it took this long for anyone to raise alarms.

Still more: a young man in the back of the photo whose arms remain by his side said, on Facebook, that the salute was the idea of the photographer. Should this make us feel better? If true, the photographer should suffer professional and social consequences. But were there parents and other community members who witnessed this live and stood by silently?

In a world not lacking in tragedies or social ills, this is not the worst of the week’s news. Yet it resonates because these young people are part of the next generation we are depending on to fix society’s ills and improve the world. Have their parents, grandparents and educators done their jobs in preparing them for the world and their responsibilities in it?

In a letter to parents, the superintendent of the school district said her team was “extremely troubled” by the image.

“Clearly, we have a lot of work to do to ensure that our schools remain positive and safe environments for all students, staff and community,” she wrote. “If the gesture is what it appears to be, the district will pursue any and all available and appropriate actions, including legal, to address the issue.”

Fair enough. But, first and foremost, perhaps they should look at their curriculum and also consider what messages are being sent consciously or unconsciously by teachers, administrators and other role models before they initiate legal or any other actions against the students.

While school administrators and teachers have much on their plates – shrinking budgets and broadening demands, as well as trying to prevent their charges from being murdered in yet another gun rampage – this should be a warning for educators everywhere to remember that success is not only measured in grades and that a proper education includes more than academics.

Teaching our hearts

Today, Nov. 9, is the 80th anniversary of Kristallnacht. Seen by some historians as the moment when the Nazis’ legalized discrimination against Jews turned irreversibly toward genocide, the date has been marked by the Vancouver Jewish community for several decades.

Jews view the present and the future through a lens of the past. This has its advantages and disadvantages. Unable to see the future clearly, a keen awareness of the past can lead us to reasonably project expectations. But the memory of Kristallnacht and what came after it instils a rightful and necessary caution in interpreting current events. History tells us that vigilance is crucial and that complacency can be fatal.

Of course, no two moments in history are identical. Are we overreacting by drawing too instructive an historical parallel when we experience traumas like the mass murder at the Tree of Life synagogue on Oct. 27? We can’t be certain. It is probably wise to err on the side of caution and respond with vigilance.

The reaction from so many faith groups and other allies, including at a “solidarity Shabbat” last weekend that filled synagogue seats throughout Metro Vancouver and across North America, is not only a reassuring phenomenon. These demonstrations of intercommunal friendship are underpinned by the awareness that, while some might dismiss the events in Pittsburgh as the deranged act of a single madman, historical consciousness places the terrible act within a larger context.

History is important, too, because we live busy lives and a lot of things are slammed into our consciousness every day. Stepping back and placing contemporary events in a larger context helps us assimilate our place in society, individually and collectively. This is being demonstrated particularly well this week, as Remembrance Day (Nov. 11) approaches.

The Government of Canada’s apology for the 1939 refusal to accept the imperiled Jewish refugees aboard the MS St. Louis comes as part of a long line of apologies for historic wrongs. A cynic could look at the litany of regret and see political expediency. We prefer to look at it as a progressive, healthy way of not only addressing the past but of improving the future.

The journey of the MS St. Louis saw just 29 of the 937 passengers allowed to disembark in Cuba, the intended destination and presumed final refuge for the passengers fleeing the imminent Holocaust. The ship then sailed to the United States and on to Canada, where, in both places, xenophobic and antisemitic attitudes among the general public and the governing elites prevented the asylum-seekers from disembarking. Forced to return to Europe, 254 of the passengers would be murdered in the ensuing genocide.

At a time when many Jews are looking at the news with trepidation, the prime minister’s statement represents the voice of a country facing the antisemitism of its past and, more importantly, committing to face and combat similar sentiments today and in future.

Presaging the prime minister’s formal apology this week, Canada’s ambassador to Israel, Deborah Lyons, speaking at the General Assembly of the Jewish Federations of North America last month (see “Interdependent communities” and “GA pitches softballs at Bibi”) spoke movingly about the importance of applying historical knowledge to the present. She quoted a 17-year-old from Hamilton, Ont., who, after completing the March of the Living, observed that, “as our hearts were breaking, our hearts were also growing.”

Said Lyons: “We need to acknowledge these difficulties, we need to acknowledge these injustices. It may break our hearts, but it will teach our hearts to love again and to grow.”

Exercise your right to vote

(news.gov.bc.ca)

British Columbians have been tasked, once again, with voting on whether or not to change our electoral system.

Until Nov. 30, we are being asked to choose what voting system we should use for provincial elections, whether to keep the current first-past-the-post (FPTP) system or switch to one of three proportional representation (PR) voting systems offered on the ballot. This is our third referendum on electoral reform, the 2005 and 2009 votes having chosen the status quo rather than change to a single transferable vote system. While the STV forms a component of one of our choices this time around, it is not one of the systems being proposed.

The 24-page voter’s guide from Elections BC describes our current system, FPTP: “the province is divided into electoral districts and each district is represented by one member of the legislative assembly (MLA). Voters mark their ballot for one candidate. The candidate with the most votes in the district wins and represents the district in the legislature. The number of seats a party gets in the legislature equals the number of districts its candidates win.”

In PR, however, “the share of seats a political party wins in the legislative assembly is about the same as the party’s share of the popular vote. So, if a party receives 40 percent of the popular vote, they are likely to have about 40 percent of the seats in the legislature. There are many different voting systems that are designed to produce proportional results.”

Indeed, there are dozens of variations on the PR theme, and herein lies one of the problems with the 2018 referendum. British Columbians will be asked: 1) which system, FPTP or PR, should be used for provincial elections, and 2) if a PR system were to be adopted, which of three systems – mixed member, rural-urban or dual member – we would prefer. There will be no second referendum, as there was in New Zealand, asking us whether we would prefer FPTP or the majority-chosen type of PR, with its details fleshed out by a parliamentary, expert or other committee.

We are, in essence, being asked to take our best, semi-educated guess as to which of three vaguely described PR options might yield better results than FPTP. Several key factors are “to be determined” after the referendum results, if PR is chosen, such as how electoral boundaries will change, how candidate lists would be drawn up, the total number of MLAs to be elected, how coalition governments would be formed. All of these elements determine how effective a PR system will be in producing a more responsive, diverse and balanced government. And we will not have a direct say in these decisions.

There is no way in this limited amount of space that we can satisfactorily explain all of the PR systems being put forward in the referendum. Readers should go to elections.bc.ca/referendum for the basics and research as best they can. This may not yield satisfactory results, however, because only one of the referendum’s PR options is actually in use in other countries; the other two are theoretical at this point. Mixed member PR is used in New Zealand, Germany, Scotland, Mexico and other countries, while the rural-urban system combines approaches used in various countries and the dual-member version is akin to a system Prince Edward Island once used (but no longer does) and also, according to one pro-PR website, “echoes our own voting history,” as British Columbia had multi-member ridings until the 1990s.

So, what do to then if we treat this referendum as less of a choice between which PR system we prefer and more of a choice between keeping the status quo and changing to a new system?

Vote PR BC and the No BC Proportional Representation Society each received $500,000 in government funding to advocate for and against PR, respectively. However, you will find little in-depth information from these sources. Think tanks and other groups have tried to fill in the gaps of knowledge but, perhaps not surprisingly, there’s valid-sounding evidence on both sides of the issue. For each piece of evidence supporting PR – such as it will end adversarial politics and hold politicians more to account – there is an evidence-based opposite finding. How many of us will look at all the studies, check the sources and determine how rigorous and accurate the conclusions are? Likely very few of us.

For what it’s worth, among the supporters of PR, you will find the left-leaning Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, the B.C. NDP and B.C. Green Party. Among those skeptical of it are the right-leaning Fraser Institute and the B.C. Liberals. At the end of the day, most of us will probably base our decision on the opinions of those people and organizations with whom we agree on other subjects. We also will consider what we know personally (as opposed to filtered through another researcher’s lens) of PR systems elsewhere in the world, such as in Israel – even though the specific Israeli form of PR is not one of those on the B.C. ballot, it is similar. Some of us might opt for change for change’s sake, and others will stick with the devil we know. It might comfort some voters to know that, if we choose change, there will be another referendum in two election cycles to see if we want to return to FPTP or stay the course.

Knowledge is power and we recommend that voters do the absolute best to educate themselves about the various alternatives. But don’t be discouraged if you’re still uncertain after your research. Both FPTP and PR have their strengths and weaknesses. However, a vital aspect of both FPTP and PR – and one that directly speaks to the health of our democracy no matter what the electoral system – is that people exercise their right to vote. Whatever your choice, please fill out your ballot when you get it in the mail.