From the JI – Page 3

Small wins amid gloom

The rescue of four Israeli hostages from Gaza last week and their reunions with their loved ones is a bright spot amid much dismal news – though there remain 120 hostages whose reunions with their families we dream of and hope will happen soon.

This rescue has been a source of tempered joy for Israelis and others. In a time of tragedy and despair, these moments are worth appreciating. Amid the relief, we mourn the life of the Israel Defence Forces officer who died from wounds received during the operation and we mourn the lives of the many innocent Gazans lost. Holding this tension is weighing mightily on many of us, knowing that placing hostages among civilians is a deliberate and overwhelmingly cruel strategy of Hamas.

Closer to home, we are not without bleak news, but neither are we bereft of hopefulness.

The arson attack on Schara Tzedeck Synagogue two weeks ago is deeply troubling and scary. The outpouring of support and empathy from so many is a silver lining. Clergy, elected officials, multicultural community leaders and ordinary folks have expressed solidarity with Schara Tzedeck and the broader Jewish community.

A few less monumental but hopeful items crossed our desks recently.

The Vancouver Comic Arts Festival, which had earlier canceled the participation of artist Miriam Libicki, issued an apology for their actions – and announced that “the vast majority” of individuals who had perpetrated Libicki’s banning had resigned from the organization’s board.

Suffice to say, this is not the foremost news story this year. But it is surprisingly uplifting when a glimmer of common sense emerges where intolerance had once prevailed.

Libicki had been canceled ostensibly because she had served, once upon a time, in the Israeli army. IDF service was also the excuse used when inspirational speaker Leah Goldstein, a BC resident, was canned from an International Women’s Day event in Ontario in March.

Assertions that an artist (or performer or whoever) is being excluded because they served in a military that we see every day in the news engaged in a tragic conflict may seem legitimate, or at least not quite as blatant as, say, posting a sign that reads “No Jews allowed.” Notably, though, no such litmus test, to our knowledge, has ever been applied to any artist (or whoever) in Canada based on their service in any other national armed forces – and, given the diversity of our country, we can be pretty much assured that we have citizens who have served in many of the world’s most tyrannical and nasty, even genocidal, militaries.

Other excuses to ban Jews or pull Jewish- or Israel-related work from events, exhibits, performances, etc., have also included enough plausible deniability to steer just clear of indisputable antisemitism.

Goldstein’s cousin, local photographer Dina Goldstein (it’s sadly becoming a family affair), was recently removed from a group exhibition. In this instance, the gallery claimed financial considerations were the deciding factor.

Then there are cases where venues pull an event or performer based on security concerns, as the Belfry Theatre in Victoria did with their scheduled performance of the play The Runner. They had reason to fear violence – the theatre was vandalized amid the controversy. But cancelations based on security concerns, as valid as they may seem, give an effective veto to those who are potentially violent.

In the shadow of the Belfry decision, The Runner was pulled from the PuSh Festival in Vancouver, the stated reason being that another artist threatened to pull their work from the event if the play was mounted.

In addition to cancelations, there is plenty to raise alarm bells about anti-Israel bias in the public education system, as well, as we are forced to outline in discouraging detail elsewhere in this issue, with the BC Teachers’ Federation making some controversial decisions. But, again, here some reason prevails, though not from the BCTF.

The Burnaby school district took what it called “immediate action” when it became known that elementary students had been given an exam question asking them to make a case for and against the existence of the state of Israel. We could fill volumes with outrage about the unmitigated nerve of a teacher thinking this was a legitimate subject for grade sixers (if it was on the exam, one can only imagine what the same educator said in the classroom) but let’s take some solace that there were reasonable people in a position of authority to respond when this became public.

In further good news in the education realm, on June 1, the University of British Columbia’s Vancouver Senate soundly rejected (by a vote of 49 to 16) a motion urging the university to cut ties with institutions in Israel.

In challenging times, it is even more necessary to acknowledge and celebrate small victories and acts of decency. It is an act of individual and communal resistance to remain hopeful and steadfast in pursuit of peace and justice.

Grief and joy intertwined

Every year, the sun goes down on Yom Hazikaron, Israel’s national day of remembrance for victims of war and terrorism, and the celebratory day of independence, Yom Ha’atzmaut, begins.

It’s a stark juxtaposition. The parallel of the two national days, of course, make perfect sense historically. The country was born in war. At the moment Israel became independent, it was attacked, with the intent of annihilation, by the military forces of all neighbouring countries. As a result, it is impossible to consider or celebrate the joy of that moment – the rebirth of Jewish national self-determination after nearly 2,000 years – without considering the human costs associated with that achievement, and not only Jewish or Israeli lives, but those of peoples whose leaders have refused to accept the existence of Israel since that rebirth. While reestablishing the Jewish homeland displaced Arabs living there, whether by being forced out or told to leave by their leaders, Israel has been a home for Jews displaced from surrounding Arab countries, Russia and elsewhere.

For the average attendee arriving at Vancouver’s celebration of Yom Ha’atzmaut, it was hard to know what to expect. Given the Oct. 7 Hamas terror attacks and the ensuing war, the remembrance commemoration, 24 hours earlier, was perhaps one of the most emotional, intense and moving this community has experienced. Could the next night’s audience, many of them the same people, make the emotional transition?

Under the circumstances, the event’s planners struck an appropriate balance in what must have been among the most difficult challenges organizers of this annual event have faced.

When Israel’s early leaders set these dates consecutively, they knew the nature of their neighbourhood. They would likely have foreseen the possibility of further wars, and yet they made the decision to mark the joy of independence immediately following the somber acknowledgement of the high cost of freedom. This was not a coincidence. Nor, presumably, was it a contrast they thought appropriate only in years that are relatively calm and peaceful. They recognized that, come what may, independence and freedom would come with a cost – and the deeply conflicting emotions these realities evoke will inexorably exist together.

Like the smashing of the wine glass at a Jewish wedding, joy is never absent of grief – and grief cannot eclipse the joy brought into the world by those we lost on Oct. 7, and since. Those murdered and kidnapped that day, the soldiers who have been killed in the war and the Palestinians who have been killed in the conflict as Hamas continues to hold them and Israel hostage.

In Jewish tradition, the various markings of time after the passing of a loved one – shiva, shloshim, yahrzeit, for example – each come with their specific obligations and expectations. These periods formally guide us through process of grieving.

Unlike that relatively slow process of mourning, the closing of Yom Hazikaron and the opening of Yom Ha’atzmaut is abrupt and immediate. Life in Israel has, in some sense, condensed time, requiring a speedier processing of even life’s most challenging realities, including loss and grief.

It is often said that Israelis have been in too much of a hurry to be polite about things. Stereotypes, often accurate and amusing, portray Israelis as sharp-elbowed, impatient and determined. If there was not some truth to this, they would not have built, in a mere three-quarters of a century, one of the most extraordinary nation-states on earth – all while confronted by existential threats.

The Israelis who chose to set the remembrance day immediately before the celebration of independence must have understood that, in some years more than others, the transition from one emotion to the other would be especially difficult. Perhaps we should trust their judgment that, even in the most difficult years, the juxtaposition is both manageable and appropriate.

Noam Caplan, who lit a candle at the Yom Hazikaron commemoration and spoke about his cousin, Maya Puder, who was murdered at age 25 at the Nova music festival, remembered his cousin’s love of dancing and looked ahead to happier times.

“The Jewish people will dance again,” he said.

Legislating a fine line

Vancouver Police last week arrested a woman for praising the Oct. 7 terrorist attacks. The woman, who multiple reports say is Charlotte Kates, a leader in a group called Samidoun Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network, was later released as police develop their case to present to the Crown for possible charges.

News of the arrest was met with a level of satisfaction among Jewish community organizations. Kates and Samidoun have been sources of outrage and concern for years. The group is routinely described as having “direct ties to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP),” which is designated as a terrorist entity under the Criminal Code of Canada. Canadian Jewish organizations have called for Samidoun to receive a similar censure – as it has in Germany, where it is a banned organization, and in Israel, where it is designated as a terrorist entity.

Kates, a British Columbia woman who is married to Khaled Barakat, a senior member of the PFLP, was arrested in relation to recorded statements made outside the Vancouver Art Gallery last month. There, she referred to several terrorist organizations as heroes and described the Oct. 7 attacks as “the beautiful, brave and heroic resistance of the Palestinian people.” She led a crowd of hundreds in chants of “long live Oct. 7.”

Emergence of the video led to absolute condemnation from BC Premier David Eby.

“Celebrating the murder, the rape of innocent people attending a music festival, it’s awful,” said the premier. “It’s reprehensible, and it shouldn’t take place in British Columbia. There is clearly an element of some individuals using an international tragedy to promote hate that’s completely unacceptable.”

Kates is banned from participating in public protests for five months, according to a statement released by Samidoun. An investigation is underway and it will be up to Crown prosecutors to determine whether charges are laid and the case goes to trial.

In announcing the arrest, Vancouver police spokesperson Sgt. Steve Addison explained the line police walk.

“We defend everyone’s right to gather and express their opinions, even when those opinions are unpopular or controversial,” said Addison. “We also have a responsibility to ensure public comments don’t promote or incite hatred, encourage violence, or make people feel unsafe. We will continue to thoroughly investigate every hate incident and will pursue criminal charges whenever there is evidence of a hate crime.”

The arrest comes as the federal government begins a process of reviewing Canada’s approach to hate-motivated expression. New legislation beginning its way through the wending process of Parliament is focused especially on “online harms” and involves a multi-pronged approach that would see amendments to the Criminal Code, the Canadian Human Rights Act and new laws addressing cyber-bullying, “revenge porn,” encouragement of self-harm and other actions.

The bill (click here for story) is part of an ongoing effort to address the social and technological challenges of hate-motivated crimes, as well as the range of dangers presented to children and others by online predators, bullies and extortionists.

The federal government’s efforts, long delayed and inevitably controversial, are part of an age-old effort to walk a line between the right to free expression, on the one hand, and the right, on the other hand, for people to be free from harassment and threats based on personal identity or other factors. Any discussion of balancing these contending rights – which is anything but an exact science – is destined to disappoint or anger people on both sides.

The next steps in the current legal investigation – whether it proceeds to criminal charges and, if so, how the case proceeds and concludes – will also not satisfy everyone, if anyone. Indeed, it is a factor of this sort of case almost exclusively where many argue the challenging position that, in the words of Voltaire, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Few today would defend to the death the right of anyone to glorify Oct. 7 (or anything else, probably), but the point is that the right of free expression is considered by many to be sacrosanct. This has always been a core differentiator between our society and that to which we so often compare ourselves, the United States, whose constitution prioritizes precisely this sort of freedom.

An absolutist position is much easier for courts to adjudicate. Drawing lines in moral conundrums is a much more challenging undertaking.

As we watch this one case proceed locally, we will also be carefully observing the broader, legalistic and philosophical disputations occurring in Parliament as Bill C-63 proceeds through the creation process. The outcome, in both instances, will be necessarily imperfect. The hope is that they should be as just as human endeavours can be.

Don’t give up on the UN

A review released Monday about the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, the sprawling bureaucracy that for decades has played a central role in the lives of Palestinians, said Israel has not provided adequate evidence to demonstrate that UNRWA workers engaged in terrorism.

The review, headed by a former French foreign minister, dismissed Israel’s claims that UNRWA workers in Gaza were engaged in terrorist activities, including the Oct. 7 pogroms. It did, however, recommend several steps to ensure neutrality, transparency and third-party monitoring of UNRWA activities.

Regardless of the specifics in this particular accusation, UNRWA is deeply problematic. Critics contend that its mission is to perpetuate Palestinian statelessness and discontent, rather than ameliorate these problems.

Many Jewish and pro-Israel voices have long pointed to UNRWA, as well as the annual procession of anti-Israel votes at the United Nations General Assembly, among other examples, as “proof” that the United Nations is hopelessly anti-Israel, if not antisemitic.

This may or may not be true. In any event, the answer is to fix the United Nations, not bury it.

Hyperbolic, disproportionate, often ludicrous attacks on Israel at the General Assembly and from countless UN bodies undeniably demonstrate a peculiar obsession with this one (Jewish) country to the detriment of other serious issues. However, this inappropriate and biased approach must not blind us to the irreplaceable value of the organization that was envisioned as a world parliament.

Coincidentally, a new poll of Canadians and Americans indicates massive dissatisfaction with the organization – and rightly so.

The Association for Canadian Studies and the Metropolis Institute engaged the pollster Leger to survey North Americans on their opinions toward the United Nations. The poll was conducted about four months after the Oct. 7 attacks, and indicates that just over one-third of Canadians and just under one-third of Americans trust the UN.

Jack Jedwab, president and chief executive officer of both of the survey’s sponsoring organizations, noted a particular incongruity in the results. While only around one-third of respondents “trust” the United Nations, much higher numbers of people hold a “net positive opinion” of the body. In both countries, a majority – 58% of Canadians and 54% of Americans – view the organization as more positive than negative.

This is encouraging, because it suggests that, while people have issues with the UN in practical terms, we are not ready to give up on the potential of the UN or the ideals upon which it was founded.

There are many reasons to criticize the United Nations, but the clearly biased anti-Israel resolutions and reports that grab headlines obscure a panoply of crucial, often lifesaving programs and services delivered by UN organizations like the World Health Organization, the World Food Program, UNICEF and UNESCO.

To put this in a context that perhaps makes sense on a more localized level, giving up on the UN would be like eliminating the sewer systems, traffic lights and schools in your hometown because you can’t stand the mayor.

If we cannot muster idealism, let’s just be practical. Don’t take it from us, take it from Danny Danon, Israel’s former ambassador to the United Nations. Danon has a long history as a right-wing Israeli politician. In his 2022 book, In the Lion’s Den: Israel and the World, he reflects on his five years as ambassador, from 2015 to 2020.

He arrived, he admits, as a hawk and a hardliner, not expecting to fit into the world of diplomacy. Over his time there, he came to see the value of the UN, despite all the disappointments and wasted resources.

Even in the lion’s den at the head of the sprawling body, the General Assembly, Danon said it is possible for a seemingly unwelcome individual like Israel’s ambassador to “build bridges, forge friendships and create a space for understanding.”

The idea, expressed by some pro-Israel people, that Israel should simply walk away from the world body, would be to cut off our nose to spite our face. Why would we abandon the one small voice we have in that forum, surrendering it to the haranguing of Israel’s enemies without contest?

Likewise, if Canadians feel our government is not representing our values and ideals at the United Nations, we need to take that up with our elected representatives here and ensure that they do so. Throwing up our hands in surrender helps no one.

Is there a problem with UNRWA? Undeniably. Fix it. Is there a problem with the International Court of Justice? Many observers would say so. Fix it. Do numerous United Nations agencies obsess over Israel while millions around the world suffer in obscurity? Undoubtedly. Fix that too.

Is the United Nations perfect? It’s a ridiculous question. Nothing in human activity is perfect. But what is the role of Jews in the world, an obligation we reminded ourselves during our seders this week? Our obligation as Jews and as humans is to strive to make the world better – and, in that context, fixing the UN is central to that objective.

Is there a long way to go in this work? Yes. Are we free to abandon it? No.

Don’t leave. Engage!

Anthony Housefather has decided to remain in the federal Liberal caucus. Housefather, member of Parliament for the Quebec riding of Mount Royal, is one of only two Liberals to have voted against the NDP motion last month that called for a ceasefire, an end to Canadian military trade with Israel, as well as other positions about Israel and the current conflict.

As discussed in this space last issue, the New Democratic Party motion had some of its rough edges sanded down in order to make it palatable to almost all Liberal MPs. The rest of the House of Commons voted predictably. Conservatives unanimously opposed the motion, which they viewed as biased against Israel. The Bloc Québecois and the Green party sided with the NDP.

The daylong negotiations over amendments to the motion were a face-saving effort by the Liberal government to avoid the embarrassment of a serious schism in their caucus over foreign policy. In the end, a less inflammatory motion was passed.

Housefather, who is Jewish and represents a riding that has one of the largest concentrations of Jewish voters in Canada, was joined on the government side in opposing the motion only by Ontario Liberal MP Marco Mendocino.

Housefather was open about his frustration. Anyone who has found themselves in a place where they do not feel welcomed, based on their core identity, can certainly appreciate his feelings of isolation. However, we are pleased that he has decided to remain in the Liberal caucus.

Crossing the floor and joining the Conservatives, which he had said he was considering, would not have been advantageous to Jewish and pro-Israel voters. Since the administration of former prime minister Stephen Harper, at the latest, the Conservative party has been perceived as overwhelmingly pro-Israel. This approach has been welcomed by many Jewish Canadians.

However, this reality means that, were Housefather to switch parties, he would become just another pro-Israel voice in the Conservative caucus. By staying where he is, he will be a necessary voice for Israel and the Jewish community in the governing party. In an announcement a week ago, he said the prime minister has asked him to lead the government’s efforts in fighting antisemitism. This effort needs as much multi-partisan support as possible.

Anyone who has had difficult conversations with friends or family in recent months understands the emotional burden of being a voice for Israel in this challenging time. This, however, makes Housefather’s presence in the Liberal party that much more important.

We face a similar challenge at the provincial level. With the firing of Selina Robinson from cabinet, and her subsequent withdrawal from the governing New Democratic Party caucus, the Jewish community’s most outspoken ally, liaison and voice is gone from the government side of the legislature. Neither Robinson, who now sits as an independent, nor George Heyman, the other Jewish New Democrat in Victoria, are seeking reelection. It is entirely possible that the Jewish community will not have any community members in the next legislature.

This is not to say we do not have friends there.

Michael Lee, the MLA for Vancouver-Langara, has been a steadfast ally of the Jewish community and a stalwart presence at the weekly Sunday rallies for the Israeli hostages. Recently, when he addressed that audience, he went to lengths to warn against making Israel a political football. A community that can be taken for granted by one party and written off by another will find itself unrepresented in the halls of power. Lee reassured Jewish British Columbians that they not only have friends on the opposition side of the house, but in the governing NDP as well.

We know that there are allies for Israel and the Jewish people in the provincial NDP. It is a symptom of a larger concern that some of these people feel constrained around expressing that solidarity fully because of segments of their own party who would almost certainly single them out for that support.

As Robinson herself told the Independent last issue, she has friends and supporters in the caucus – but she wouldn’t mention them by name for fear of putting a target on their backs. This is a serious problem, of course. But it is better to have quiet allies than no allies at all. Their presence can potentially moderate extreme elements in their party. Were they not there, restraining impulses might be minimized.

As we approach a provincial election this fall, and a federal election at some unpredictable date (remember, there is a minority government in Ottawa) Jewish Canadians and allies of Israel should not abandon the parties that include voices with alternative views. We should, like Housefather has chosen to do, make sure our voices are heard in all of Canada’s diverse political venues.

Using politics to divide

The House of Commons passed a watered-down motion about Israel and Palestine Monday night after a raucous day in Parliament. The compromise amendments on the New Democratic Party’s motion seemed as much about saving face for the governing Liberals as they did about doing what is right for Palestinians and Israelis.

The main takeaway from the compromise was the change from calling on the government to unilaterally recognize the “state of Palestine” to working toward “the establishment of the state of Palestine as part of a negotiated two-state solution,” which is essentially what Canadian foreign policy has said for years.

The rest of the motion was a laundry list of demands, some reasonable, some far out. There were mandatory expressions of concern for victims on both sides and platitudes about future coexistence.

The clear sticking point was the unilateral recognition of Palestine as a state. The opposition Conservatives were unanimously opposed to the motion. The Bloc Québécois (which might hope other countries would someday recognize an independent Quebec), the Greens and, of course, the sponsoring NDP lined up in favour. The drama Monday was in the Liberal caucus.

Opposition parties have tried to use the conflict and the larger issues in the Middle East as a wedge between various factions in the governing Liberal caucus. While many Liberal MPs probably wish the unending bugbear of Mideast politics would stop filling their inboxes, small numbers of MPs on both sides of the issue are deeply committed to their respective positions. After the motion was amended, the most vocal pro-Israel Liberals – Anthony Housefather, Marco Mendocino and Ben Carr – voted against their caucus colleagues, leaving the decided impression that the Zionists were frozen out in a negotiation that most Liberals felt they could support without alienating too many of their voters.

While everyone wishes the violence would end, the motion’s call for an immediate ceasefire is, speciously, a backdoor for continued Hamas rule. The call to end Canadian military trade with Israel is a largely hollow symbol – there is hardly any trade in military equipment and, of that, it is exclusively non-lethal material.

What many people found offensive in the motion was the idea that, in the aftermath of the Oct. 7 terror attacks, we should move in what is, in historical terms, the blink of an eye, to demanding Palestinian statehood. Most reasonable people imagine a two-state solution – but to prioritize that now sends a message, not only to Palestinian extremists, but to violent forces everywhere, that mass murder and kidnappings are the surest ways to advance your cause.

The NDP position is based on an assumption that Israel appears to have given up on the two-state solution – indeed, the prime minister of Israel has effectively said just that. And, yes, there are extremist voices within Israel’s government who are committed to denying Palestinian statehood. However, the continued terrorism and incitement to eradicate Israel that remains widespread, if not ubiquitous, in Palestinian politics and society is a major cause of the failure of a two-state solution. Israel may have an effective veto on Palestinian statehood, but it is Palestinian terrorists (and the failure of the, ahem, elected leaders to reign them in) that has put the two-state solution on a back burner. It is a challenge to understand how Oct. 7 reasonably moves that goal forward. To suggest that Canada should recognize a Palestinian state before the Palestinians have believably committed to living in coexistence is to demonstrate a profound nonchalance about the lives of Israelis.

But, let’s be clear about a couple of things. No reasonable person is expecting a permanent peace between Israel and an eventual state of Palestine that looks like, say, the amity between Canada and the United States. We can hope for a cold peace like those between Israel and Egypt or Jordan. Anything beyond that is still in the realm of fantasy, though there are people on the ground, on both sides, who are working towards a warmer, more integrated and, frankly, safer reality.

Moreover, for all the nail-biting on Parliament Hill this week, in the greater scheme, the whole drama amounted to a hill of hummus. Let’s not overestimate the impact Canada can have. Whatever Canadian MPs say or do about the conflict, the Dead Sea remains salty. This does not mean, however, that Monday’s spectacle has no impacts. It has impacts – on Canadian Jews, Israelis, Palestinians, Muslims and others with a deep connection to these issues.

Heather McPherson, the NDP foreign affairs critics, acknowledged on CBC TV Monday that the motion was really about making a statement in support of Palestinians (as were, presumably, the numerous keffiyehs and fists of solidarity raised during the votes). Fine. As other MPs noted, though, the motion – whether passed or defeated – was destined to leave one community hurt.

The final motion was better than the original one. Not by much, though. In the end, a compromise was attempted, but the voices of the Jewish and pro-Israel communities were the ones who still felt betrayed.

Pro-Israel organizations in Canada released condemnatory statements, with the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs scathingly declaring that the Liberal government has “chosen to effectively sub-contract Canadian foreign policy to anti-Israel radicals within the NDP and the Bloc Québécois.”

For all the fireworks and emotion, the entire fiasco was an example of multicultural communities being pitted against one another through wedge politics on a divisive issue that guaranteed one community in the country would feel abandoned. And, after political manoeuvring, backroom negotiations and 11th-hour compromises … surprise! It’s the Jews.

Let’s talk about new bill

The federal Liberal government has introduced a new Online Harms Bill. The bill is intended to address two primary areas of concern – hate crimes against groups and posts that harm individuals, such as those that bully children – and recognizes a range of what are clearly serious problems.

If passed, the new law would require social media platforms and “user-uploaded adult content” websites to delete offending posts within 24 hours. These could include posts that encourage self-harm, target a child for bullying or are examples of “revenge porn” – the distribution of, for example, nude photos of a former partner.

The bill also proposes making hate-motivated crimes a separate offence. Hate motivation can currently be considered in the sentencing phase as an aggravating context. The bill would amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to have the Canadian Human Rights Commission address some of these concerns.

Maximum penalties would be severely stiffened. For example, the maximum sentence for advocating genocide online would be life imprisonment, up from five years.

The law would also create a panel, a “digital safety commission,” to oversee online content and it would reclassify hate speech as discrimination under the Criminal Code. A digital safety ombudsperson would support victims and guide social media companies. Companies that break the rules could be fined up to $10 million or six percent of their global revenues. Private messages between individuals, like email, would not fall within the prohibitions.

Since Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act was repealed a decade ago, commentators and activists, including Jewish organizations, have been calling for something to address serious issues around online content. This is the government’s overdue response – overdue by its own admission, having promised during the last election campaign to advance such a bill in its first 100 days if reelected.

Opposition parties fell into sadly predictable lines. New Democrat leader Jagmeet Singh said his party will vote for the bill and condemned the government for waiting so long. Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre turned his hyperbole hose on full force, calling the bill part of “Justin Trudeau’s woke authoritarian agenda.”

“What does Justin Trudeau mean when he says the words ‘hate speech’? He means the speech he hates,” said Poilievre. “You can assume he will ban all of that.”

Surely parliamentary democracy can come up with something more nuanced between “Faster, faster! More, more!” and “We’re all headed for the gulags.”

The bill was tabled last week and will go through committee before coming back to the House of Commons. The committee phase is when elected officials examine the details of proposed legislation and we trust (despite the above caveats) that sober consideration will be given to balance the right to free expression and the legitimate need to protect individuals and groups from harm.

The experience of now-defunct Section 13 should be an object lesson for politicians considering the new law. The section was finally killed after showing itself to be both too weak to address the realities of an online world that didn’t exist when the law was originally drafted, yet strong enough to drag individuals and institutions with controversial but probably reasonable speech (for example, Maclean’s magazine and commentator Mark Steyn) before something resembling a Cold War show trial.

Justice Minister Arif Virani responded to concerns over free expression.

“It does not undermine freedom of speech. It enhances free expression by empowering all people to safely participate in online debate,” he said. This reflects an emerging approach to online dialogue, in which traditional ideas of free speech are balanced with the reality that some people are excluded from participation through harassment and threats, which may be a fair assessment.

Outrage at hate speech is an appropriate response, but one aspect of the bill could have the effect of turning reasonable people off it. Few would seriously believe that a judge is going to send someone to prison for life (ie., 25 years) for a late night, drunken rant that the law characterizes as incitement to genocide. However, the fact that the law would permit precisely that outcome makes the whole exercise faintly preposterous, like the exasperated parent who shouts, “You’re grounded for life!” Appearance can be reality and that aspect of the bill looks ridiculous. Moreover, all of us should apply sober second thought when advocating for the expansion of the prison system – imprisonment is not a solution to hate.

Canada has always taken a different approach to expression than our First Amendment cousins in the United States. Absolutism, which is the American approach, is comparatively easy. The more nuanced approach of finding a balance is an organic, always shifting challenge.

Most Canadians do not pay a great deal of attention to the goings-on in parliamentary committees. This would be a good time to start. Last week’s tabling of the Online Harms Bill should be the beginning of a national conversation.

False binaries harmful

It is perhaps inevitable that, at a time of polarized thinking, many people seem incapable of holding two ideas in their minds at once.

Canadian politics has maybe not succumbed to the depths of entrenched division we see in our neighbours to the south, where Democrat-versus-Republican has taken on a tribal identification. However, almost every democratic society is experiencing intense divisions not only in opinion but in identification. That is, our identities, including political stands, are prioritized to represent core personal traits. If we identify less as, say “a Canadian who votes for the Purple Party,” but instead as “a Purple Canadian,” it can feel threatening to have a conversation with someone of different opinions.

Social media is a significant driver of this phenomenon. Not only do the algorithms embolden and reify extremism, but we are encouraged to share these extreme opinions. Inflammatory ideas that we once might have kept to ourselves are posted for all to see – and, if someone disagrees, we may perceive it as a personal attack and feel encouraged to carry out an online vendetta. In times past, we may have suspected that our neighbour or relative held ideas we disagreed with. Now, we may know what our friends and neighbours think and feel about myriad issues – and we might be motivated to take them on in a virtual slugfest over those differences.

In theory, this is a good thing – but only in theory. In a perfect world, social media gives us the opportunity to engage one another in informed, enriching dialogue. Clearly, the joke’s on us.

In reality, social media reduces the quality of dialogue to a dismissive, insulting snapback. Moreover, the comparative anonymity of the platforms gives us licence to vent our worst impulses with few checks and balances embedded in the systems.

It is in this troubled online culture that the current war between Israel and Hamas is being addressed by Canadians.

The context is additionally challenged by recent changes to Canadian law. The federal government reasonably demanded that social media platforms pay news producers for the content shared on their platforms. In response, the platforms blocked the content rather than pay for it. A business can choose whether to retail what others are wholesaling, to use a clunky parallel. Of course, social media platforms are not just any business. It is fair to argue that they are a form of public utility and so should be governed by different standards. That, though, is a discussion for a different time. Bottom line is that Canadians are debating online over current events without the advantage of sharing professional news content, with predictable outcomes around reach and veracity.

Binary or polarized thinking plays another role.

Antisemitism, as any reader knows, is at levels most of us have not seen in our living memories. This is not incidental to the current war but, crucially, neither is the war the cause. Antisemitism lies in wait, depending on an external spark to set it aflame. Nothing Israel does (or, for that matter, anything Hamas does) is the cause of antisemitism in Canada. We need to address domestic bigotry for what it is. The purest proof: other international disputes rarely, if ever, result in eruptions of racism in Canada … why does this one?

In response to concerns around antisemitism, we see – usually online, because that is where these sorts of “conversations” happen most visibly – many people responding predictably. If there is antisemitism in Canada, a common theme goes, blame Israel’s actions or existence. A slightly more extreme variation makes the case that, at a time when it is alleged that Palestinians are experiencing genocide or ethnic cleansing, why are we wasting time talking about (the presumably relatively inconsequential matter of) antisemitism?

At a minimum, the response to such ideas should be that two things can be true at the same time. There may be unfolding tragedies in the Middle East … but there is also racism at home that demands addressing. And, no, one cannot wait until the other is resolved. Just as we should be capable of holding two ideas at once, we must be able to condemn injustice at home and abroad. Why is this difficult?

Binary thinking implies that injustice abroad displaces injustice at home. The message many of us see on social media is, put bluntly, Canadian Jews should keep quiet about their problems, complaints or experiences while Palestinians are dying.

Something we can keep in mind when engaging online, in real time, or however we participate, is that our activism on global affairs, including those places in which we have a personal stake, is vital and necessary. But it also has very limited impacts globally. The Israeli government, Hamas and the international entities engaged in what negotiations exist are, frankly, not going to be moved much by marching Canadians or millions of memes on social media. Those who are going to be affected are our neighbours and family, who see often harmful, hateful and insensitive comments and feel bereft, anxious and alone.

We need to keep in mind this: whatever we say about Israel-Palestine lands hardest on the ears, hearts and minds closest to us. Condemning Israelis or Palestinians (or anyone else) has minimal effect in Israel or Palestine. It causes plenty of pain right here at home.

Anti-racism work at risk

Selina Robinson resigned Monday as British Columbia’s minister of post-secondary education and future skills. She also announced she would not seek reelection as the member of the Legislature for Coquitlam-Maillardville – though she said the latter was a decision she had made earlier.

The resignation Monday afternoon was the culmination of a remarkably speedy controversy that erupted late last week, after video circulated of Robinson, during a B’nai Brith Canada panel discussion, referring to pre-state Israel as a “crappy piece of land with nothing on it.” That she qualified the statement immediately, saying “there were several hundred thousand people, but, other than that, it didn’t produce an economy, it couldn’t grow things, it didn’t have anything on it,” is cut off from almost all the video clips.

The language choice was problematic and careless, no question. The Zionist movement has often been criticized for consciously or unconsciously overlooking the presence of existing populations in the land that became the modern state of Israel. One of the original slogans was: “A land without a people for a people without a land.” Robinson certainly knows this history.

What she meant – as she clarified again after the controversy erupted – was that the land had few if any natural resources or economic development. There is nothing historically inaccurate about that. Not only did Palestine not have an abundance of natural resources but, for hundreds of years, it had been an ignored piece of a failing Ottoman Empire, then, for two decades, an abused outpost of British colonialism. Regardless, the way in which Robinson spoke is not a fair or productive way to talk about a land that clearly (so clearly) means so much to so many people. Resources, economic or otherwise, are not the markers of the inherent value of a land or its significance to Indigenous peoples or anyone with a close relationship to place. That said, the feverish response to her words has been out of proportion. There is a world in which her clarification and apology would have sufficed. But, of course, this is politics.

And it is more than just politics. It is Israel and Palestine politics – and that is a particularly vicious game, even here in peaceable Canada. Annamie Paul, former head of the Green Party of Canada, learned tragically what can happen to a Jewish political leader who dares to take a nuanced position (or, really, anything but a wildly anti-Israel approach) to Middle East affairs. Some of us feared Robinson’s principles on this front put a similar target on her back. We’ve been proved right.

Robinson has been an outspoken pro-Israel voice, never more than since Oct. 7. There is no doubt that some were looking for an opportunity to knock her down – and she stumbled in a bad way, leaving her open to precisely the sort of attack some people were no doubt itching for.

Protesters, who, since Oct. 7, have been ready to mobilize about Israel with any provocation, moved into action. Social media erupted in such performative ferocity one would think British Columbians had suddenly discovered one of our leaders was a member of the Klan.

A major New Democratic Party fundraising gala Sunday night was canceled, apparently because they feared a protest that would distract from the party’s message in an election year. A news conference on Monday on a completely unrelated issue was also canceled, presumably for the same reason.

Groups accused Robinson of “blatant bigotry.” Anjali Appadurai, who ran against the current Premier David Eby for party leader, accused Robinson of “racist views.” Protesters Monday and people on social media accused her of “white supremacy.” After the controversy arose but before she resigned, Robinson had agreed to take anti-Islamophobia training.

It is perhaps most remarkable that the people most loudly condemning Robinson probably intersect significantly with the demographic that contests the widely accepted definition of antisemitism, contending, in effect, that Jews make up false “smears” about bigotry for political gain. This, of course, is precisely what happened to Robinson: an offhand (and, yes, offensive) remark is recast as “Islamophobia” by activists who have been waiting to pounce on precisely this sort of slipup. Not incidentally, it sidelines one of Canada’s few Jewish, pro-Israel elected officials.

The rhetoric being used around whiteness, settler colonialism and vulnerable communities also reinforces narratives about Israel that are deeply troubling and rooted in antisemitism and ignorance. Robinson’s comments, heard through an already flawed lens, produced a result that was all but predetermined by entrenched narratives. This is a disturbing reality, one that hurts more than Jews and their allies. Such abuse of terms like racism and white supremacy offend the serious work we must do as a society to confront these problems. Mobilizing these terms for crude political gain, as they have been against Robinson, undermines the fight against racism.

Robinson, and many in the Jewish community, no doubt feel heartbroken this week. In the long run, though, it is the people of British Columbia who are the losers. They have lost the services of a committed public servant.

More than this, our political culture and the fight against racism in all its forms have been debased.

End the war: surrender

This week’s suggestion of a time-limited ceasefire that would free remaining hostages in Gaza and return the bodies of the dead to their families seems, in the context of a bleak historical moment, encouraging. The optics of bartering for the lives (and dead bodies) of Jews is something that should (but won’t) make the world recoil in revulsion. Nonetheless, anything that brings the hostages home is worthy of consideration.

A comprehensive agreement brokered by third parties could have positive results, even as it includes the releasing of Palestinians imprisoned in Israel, including those who are guilty of terrorism. At a minimum, it would not be the vague “ceasefire” some have been calling for, which others might view as letting Hamas off the hook for their atrocities. A blanket ceasefire without a release of hostages is, and should be, out of the question.

All this talk of ceasefire, though, should raise a question almost no one seems to be asking. With so many calls for Israel to declare a ceasefire, why is no one – seemingly no one, including Israel-supporting voices – calling for Hamas to surrender?

Conceivably, this particular war could end tomorrow if Hamas conceded. Why aren’t the voices who want to end this war now calling for the one step that could realize that goal?

Certainly, the idea of Hamas surrendering and their leaders facing justice is unpalatable to sympathizers in the West. There is a not-negligible number of activists and commentators who not only support the Palestinian “resistance” in theory, but support it at its most brutal, celebrating the kidnappings, rapes and murders as “amazing” and “brilliant” (in the words of just one college instructor on the steps of the Vancouver Art Gallery in October).

There is also the slightly more convincing idea that, while a democratic government like Israel’s may be swayed by overseas public opinion, a terror regime will not be. As fair as this assumption may seem on its face, evidence debunks it. Millions of people marching worldwide, dressings-down by the United States’ president and top diplomat, a show trial over “genocide” at the International Court of Justice and what seems like a world aligned against it seems to have altered the Israeli resolve not a gram.

The inevitable fallback position in these discussions is that Israel is the powerful party here and so holds the cards. The power differential does not mean, though, that Israelis either are not vulnerable or that they are to blame for the war. For the families of those murdered on Oct. 7 and the Israeli soldiers killed in this conflict, power differentials are a pile of dirt next to empty chairs at their tables. For whatever power discrepancies might exist, Hamas has shown its ability to breech Israel’s defences, and its resolve to do so again, if it can. Hamas has the one card up its sleeve that could end this war: surrender.

Calls for a ceasefire imply that Israel should surrender itself to a future of perpetual terror, because Hamas has repeatedly expressed the determination to fight until Israel is eliminated – setting up a zero-sum situation in which anything short of the complete eradication of Hamas is a defeat for Israel. On the other hand, Israel has made unilateral moves in the past – disengaging from Gaza in 2005, for example – and will likely be forced to do so again as perpetual war is untenable on several levels.

As numerous commentators recently have suggested, total de-Hamas-ification of Gaza is probably unlikely. Perhaps the endpoint will be a situation in which Israel has achieved a position of unequivocal strength, with the likelihood of a repeat of Oct. 7 eliminated, and some as-yet-unimagined political structure in place in Gaza. While street activists and diplomats worldwide think they have all the answers to what Israel should do, not one group has stepped up to suggest they would serve as peacekeepers or otherwise oversee Gaza’s transition away from Hamas’s regime. There are, of course, larger geopolitical imperatives, including the maintenance and expansion of the Abraham Accords, which Saudi Arabia has said depend on a two-state solution. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, to the consternation of American and other officials, is insisting Palestinian statehood is off the table for now.

Another realistic reason why Western observers may not be calling on Hamas to give up is the understanding – intuitive, if not conscious – that Hamas will never surrender because it is determined to continue this fight regardless of cost and futility. Their stated goal is the eradication of Israel even if that takes generations. Hamas leaders have indicated that thousands upon thousands of dead Palestinians are a small price to pay for a centimetre’s advance toward that ultimate goal. The embedding of terror infrastructure in civilian areas, the use of human shields and child combatants are evidence that Hamas will fight to the last person.

In Jewish cyberspace and in Israel-minded media, there have been millions of words spilled in recent weeks about the necessity of victory, the justness of the war even in the face of the mounting casualties and much more. There also have been calls for a ceasefire as a way to get the beloved hostages back home with their families and their hurting nation.

Given what’s at stake, we hope and pray for what seems impossible, a Hamas surrender. We also hope and pray for the possible – that Israel will be victorious in achieving its security, that there will be a world in which both Israel and Palestine coexist in peace. And, more immediately, that the hostages will be returned.