Opinion – Page 59

Helicopter parent’s confession

A couple years ago, I sat smugly through a lecture on helicopter parenting, feeling fully confident that nothing spoken during that time applied to me. Who were these overly involved parents who just couldn’t let go, even once their kids had left for college? They were nothing like me, I thought. I’d been an early advocate of children’s independence in my community, encouraging my kids to navigate Vancouver’s public transit alone at the age of 12. My 9-year-old daughter walks around Steveston Village with her best friend and my 15-year-old girls have flown to the United States on their own. I thought I had the helicopter mom in me under control – until my son left for college.

That’s when my over-protective mama-bear instincts kicked into gear, where they remain on high alert. How do you protect your child when they’re so far from home? And where is the line between supportive help and concern, and running your child’s life instead of allowing them to live it on their own? These days, I ponder these questions a great deal, my stomach churning with anxiety as I contemplate all the unseen dangers my son could encounter in the absence of his mother’s watchful eyes and words of cautious advice.

Yesterday, a phone call. “Mom, the craziest thing happened as I was walking to school this morning,” he declared. “I was crossing the road at the traffic lights when a hard tug on my backpack pulled me backwards. I stepped back just as a car ran a red light, flying past inches away from me. I was so close to being hit!”

The vision torments me as I write this, my child so close to life-threatening danger. I worry now about more cars hurtling at breakneck speed on those icy roads that separate his dorm room from his lecture halls. About his reading break, when he’ll be a passenger on the icy 401, his safety at the mercy of drivers I’ve never met. About his plans to go ice fishing in the Muskokas – what if the ice breaks?

This precious, precious child of mine is so excited to experience the world in all its beauty, to challenge his personal limits and dive deep into the friendships and opportunities that surround him. I want all this for him, of course. He is growing, thriving and learning with every turn in this journey far from home. Yet I cannot stop the worry for his vulnerability, nor the fear of “what if?” that pesters my mind incessantly. If that’s the whirring of helicopter parenting, then I’m guilty as sin.

As parents, it’s not always easy to know when to step back and when to be actively involved, particularly when our children head off to college. It’s natural for us to want to protect our kids, said Julie Lythcott-Haims, who published the book How to Raise an Adult after witnessing years of helicopter parenting when she was dean of freshmen at Stanford University. “We love our children fiercely and we’re fearful about what the world has in store for them. But we make the mistake of … being like a concierge in their lives.” (See jewishindependent.ca/ dont-helicopter-parent.)

If I’m a concierge in my kids’ life, let it be known I’m a darn good one. Case in point: my son recently signed a lease on an apartment with a friend-who-turned-out-not-to-be-a-friend, and needed to get out fast. The management company delivered a virtual shrug when he asked for his money back. “We’re not in a position to do refunds,” they told my 18-year-old. At that age, you don’t necessarily know how to respond to a statement like that. But, when you’re 46, you do. You call the company’s chief financial officer and let them know in no uncertain terms that a refund needs to be forthcoming. Posthaste. Voila, the cheque arrived.

I canvassed a mom’s group to ask for their definitions of helicopter parenting, hoping they might help identify the line between caring, support and over-involvement in the lives of college-age kids. You might be a helicopter parent, they suggested, if:

You know your kids’ passwords so you can register them on time for courses.
You have been known to call your kids’ instructor/professor, suggest they graded an essay, test or exam unfairly and insist that they reconsider the grade.
You proofread and edit your kids’ college essays because you want them to get the best results possible.
You feel compelled to step in and prevent your kids from making mistakes.

I suspect we all want to shelter our children from making awful, life-changing mistakes, so we try to gently guide them around the sharp curves of young adulthood, intervening perhaps too often in our efforts to break their fall. There is deep love in this act, a love that stretches way back to their infancy and embeds us with the certainty that our children are our richest legacies, irreplaceable treasures we want and need to hold close. There will be times when we teeter on the line of over-protectiveness, when the whirring sounds of helicopter parenting will be obvious to those around us. But the best we can do is walk the line, treading with the utmost care. Trust me, it’s much harder than it sounds.

Lauren Kramer, an award-winning writer and editor, lives in Richmond. To read her work online, visit laurenkramer.net.

Transferring our assets

(photo from Alpha Stock Images, photographer Nick Youngson)

After a lifetime of work, most of us would like to know that our assets and legacy are transferred to the next generations, children and grandchildren, in the amounts and percentages we chose while alive. Our hope is that this would happen as painlessly, securely and quickly as possible.

It is a subject I am quite passionate about. I have seen loving families, with the best intentions, fail to adequately plan this transfer of assets and they are faced with disappointing financial and emotional consequences. There is the very real risk that your assets will not land in the hands of the people you intended. In addition, even when your wishes are met, without the proper planning and communication, feelings can be hurt, with long-lasting negative, albeit unintended, consequences.

What is probate

Probate is a legal procedure that validates a deceased’s will and confirms the executor’s authority to carry out the testator’s wishes.

There is no requirement that every will must be probated. Proper planning can eliminate the need for probate, and the type of asset involved will generally dictate whether or not probate is required.

The cost of probate varies by province. British Columbia has fees of $14 per thousand on estates over $50,000, plus a filing fee. Property owned in another province may attract fees based on that province’s fee schedule.

Advantages/disadvantages

When letters of probate are obtained, financial institutions, transfer agents, land registry offices and other third parties can safely transfer the assets to the intended recipients. The time frame for any court challenges to the will or estate is usually measured from when the probate is granted. This limits the period when legal action may be taken.

However, the process can be very expensive, time-consuming and complex, and is open to public scrutiny. This loss of privacy can be very important to the ongoing harmony of the family when assets aren’t divided equally among the beneficiaries.

Avoiding or reducing probate

Make sure you have a will. Probate fees will be applied automatically if you die intestate (without a will).
Gifting prior to death can reduce the value of the estate subject to probate but must be done with care. There are important legal and income tax considerations and possibly property transfer taxes.
Use named beneficiaries whenever possible. Moving assets to vehicles such as life insurance, annuities and segregated funds is a great way to avoid probate. What’s important is that proceeds are paid quickly, typically in a few weeks, and directly to the beneficiary. This avoids lawsuits from family members who may feel they didn’t receive what they felt they deserved from the estate.
Holding assets in joint tenancy with a spouse, child or other family member will avoid probate, as the asset passes automatically upon death to the other individual. Using joint tenancy to avoid probate fees should involve careful consideration: there will be a loss of control once it is jointly held and the asset will be exposed to the joint tenant’s creditors. There are also certain complicated tax issues and other risks associated with this strategy.
Transferring assets to a trust will remove the asset from the estate. Be careful of appreciable assets that may attract a taxable disposition upon transfer. The use of an alter-ego or joint spousal trust can be very effective for this purpose. There are many cases where trusts are necessary to achieve more complicated wishes but they can be expensive to set up and require annual maintenance.
Transfer assets to a corporation. Except for outstanding mortgages on real estate, which are deductible, probate fees are generally charged against the gross value of an estate asset. If an estate asset was purchased with borrowed money, it may be beneficial to transfer that asset to a company. This will reduce the value of the estate and the company share value will be the asset, less the debt used to acquire it.
Have multiple wills. Not all assets are subject to probate. It is becoming popular to have two wills – one for assets that are probatable and one for those that are not. This strategy is not available in all provinces and the use of multiple wills may create problems with the new graduated-rate estate tax with respect to testamentary trusts. It is important to seek professional advice when considering these strategies.
Keep it simple. There are often cases where we can plan to quite easily avoid probate entirely. All assets can be invested within segregated funds (GICs, stocks and bonds are available) with named beneficiaries and others gifted. This can be done where income is still guaranteed for the rest of one’s life, but ownership has been transferred while alive, or will pass straight to beneficiaries later, thus avoiding probate.

***

Finally, I like to stress the gifting of assets while one is alive, be it to your family or a charity. There are many advantages, whether it’s the personal satisfaction of supporting your favourite charity, or the love shared with your children and grandchildren. After all, isn’t estate planning really intergenerational legacy planning?

Philip Levinson, CPA, CA, is an associate at ZLC Financial, a boutique financial services firm that has served the Vancouver community for more than 70 years. Each individual’s needs are unique and warrant a customized solution. Should you have any questions about the information in this article, he can be reached at 604-688-7208 or plevinson@zlc.net.

*** Disclaimer: The views (including any recommendations) expressed in this commentary are those of the author alone, and are not necessarily those of ZLC Financial. This information is not to be construed as investment advice. It is for educational or information purposes only. It is not intended to provide legal, taxation or account advice; as each situation is different, please seek advice based on your specific circumstance. This commentary is not in any respect to be construed as an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any securities. ***

Antisemites amid JVP

Jewish Voice for Peace, an American organization that has been highly critical of Israel, announced recently that it is “anti-Zionist.” It is certainly a matter of semantics, as the group’s own executive director acknowledged.

“This doesn’t change anything about our focus or our political analysis,” said Rebecca Vilkomerson. “It just names something that hasn’t been named before.”

On the one hand, at least the group is being honest and not hiding behind the ambiguity they had adhered to until now. On the other hand, it represents a progression in the evolution of the anti-Israel movement.

Until just a few years ago, it was rare for people like those in JVP to say they opposed Israel’s existence. They would claim they were merely opposed to a specific policy or direction of the Israeli government. Now, they admit, they don’t think there should be an Israeli government.

In the same interview in which Vilkomerson made the announcement, she also repeated that “anti-Zionism is not antisemitism.” Again, a few years ago, people said “criticism of Israel is not antisemitism.” This appears to be an evolution.

In what intellectual framework is it acceptable to make a statement like “anti-Zionism is not antisemitism”? The undercurrent of the sentence is that, under no circumstances, by any measure, in no way, is anti-Zionism connected with or affected by antisemitism. Progressive people – which is how JVP and many of Israel’s other critics define themselves – would never dream of dismissing the potential of bigotry toward any other ethnic or cultural group.

More egregiously, Vilkomerson overtly contradicts her very words, acknowledging that there are, indeed, antisemites in the movement.

“Obviously, there are people who are antisemitic or anti-Zionist and there are people who mask their antisemitism with anti-Zionist language. That’s a given,” she says, “but that doesn’t paint anti-Zionism as concept.”

Here is what does paint anti-Zionism as concept: it is a movement utterly unconcerned that there is antisemitism and that there are antisemites within it. The leader of JVP admits that her movement attracts antisemites but expresses not a whiff of displeasure or concern. It is what it is.

“Ever since [the advent of] Zionism there has been anti-Zionism within Jewish communities,” she goes on. This is true. Zionism did not reach a consensus point among European and North American Jews until sometime around the Holocaust. When the implications of Jewish statelessness became the gravest in 2,000 years, a massive majority of Jews worldwide abandoned whatever ambivalent positions they had held and (almost entirely) united to create and support Israel.

There is no false corollary here: the state of Israel was not a “consolation prize” for the Holocaust, as has been suggested on more than one occasion. No one gave the state of Israel to the Jewish people; our ancient homeland was won back through a bloody defensive war and has survived and thrived despite massive external opposition.

We will see if other organizations, including similar Jewish groups in Canada, follow JVP’s suit. We will also continue to see primarily non-Jewish groups argue against Israel’s existence based on an anti-nationalist idealism or more nefarious interests. As we watch these developments, it is worth wondering why, as the first target of a battle against the concept of nationalism, “progressive” activists target Israel. Why not France? Why do Hungarians deserve their own country? What makes Norwegians so special that their nationhood is not called into question?

Closer to the point, Why do the Palestinian people deserve a homeland, which is the stated motivating purpose of JVP and so many other groups, while Israelis do not? Can people who declare “anti-Zionism is not antisemitism” see how these inconsistencies, including the indifference to Jewish statelessness, might make their protests seem hollow?

Making home a sanctuary

My kids love a song called “Make me a sanctuary.” The Hebrew comes directly from Exodus 25:8. It’s based on a Shaker hymn (much of the Jewish musical liturgy comes from outside sources) and it’s in Hebrew and English. The English lyrics say: “Lord, prepare me, to be a sanctuary, pure and holy, tried and true, with thanksgiving, I’ll be a living sanctuary for you.” In Hebrew transliteration: “V’asu li mikdash, v’shochanti b’tocham,va’anachnu n’varech yah, me-ata v’ad olam.” Translation: “Make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them, and we will bless Hashem, now and forever.”

This comes from the Torah portion Terumah, and describes how the people will make an exquisite ark so that they can worship together. I’m a “maker” and love creating things. I spin, knit, weave and sew. I write knitting patterns. I love to build and create. Today, I just finished making some cloth napkins. However, a home (or a congregation) can’t be an inspirational sanctuary without the basics. In Canada, that includes heat.

Recently, I noticed our house seemed cool. I perched on the stairs to check the thermostat. Someone installed it decades ago in a way that makes it hard for shorter adults, like me, to see. (My partner, whose ancestors spent time in Eastern Europe, didn’t seem cold.)

The next morning, the boiler wasn’t working. After checking the thermostat battery and shrugging, my partner went to work. As the work-from-home adult, I called repair places. Although it was warm outside for winter, the forecast predicted plummeting temperatures. I worried.

The busy repair places offered an appointment for the next day. We have two gas fireplaces, which pumped out heat valiantly while I called Manitoba Hydro. Hydro scheduled someone to come out to check our boiler’s pilot light. As the temperatures dropped, the boiler kept cycling, but no heat came up, so I shut it off.

At lunchtime, a chirping alarm went off in the basement. Something else was wrong, but I couldn’t even tell what was beeping. We have an old house. Its antiquated systems can be confusing. (Smart house upgrades circa 1918, 1952, etc.) I was also tired when this started from a busy weekend. I was so befuddled by what was going on with the boiler that I wondered if I was confused due to some kind of gas leak.

Once I shut it off the boiler, I was no longer confused but so tired from the cold that I wanted to take a nap. I was wearing a toque, a heavy Icelandic wool sweater and a shawl, but part of me was like, “Don’t take a nap! People die this way! How will the Hydro guys get in if you fall asleep?!”

Here’s the stupid coincidence. The beeping was an older fire alarm with a failing battery, which had nothing to do with the boiler. Installed in 2004, it was guaranteed to last 10 years. It gave up the ghost 15 years later, on the same day as the boiler troubles. We’ve had new, hardwired fire, carbon and radon alarms installed, but missed removing this one. I was freaking out over nothing. I’d call it irrational stupidity, possibly caused by a tired “freeze” brain.

The Hydro guys came, cheerfully disconnected the old fire alarm, relit the pilot light and told me to get the boiler fully serviced. When the tradesperson serviced the boiler, it was black, dirty and not burning cleanly. It needed attention. I also got the boiler chimney cleaned. It took awhile for the house to heat up, but there was good news. We were warm again! Bad news? I lost the better part of a work week to this drama, and I was cold.

Once I was warm, I thought beyond the basics – but many people can’t. If you’re stuck with challenges like staying warm, you can’t think clearly. In the midst of a Canadian winter, we’re so lucky to have heat. Taking a moment to remember this, and recognize that there are many who are cold this winter, and how it affects us, is very important.

I was incredibly grateful to hear the boiler cycling as everything became toasty. It made me very aware of how hard it is for those among us who cannot afford to keep their houses warm or who are homeless. I was so anxious that I woke up the next morning at 5:30 a.m., panicked that the boiler might stop working again as temperatures plummeted to -30 outside.

For those of us who find something’s wrong, there are ways to fix it. This is a kind of “adulting.” Grown-ups should keep up with home maintenance, whether it’s the fire alarms or getting their boilers serviced and chimneys cleaned regularly. I couldn’t remember the last time this was done at our house.

When I had twins, life got busy. We did the best we could, but forgot a lot of important details. We all need heat during the winter. Aside from being grateful, do something that I didn’t do – be proactive. Getting your heat in order before the cold temperatures and cold freeze brain hit is wise. I wish I’d known better, but you can still get it serviced in the wintertime.

Here’s wishing you a well-maintained warm, cozy home, with up-to-date fire alarms, during all the cold snaps. It’s much better to be safe and warm than sorry.

Joanne Seiff has written regularly for CBC Manitoba and various Jewish publications. She is the author of three books, including From the Outside In: Jewish Post Columns 2015-2016, a collection of essays available for digital download or as a paperback from Amazon. See more about her at joanneseiff.blogspot.com.

Two bads don’t make good

The United States Senate was expected to vote this week on a bill that would make it easier for state and local governments, as well as government agencies and perhaps other bodies, to refuse to do business with groups that endorse a boycott against Israel.

The bill comes after several state governments have taken steps against BDS, the movement to boycott, divest from and sanction Israel. Florida’s legislators, for example, directed officials in 2016 to create a list of companies that engage in boycotts of Israel and instructed all government entities to divest from those companies. Two years later, the state passed a bill preventing companies that engage in boycotts of Israel from bidding on local or state government contracts. In all, about half of the 50 states have some form of statute on the subject, some simply making their opposition to BDS known, without adding punitive economic conditions.

Boycotting Israel is a dumb and self-defeating position, but so is the idea of governments boycotting the boycotters.

Opponents of the federal anti-BDS effort – and even some people with no horse in the race – are asking whether boycotts are covered by free speech legislation. Nobody is saying BDS should be illegal. But, when a company or individual applies to government for, say, a contract to build a road, there are numerous conditions. Non-unionized companies may be excluded, for example, or businesses may have to prove they adhere to government guidelines around equal employment. People are free to boycott Israel, and governments are free to prevent those people from obtaining contracts with them. On free speech grounds, we don’t really have a problem with the idea – and we’re pretty defensive about free speech.

To us, the discussion is less a legal one, or even a moral one, than it is a strategic one.

Despite their thuggish, bullying tactics, members of the anti-Israel movement love to position themselves as victims. While harassing Jewish students on campuses, shouting down speakers, making Jewish women unwelcome at women’s marches and disrupting venues where Israel and Palestine would seem to have little relevance, such as at a major LGBTQ conference in Detroit recently, they nevertheless depict themselves as tiny Davids fighting Goliath. With that in mind, legislation that punishes those who support BDS will give its advocates their first rightful justification for claiming victimhood. But there is a more important and obvious reason why we should not be legislating against BDS.

We shouldn’t need to tie the hands of BDS supporters behind their backs to win this fight. Our strength must be our ability to refute the lies, exaggerations, hypocrisies and prejudices of the BDS movement. There are a million arguments against BDS.

Ireland recently passed a wide-ranging Israel-boycott law and promptly realized that its high-tech sector, which is mostly propped up by American investment, could be imperiled if Ireland forces giants like Apple, Google and Facebook to choose between Dublin and Tel Aviv. While BDS is intended to be economically injurious to Israel, it can harm the very people who are advancing it. And it is more than economic damage BDS can self-inflict. Given the plethora of life-saving and life-enhancing innovations emerging constantly from Israel, boycotting that country could be detrimental to one’s health.

There are countless ways to counter BDS … like pointing out that BDS hurts Arabs. Not just Israeli Arabs or Palestinians, like those who famously lost their jobs when BDS forced the closure of a SodaStream plant in the West Bank, but impoverished residents of countries adjoining Israel, too. Seventy years of its Arab neighbours boycotting and isolating Israel has done nothing to harm the massive economic and social successes enjoyed by citizens of Israel. It has only ensured that the people of Jordan, Lebanon and other countries that snub Israel suffer from being deprived of these economic, technological and scientific achievements. Since the Arab boycott of Israel went global, the discrepancies have only grown. Israel’s GDP has doubled since 2005, when BDS started to take off.

The preoccupation of the BDS movement with academic boycotts is especially easy to confront: it’s the ideological descendent of book-burning.

We should also be conscious that even people who take positions we support may be using us to advance their own agendas. While the Republican party has been steadfastly pro-Israel – as have most Democratic party lawmakers – this anti-BDS measure is a bald attempt to sow division among Democrats by shining a light on some of the new elected officials who diverge from the traditional bipartisan consensus on the American-Israeli special relationship. Confronting those dissenters on the issues is justified – and is being taken up by a new group of Zionist Dems, called the Democratic Majority for Israel. But allowing one party to monopolize Israel for political advantage spells disaster for American Zionists and for Israel (despite the overt collaboration of Israel’s prime minister in the Republicans’ partisanship on this issue).

BDS is a bad idea. But, banning – or, more accurately, boycotting – BDS gives the appearance that Israel is indefensible on merit. That makes legislation to punish BDS supporters another bad idea.

At a time when there are plenty of bad ideas to go around, this is absolutely a case where two wrongs do not make a right. Defeating BDS should be done intellectually, not legislatively.

Much work left to do

One of the displays in the exhibit Canada Responds to the Holocaust, 1944-1945, which was at the Vancouver Holocaust Education Centre in 2016. (photo by Cynthia Ramsay)

Nearly half of Canadians are not able to name a single Holocaust concentration camp. A large number of Canadians do not know that six million Jews died in the Shoah, offering up numbers like two million, with nearly one in four admitting outright that they just don’t know. Among millennials, those aged 18 to 34, the numbers are particularly disturbing: 22% have not heard of the Holocaust or are not sure whether they have (which seems like much the same thing). One in three Canadians thinks that this country had an open immigration policy for Jewish refugees in the 1930s, unaware that very few Jews were permitted into Canada in the lead up to genocide.

These are some of the details found in a survey conducted on behalf of the Azrieli Foundation and the Claims Conference. The study was based on 1,100 interviews of Canadians to coincide with International Holocaust Remembrance Day Sunday. (See story, “Emerging from terrible abyss. ”)

On the positive side, 85% of respondents said it’s important to keep teaching about the Holocaust in order to prevent such a thing from happening again, while 82% said that all students should learn about this part of history.

In reality, it is unlikely that all Canadian students will learn about the Holocaust. In British Columbia, for example, the Holocaust only became part of the core curriculum with the overhaul of the entire provincial curriculum three years ago – and only if the teacher chooses to include it. The history of genocide is one module that teachers are able to select from a range of subject components at particular grade levels. Therefore, it is still a crapshoot whether a student graduating from the British Columbia education system will have much or any knowledge on the subject.

It is extraordinarily unlikely that the curriculum will be revised again any time soon to make Holocaust education mandatory across the system. Educators complain, with good reason, that they are expected to teach more content than there are hours in a day. Competing needs, including career preparation and life skills, contend with subjects like history for class time.

In Canada, where the educational curriculum is determined by every province, similar discussions take place across the country and a patchwork of curricula exist.

At the same time, a massive shift in the larger culture has taken place, eliminating what had been, until the last few decades, a largely shared body of knowledge. In the days when there were only a couple of television networks, and hard copy newspapers were most people’s sources of information, everyone would generally be aware of similar issues and events. Half of all televisions in the United States in 1978, for example, were tuned in to the nine-and-a-half-hour miniseries Holocaust (a program that was admittedly not without its critics among Jews, historians and others).

The internet and the proliferation of cable TV channels has refracted our attention in unlimited directions. People now largely self-select the information they receive and that can blind us to matters outside of our spheres.

In a better world, knowledge of the Holocaust would be universal. In the world we live in, it remains vital to continue to focus attention on the subject whenever possible – and to use this history to educate about other genocides and violations of humanity while not diminishing the uniqueness of the Shoah itself.

Organizations devoted to the critical work of Holocaust education, including the Vancouver Holocaust Education Centre, are carrying a heavy burden for the larger society and depend on public support to meet their mandate. The Azrieli Foundation, which undertook this study, publishes survivor memoirs and funds a variety of Holocaust-related projects across Canada. Other groups, to varying degrees, share the burden of teaching this history, including universities, synagogues, Hillels, book publishers and authors, and so forth.

Unquestionably, the most powerful form of Holocaust education is firsthand testimony from survivors and witnesses. British Columbians who are survivors of the Holocaust have spoken to tens of thousands of students but, in a handful of years, this method of transmitting history will no longer be possible. Innovative strategies are being developed, such as the New Dimensions in Testimony oral history project, a collaboration involving Steven Spielberg’s USC Shoah Foundation, which includes holographic representations of survivors with whom students and others can interact virtually. This project recognizes that the issue is not only to continue educating, but to find ever-advancing means of doing so effectively.

The breadth of the challenge was underscored by Prof. Jan Grabowski, who delivered the Rudolf Vrba Memorial Lecture at the University of British Columbia last November. He and a team of scholars and researchers are visiting town and city archives across Poland, doing primary research on the events that led to the murder of three million Jews in that country. In other words, we’re still compiling the most basic facts of that history and, it may be safe to say, we are just as far away as ever as to understanding the larger moral questions – How? Why? – the Holocaust raises. Much work remains to be done.

Airing, rejecting bad ideas

Hundreds of thousands of women and allies marched in cities all over North America Saturday, bringing people from across the spectrum together to stand for equality and justice. It was the third annual network of women’s marches that sprang out of the shock and alarm after the election of U.S. President Donald Trump.

To ensure that the nearly spontaneous eruption of resistance to the direction of American (and world) politics was more than lightning in a bottle, a movement was solidified in the form of Women’s March Inc. This body, led by a small group of activists who quickly gained international fame and recognition, not only came to helm one of the most remarkable new grassroots movements in American history, they also became central figures in the cadre of leftist, socialist and progressive political activists that is loosely defined as “the resistance.”

Unfortunately – or, perhaps, fortunately, for reasons we’ll explain – the small group of Women’s March leaders has recently been beset by controversy. In a book-length analysis last month, Tablet magazine reconstructed accounts of the earliest hours of the march movement – including the marginalization of Jewish women who were there at the start and the assertion, apparently made in one of the earliest meetings, that “white Jews” were partly responsible for “white supremacy.”

Additionally, some of the leaders of Women’s March Inc. are associated with Louis Farrakhan, head of the Nation of Islam and an unrepentant Jew-hater and Hitler admirer who last month capped a career of antisemitic rhetoric by declaring Jews “satanic.” Tamika Mallory, one of the most visible faces of the march movement, has referred to Farrakhan as “the GOAT” – the greatest of all time.

These developments led march organizers in various cities to disassociate their marches from Women’s March Inc. While some figures tried to patch over or reconcile divergences within the movement, such efforts were undermined by top leaders, including Mallory, who appeared on national TV the Monday before Saturday’s marches. She defended her position on Israel and Palestine. She declared “the Palestinians are native to the land,” and that “there are people who have a number of sort of ideologies around why the Jewish people feel this should be their land. I’m not Jewish. So for me to speak to that is not fair.” She’s not Palestinian, either, her interviewer noted, yet she had no qualms defending Palestinians’ right to national self-determination.

At a time when another organization might aim for conciliation, Women’s March Inc. leaders seemed to double down on their troubles. In her keynote speech to the march in Washington Saturday, Linda Sarsour, another leading figure, expressed support for the BDS movement. While she had, earlier, finally rejected Farrakhan’s antisemitism and homophobia, her decision to use her limited time on stage to focus on BDS – an issue peripheral at best to the women’s movement – suggests she is not finished enflaming tensions with Jewish people.

Notably, attendance was down at rallies across the continent, including here in Vancouver. There could be a range of explanations – Trump-fatigue, weather – but certainly some Jewish and non-Jewish women were motivated to stay away because of the association of march leaders with bad ideas.

Within the loose affiliation of “resistance” figures, several of the individuals elected to the U.S. Congress in November’s midterm elections have made themselves known for statements about Israel and Palestine. One of the freshmen, Rep. Ilhan Omar, a Democrat from Minnesota, came under criticism for a 2012 social media post in which she wrote: “Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.” She has since said that she didn’t understand the implications in her choice of words.

Another new legislator, Rashida Tlaib, Democrat of Michigan, made her entry into Washington known by displaying a map of the world with a Post-it note with the word “Palestine” covering Israel.

These examples – and there are more – are disheartening. That these ideas have moved from the recesses of crackpot online discussion forums and into Congress, into one of the most significant grassroots organizations and, apparently, into a significant swath of the Democratic party, is certainly concerning. But there is a silver lining: it also allows us to openly confront the trend and, perhaps, to gain allies in opposing it.

When we talk about the need to shine light on dark crevices of bigotry, this is exactly what we mean. Social media has, for better or worse, allowed anyone with any views to broadcast them. In the chaotic network of the internet, there is no practical, central force for contesting bigotry and other bad ideas. When those ideas and expressions seep into institutions like Women’s March Inc., Congress or, even more noticeably, the U.K. Labour party, this presents an opportunity unavailable elsewhere. It is a chance to bring these issues out in the open and contest them in the light of day. Among other things, it forces people with power and influence to make a choice.

Among those who made choices in recent weeks – the choice to withdraw as sponsors of Women’s March Inc. – are prominent individuals and organizations, including the Democratic National Committee, the Southern Poverty Law Centre, the women’s political action group EMILY’s List, the LGBTQ advocacy group Human Rights Campaign, the pro-choice organization NARAL, the Centre for American Progress, and Amnesty International.

This is the kind of unified voice we need: a concerted rejection of antisemitism or Jew-baiting or Israel-bashing that has emerged as a force in important places.

JNF Canada explains position

On behalf of JNF Canada (JNF), I wish to respond to allegations made by Independent Jewish Voices Canada, longstanding opponents of JNF Canada, as well as the opinion piece you published [“Tax troubles start year,” Jewish Independent, Jan. 11].

With regard to the substantive issues that have been raised about our projects in Israel we wish to reiterate our position.

• JNF has in the past carried out projects mainly of a charitable nature, such as parks, playgrounds and recreational facilities on land owned by the Israel Defence Forces. Our charitable funds never flowed to the IDF. The charitable funds were directed toward the hiring of indigent labourers to construct these projects. These expenditures represent under one percent of our expenditures over the past decade.

In your coverage, you suggest that we took action based upon an alert from the CRA. This, in fact, is not the case. Rather, it was our legal counsel who advised us several years ago that the indirect association with the IDF may be misconstrued or criticized by the CRA, so we ended our participation at that time. We have not for several years carried out projects located on IDF land, and we continue to operate in accordance with CRA regulations governing our status as a charitable organization. We stopped these projects on the advice of counsel well before this issue was brought to the public’s attention by a group trying to sensationalize it.

• With regard to projects located in disputed territory, JNF is committed to continuing to work with CRA to ensure we are in full compliance.

• Finally, in terms of governance and reporting, JNF operates in compliance with the Canada Income Tax Act. We have Israeli staff on site to direct our projects in Israel and regularly report on our activities.

Thank you for highlighting our work and for acknowledging that “Israel is Israel, is large part, thanks to JNF.” We take pride in having supported the building of water reservoirs, collaborated with dozens of educational institutions, built numerous recreational/educational facilities, planted millions of trees and supported pioneering research in green technology. Key projects for this year include supporting a trauma centre in Sderot, a project to feed Israel’s hungry, the rehabilitation of the Be’eri and Kissufim forests, and more.

JNF’s management and lay leadership are committed to improving our operations. For the past number of years, we have been making changes to strengthen our governance and controls. What will not change, however, is our commitment to helping build the foundations of Israel’s future. We will always stand shoulder to shoulder with the people of Israel to benefit the social service and environmental fabric of the state of Israel.

Lance Davis is chief executive officer of Jewish National Fund Canada.

An unexpected journey

The author’s maternal aunt, Sara Basson (at age 23). (photo from Libby Simon)

It was the long, cold winter nights in Winnipeg that made me do it. With my husband working late and a preschooler asleep in her room keeping me housebound, what else could I do? I finally tackled the onerous task of sorting seemingly hundreds of musty, dusty family photos that lay scattered inside battered cardboard boxes saved by my parents, their lives obviously too busy living the moments.

Who were these people in these tattered and torn brown photos? Some, I had been told, were Aunt Lorna or Cousin Sylvia. Others were total strangers. The clothing and hairstyles against an unfamiliar backdrop told of another time and place in history. Places I had never seen nor been, yet vague memories from childhood floated in my mind. Some pictures had writing on the back in a foreign language I could not read or understand. Nonetheless, I carted these decaying remnants along with all the important household belongings wherever we moved. Why had I not discarded them?

I now painstakingly placed these memories of bits and bytes under protective sheets in photo albums, one by one. Organizing them in some fashion was just too daunting a task. For the moment, preserving them was the goal – for whom I did not know. That question wouldn’t be answered until many years later, when I received a letter that launched an unexpected personal journey.

Bold, black type on unfamiliar letterhead demanded my attention – Lois Feinberg, Financial Consultant, Hollywood, Florida. I was about to toss out what I thought was spam sent by snail mail when one short sentence leaped out at me: “I’m your second cousin on your mother’s side,” it read. “My grandmother and your grandfather were siblings.”

Maybe it was more scam than spam but I had to pay attention. What did she want? Credit card numbers? Bank account numbers? Transfer a million dollars out of some remote African country? I read further with guarded skepticism.

“In the process of my genealogical research,” she wrote, “I found our mutual cousin, Sylvia, who gave me your contact information. I would like the names and birth dates of your family in order to register this information with the Yad Vashem in Israel.”

Yad Vashem. I knew it as the memorial centre for the murdered six million Jews and a symbol of the ongoing confrontation with the rupture of families engendered by the Holocaust. My doubts began to dissipate as the letter took on a flavour of authenticity. After confirming its legitimacy with Sylvia, I provided Lois with the information she requested. I did not pursue further personal contact, however, because, frankly, I have not been blessed, or cursed, with the need to search out relatives who could be more of a blemish than a blossom on my family tree.

But things were about to change.

Circumstances arose the next winter that would take my husband and me to Florida. I contacted Lois and invited her for lunch. When I greeted this pretty, dark-eyed, dark-haired lady, we hugged each other warmly. She appeared similar in age, slim, well-dressed and refined in manner. Lois had been a teacher turned financial consultant, divorced from her doctor husband, with two grown children.

“I discovered two other cousins who live in Florida whose grandparents are also siblings of our grandparents,” she said. I was stunned. Two more family members – right here!

photo - The author’s maternal grandfather, Abraham Basson (at age 60) — The author’s maternal grandfather, Abraham Basson (at age 60). *(photo from Libby Simon)*

“I’ll arrange a brunch at my home so you can meet them,” she promised with a smile. And, true to her word, the cousins all gathered at her home the following week.

A strange mix of emotions coursed through me as the past and present began to meld. Until recently, we were totally unaware of one another’s existence. Suddenly, we had a common thread tying us together – our grandparents.

Lois told me that the grandparent siblings, including my maternal grandfather, had all come to the United States in the 1930s to escape Hitler’s rise to power, but he was the only one sent back, because of a leg deformity. Not from disease, mind you, but the result of an accident. In the course of operating his paper company business, a heavy object had fallen on his leg yet he continued to run a successful business. I was told he and several other relatives were among the six million Jews murdered in the Holocaust.

Like a seismic jolt of lightning, the brown pictures flashed across my mind. For the first time, my grandfather became more than a lifeless face on a faded old photo. Sadness and anger pulsed through me. He was my mother’s father – a living, breathing person whose life had been cut short. Not by a natural disaster like a tsunami, a flood or earthquake, but by a human-made catastrophe, the Holocaust. Nature’s cataclysmic events kill randomly but humans ravaged and murdered with deliberation and purpose. While we had been spared the agony of their deaths, history had changed the lives of those who lived, splintering family shards across the globe, many of which will never be repaired.

Yet it was heart-warming to meet Marty, the supervisor IRS lawyer in south Florida; Arnie, a retired businessman; and their wives. After a four-hour brunch came to a pleasant end, plans were discussed for “The Brunch” next winter, ensuring a future for this fractured family.

These images gradually transcended time and geography and were now transplanted into my world in the 21st century. They were channeled from a dismal and distant past to live again in the present. In fact, in April 2012, I learned the names of six of my maternal relatives who were murdered in the Holocaust. My Israeli family had listed their names at Yad Vashem in Israel. I have now added them to Winnipeg’s Holocaust memorial on the grounds of the Manitoba Legislature to further ensure they will never be forgotten.

The exciting promise of a journey of discovery still lies ahead, as traces of life continue to sprout new branches on this family tree – blemish or blossom. I knew now for whom these pictures were preserved. I preserved them for me and for future generations of Jewish history. L’dor v’dor.

Libby Simon, MSW, worked in child welfare services prior to joining the Child Guidance Clinic in Winnipeg as a school social worker and parent educator for 20 years. Also a freelance writer, her writing has appeared in Canada, the United States, and internationally, in such outlets as Canadian Living, CBC, Winnipeg Free Press, PsychCentral and Cardus, a Canadian research and educational public policy think tank. She wrote this piece with International Holocaust Remembrance Day (Jan. 27) in mind.

Complexity and perspective

I recently heard some difficult news. A good friend of mine from university has been diagnosed with a serious form of cancer. Over time, we’d moved, had children and fallen out of touch, but I was able to reach her quickly. She is well enough for emailing, and we’ve fallen right back into the dear friendship we had 20-some years ago. Some of her more recent pathology reports are slightly more hopeful. Even so, it’s a very serious diagnosis and she’s in her mid-forties with kids in elementary school.

During university, this friend and I were part of a trio of busy young women. Often the only time we could spend together was breakfast. We’d have bagels and coffee at a sunny warm spot, the Ithaca Bakery. The snow was piled high outside and the windows were steamed with humidity as we laughed and complained together. It was the third friend who told me about the brain cancer. She and I each, within moments, had come up with medical resources for our dear friend. We felt lucky to be able to say, “I know something about this,” or “I know someone if you need medical information or another opinion.” We wanted to support her from far away.

I was reminded of this when looking at the Torah portion Yitro (Exodus 18:1-20:23), which starts out with a story about Jethro, Zipporah’s father, and Moses. Jethro is Moses’ father-in-law. When Moses tells him how the Israelites have escaped Egypt and what has happened, Jethro responds in Exodus 18:9: “And Jethro rejoiced over all the kindness that the Lord had shown Israel when He delivered them from the Egyptians.”

Rashi responds to this by saying that Jethro rejoicing is the literal meaning, but that Sanhedrin 94A (a talmudic midrash) suggests that Jethro’s skin prickled, or crept with horror. He felt upset about Egypt’s destruction. Rashi explains further that “people say” that one should not speak negatively about non-Jews in front of someone who has converted to Judaism, even if the family converted 10 generations ago.

Jethro is called a Midianite priest, and is considered a “non-Hebrew.” The Druze consider Jethro an important prophet and ancestor. No matter – Moses was close with him, and married his daughter. This text and the commentary is laden with meaning. Just on its surface: Jethro celebrates and is grateful that his daughter and son-in-law and the Israelites have come through a terrible experience. Yet further still, the midrash explains that Jethro knew the ramifications of the experience. Egyptians suffered and were destroyed to bring about this event. Finally, there are valued connections between people. It doesn’t matter where you come from – we shouldn’t cause distress to those we love, if at all possible, even if they aren’t part of our “in-group.” Things in life are complex. We should celebrate and be grateful, but not cause further harm, either. Jethro intertwines these concepts.

Jethro goes on to help Moses learn to delegate and do “leadership development.” He encourages Moses to rely on the Israelites to lead and take care of one another, as well.

What does this have to do with hearing of my friend’s terrible illness?

It was a wake-up call and a reminder to be thankful, as Jethro was, and celebrate what we have – we can’t take our health for granted.

The good news is I am back in touch with someone I care about. It’s also an opportunity to look at how a third friend told me this news, and that my friend with cancer has a rich community to lean on. She can delegate, too, regarding communication, help with her family, and maybe even finding medical advice and explanations.

It’s also a reminder that we’re all connected, regardless of religion. As Rashi shows us, treating people with care extends beyond the team with which you daven (pray).

Finally, smart people realize that real-life situations are complicated. It’s simplistic to have a one-size-fits-all approach to nationalism, for example. Moses supported and shepherded the Israelites, but he also cared deeply about people who were not, strictly speaking, part of his crowd. Yes, we’re Jewish, but we often love people who aren’t, and that is part of our tradition, too.

We’re lucky to have a tradition that values complication. As Jews, we face a lot of complex concepts in the world, whether it’s our own personal observances or how we apply those values to the world at large. We could choose a simplistic response, such as a tirade or blanket objection to a view different than our own. Many people do this – face it, it’s easier. Or, we could acknowledge the complexity of our choices instead.

Jethro wasn’t Jewish, and he wasn’t a one-issue guy. He could celebrate and express gratitude while wrestling with other feelings: concern, loss, sadness and worry. I hope to be like Jethro and do the same.