free speech

Telling the story of an icon

Ronnie Marmo brings his one-man show I’m Not a Comedian … I’m Lenny Bruce to the Chutzpah! Festival Nov. 18. (photo from dorensorellphotography.com via Chutzpah!)

In 2017, with the expectation of a six-week run, creator and performer Ronnie Marmo and director Joe Mantegna brought I’m Not a Comedian … I’m Lenny Bruce to the stage. Now, celebrating eight years and 468 performances, Marmo told the Independent, “we can not wait to bring it up to Vancouver for 469!”

I’m Not a Comedian … I’m Lenny Bruce is part of this year’s Chutzpah! Festival, which runs Nov. 12-23. It’s being presented on Nov. 18, 7:30 p.m., at the Rothstein Theatre.

Bruce, a groundbreaking standup comedian and satirist, was born Leonard Alfred Schneider in Mineola, on Long Island, NY, in 1925. He consistently pushed social and legal boundaries, being arrested more than once for what was considered obscenity in his day, including a conviction in 1964 for a performance he gave at Café Au Go Go in New York City. Bruce died two years later, at age 40, from an accidental overdose. He was bankrupt, basically not having been employable after the conviction. It would be 37 years before he was posthumously pardoned, by then-governor George E. Pataki.

In I’m Not a Comedian … I’m Lenny Bruce, Marmo told the Independent, “We bookend the show with the final moments of his life and take you on a journey through his first performance all the way to his demise. We learn about his family, we see his charm and success, his struggle with addiction, his long-standing fight with the judicial system. We don’t hold back. You really get a full theatrical experience of his entire life.”

Bruce is one of Marmo’s heroes.

“What inspires me about Lenny is how ahead of his time he was and how passionate he was about his pursuit of the truth. I have so much respect for someone who is willing to sacrifice everything and put it all on the line just to make sure he didn’t fall into suit with everyone else. I’m proud to be entrusted by the family to be the one to tell his story to the next generation.”

Marmo landed on the title for the show after hearing Bruce say, in an audio clip, “I’m sorry I wasn’t funny tonight … I’m not a comedian, I’m Lenny Bruce.” For Marmo, that comment resonated. “He wasn’t a comedian – he was so much more than that,” said Marmo of Bruce. “He was a satirist, a social commentator and a true advocate for the freedom of expression.”

The show has evolved a lot since its creation.

“As the writer, I am always tinkering with the script,” said Marmo. “For example, I removed the famous ‘N-word’ bit when we came back after the pandemic. I felt as though, even though the bit itself was in support of removing power from words so we don’t give them the chance to harm us, I knew that people might have a hard time hearing what Lenny was actually trying to say. Plus, even though I loved the impact it had on an audience, it kept me up at night thinking about it even before events like what happened to George Floyd. I have a responsibility as an artist to tell the absolute truth but also to not be tone deaf to the world around me. I don’t believe Lenny would have done that bit today.

“I also had long discussions with Kitty [Bruce, Lenny’s daughter] and my director, Joe Mantegna, who both agreed that it was best to remove it. So, I replaced it with ‘The Meaning of Obscenity,’ which, in my opinion, supports the show even more. So, I’m happy to make the switch, knowing it is not only the best fit culturally in this climate but also the strongest choice for the show overall. As a performer, my portrayal of Lenny evolves as I explore my own life and how I tell his story resonates differently depending on where I am in my life. I think it takes passion, dedication and an openness to watch it grow and evolve along with me.”

While I’m Not a Comedian … I’m Lenny Bruce premiered in 2017, Marmo said, “I’ve actually been with Lenny since 2005, when I did another show about him, called Lenny’s Back and Boy is He Pissed. On stage, I don’t separate us – it is my job as an actor to find where we meet in the middle. I try to focus on all the similarities that I identify with for Lenny. It is easy to keep it fresh because it is such an emotional ride and massive performance. I don’t feel like I ‘have it’ yet, which is refreshing, because it always feels just slightly out of reach.”

When Marmo did Lenny’s Back, which was brought to him by comedian Charlie Brill, he became “intimately involved with Lenny Bruce and his life.

“In getting to know him, I realized that there was so much of his story we weren’t telling. I wanted to get into the nitty gritty, I wanted to do his bits,” said Marmo. “So, I set out to write my own show.

“We initially started the show anticipating a six-week run,” he said. “This thing has caught fire in the most incredible way. It is a testament to just how relevant Lenny is today – perhaps even more than he was over 60 years ago! It truly has been a perfect storm: free speech, first amendment, cancel culture and not to mention the success of the Amazon series The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel. They really helped catapult Lenny’s name back into pop culture and have sold thousands of tickets for us. We have, in some ways, come very far and, in others, not far at all.”

Marmo described Bruce as “a very proud Jewish man,” who often incorporated Judaism and his Jewish heritage into his material. “He openly incorporated his Yiddish vocabulary into his bits and there is quite a bit of familiar references sprinkled throughout the show,” said Marmo. “His relationship with religion overall was complex but, rather than hiding his heritage, he celebrated it.”

As for what he thought gave Bruce the courage to run up against the country’s obscenity laws, Marmo said, “The truth. He held a mirror up to society and asked questions that everyone wondered about but never found any resolution to. He also fervently believed in our judicial system and always believed that it would prevail and he would be redeemed – something that he, unfortunately, didn’t see in his lifetime, but did come to fruition with his posthumous pardon in 2003 – the first in New York history, in fact. He spoke out loud what everyone whispered to themselves and his popularity was proof of how profound he was.”

Even though Bruce wasn’t alive to receive the pardon, Marmo still believes it was an important action.

“It was a landmark symbolic victory for free speech,” he said. “I think it was redemption. It was validation that Lenny had something to say to this society and that we are free-thinking creatives entitled to our artistic expression.”

For tickets to I’m Not a Comedian … I’m Lenny Bruce or any other Chutzpah! show, go to chutzpahfestival.com or call 604-257-5145.

Working with “the enemy”

In the Gaza Youth Committee campaign We Live Together, We Die Together, young Gazans hold, in a show of solidarity with Israelis, photographs of Israeli children who were killed on Oct. 7, 2023. (photo from Rami Aman)

“People must understand that the people of Gaza are not victims and they are not superheroes. We are human beings, a group of people like any other society. We love life and hate death, we love singing and we hate violence. We are not terrorists. Parents pay to educate their sons and daughters in medicine, engineering, pharmacy, art, business, English and other languages. Gaza is not Hamas, and Hamas is not Gaza – Hamas is part of the Muslim Brotherhood,” Palestinian journalist Rami Aman, founder of the Gaza Youth Committee, told the Independent in a recent interview.

JI readers may have seen on social media one of the latest Gaza Youth Committee (GYC) campaigns, called We Live Together, We Die Together. Its images feature young Gazans holding, in a show of solidarity with Israelis, photographs of Israeli children who were killed on Oct. 7, 2023. The Gazans stand amid buildings and neighbourhoods destroyed in the Israel-Hamas war. The Independent was connected with Aman by Vancouver Friends of Standing Together.

“As the months of war passed, many voices increased within Israeli society opposing the killing of Gaza’s children, expressing solidarity with their families, and calling for an end to the war,” he explained about the social media campaign. “In Gaza, we saw tens of thousands of Israeli demonstrators carrying pictures of child victims in the Gaza war. Therefore, despite the killing, hunger, siege and shortages in Gaza, it was important for us to prove that, in Gaza, there are Palestinians who object to the killing of any child, and to show their solidarity with all the child victims who have fallen in the war, Israeli or Palestinian.

“We have lost a large number of Muslim, Christian and Jewish children because of this war between Hamas and the Israeli army,” he said. “This campaign emerged from Gaza to emphasize the people’s rejection of the war and the killing of children, and the need to release the Israeli hostages, end the war and provide medical treatment for the children of Gaza.”

photo - Palestinian journalist Rami Aman, founder of the Gaza Youth Committee — Palestinian journalist Rami Aman, founder of the Gaza Youth Committee, speaking at an event. One of his goals is to hold meetings between Palestinians and Israelis to help them respect one another and determine their own fate. *(photo from Rami Aman)*

Aman started the GYC after the first Israel-Hamas war, which he described as “a turning point” in his life.

“I began thinking about trying to do something two months after the end of the war in 2009. I decided to look for a place to establish an FM radio station in Gaza that would emphasize the voice of the peaceful people of Gaza,” said Aman, who has a bachelor’s degree in electronics and communication engineering. “At the beginning of August 2009, I received my first request from Hamas security. They interrogated me for long hours, and I was subjected to repeated assaults by Hamas members in the following days. They warned me against broadcasting any radio station or publishing any media content about Gaza without their permission.”

Realizing that Hamas wanted no other voice from Gaza than their own, Aman said, “At the beginning of 2010, I decided to form an independent youth group whose goal was to spread awareness internally and to strengthen our relations externally. Our first meeting included 30 young men and women from Gaza, and we agreed on the need to form an independent youth body that would advocate for Palestinian reconciliation and spread the voice of peace from Gaza to the entire world.”

The Gaza Youth Committee currently has more than 300 members inside and outside Gaza, said Aman, “and we are still trying to reach our goals.”

“We are all working to convey the true image of the people of Gaza and to build genuine partnerships with Israelis to help Palestinians and Israelis understand and respect each other,” he said.

Over the past 15 years of activities and meetings, Aman said he has learned a lot, “including how to influence public opinion within Gaza and how to build pressure and advocacy campaigns.

“Over these years,” he said, “I’ve realized the importance of inviting enemies to dialogue, instead of fighting, and trying to shape a different image of the other. These years have helped me differentiate between the Palestinian who wants to build their society for the better and the Palestinian who seeks to achieve their own interests from the Israelis or Palestinians at the expense of others.

“After many different activities between the Gaza Youth Committee and several Israeli movements and organizations, we have built many bridges and created a lot of connections and relations.”

GYC initiatives have included the release of 200 doves from Gaza with messages of peace, Skype calls between Gazans and Americans, and Gazans and Israelis, and a cycling marathon along the border in which both Israelis and Gazans participated.

This work has not been without risk. Aman has been arrested and tortured by Hamas more than once for his peace initiatives with Israelis, as have people with whom he has worked. After a GYC Zoom call in April 2020, he was arrested, Hamas apparently being alerted by the social media post of journalist Hind Khoudary, who was consulting for Amnesty International at the time.

According to a 2020 Jerusalem Post article, “she did not tag Hamas officials in her Facebook posts against Rami Aman to get him arrested but as a protest against normalization activities.

“‘I want all the normalization activities he is doing with Israel from Gaza to stop immediately because any joint activities, cooperation or dialogue with Israelis is unacceptable, even engaging with Israeli ‘peace activists,’” she said in an interview with the Post.

To secure his release, Aman was told he’d have to divorce his then-wife, the daughter of a Hamas official, who was also among those arrested. He eventually signed the papers in August of that year. His wife had already been released at that point, but Aman remained in prison, despite what he’d been told. He was prosecuted in September 2020 for “weakening revolutionary spirit,” and ultimately convicted. After international pressure, he was released in late October, with a suspended sentence, according to a 2021 article in the Times of Israel.

His former wife traveled with a Hamas escort to Cairo while Hamas released Aman from prison one day later. The couple kept in touch after Aman’s release from prison and subsequent move to Cairo in 2021, but have drifted apart for various reasons. Intending to return to Gaza in late 2023, the war caused Aman to change his plans.

“When I first started working for Gaza from abroad, I felt strong and free, and I regained my energy,” he said. “With the outbreak of the war, I began to feel stuck. I couldn’t call on people to demonstrate to end the war while I was on Facebook. People in Gaza trusted me because I was always the first to demonstrate against Hamas, from 2011 until before I left Gaza. If I were in Gaza, I would certainly demonstrate, even for an hour every day, to end the war. Then I would call on people to demonstrate while I was on the street.”

While he would prefer to be in Gaza, Aman said technology has helped GYC’s activism greatly, even before he had to leave his homeland.

“From 2007 until now, Israel has consistently imposed blockades on the residents of the Gaza Strip,” he explained, “while Hamas remained unaffected by any crises and received hundreds of millions of dollars with the help of the Qataris and [Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin] Netanyahu, in addition to Hamas’s control over travel through the Rafah crossing.

“The real blockade was imposed on us in the Gaza Youth Committee and the majority of Palestinians, so we used Skype and Zoom to communicate with our friends and partners outside Gaza, the most famous of which was the Skype with Your Enemy initiative in 2014.

“We also organized hundreds of meetings that helped introduce me to the world and led several organizations to extend invitations to visit them abroad. I traveled to India because of these meetings, which led to me meeting with the Dalai Lama. A few months ago, I was in Europe to speak about Gaza in several European cities.

“Most of the news coming from media outlets and news agencies will not present the truth to anyone, and it is better to communicate directly with the people in Gaza,” said Aman. “Israel has not provided us with permits to enter the West Bank and Jerusalem. Since 2010, the Israeli authorities have only granted me a 12-hour permit to attend a workshop in 2014 and permits to transit to Jordan when traveling from Gaza. For me and others, these applications have resulted in the building of a large number of personal friendships that continue to this day because they have been created between people, both Palestinians and Israelis.”

Aman has strong criticisms of the media in general, and Al Jazeera in particular, as well as UNRWA (the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East).

“No Palestinian in Gaza watches Al Jazeera. No Palestinian in Gaza trusts in UNRWA. No Palestinian in Gaza trusts in all of these media,” Aman told UN Watch in an interview earlier this month.

In this atmosphere, the GYC continues its efforts.

“We at the Gaza Youth Committee work to strengthen the capacities of Palestinian youth, develop their skills and create a Palestinian movement from Gaza, the West Bank and the diaspora that expresses the aspirations of the independent Palestinian people,” said Aman. “At the Gaza Youth Committee, we always strive to hold meetings between Palestinians in Gaza and Israelis, helping them respect each other and determine their own fate by implementing joint initiatives and conveying their voices to the Americans and Europeans.

“Before the war,” he said, “we always tried to organize demonstrations to demand that Hamas hold elections, resolve the unemployment and electricity crises, and step back from governing Gaza. Even now, during the war, we are working to direct the people of Gaza to demand an end to the war.”

Aman contends that most Gazans want peace, despite polls that indicate the opposite.

“I don’t believe that much in polls,” he said, “but I understand Palestinian and Israeli public opinion. The two societies have been at war for years and have seen nothing but bloodshed and destruction, and wars only create enemies. Trust was lost before Oct. 7 and the distrust increased after the war.

“I have always believed in the importance of talking to enemies and engaging in dialogue instead of fighting. This is what I do through Zoom and Skype meetings. If there is one Palestinian and one Israeli who believe in a peaceful solution, then there is hope. We need courageous decision-makers who can lead their societies toward peace, not lead them toward fighting, hostage-taking and spreading hatred.”

Given his years of organizing video conferences, Aman said, “I have considerable experience, gained from speaking with thousands of Palestinians and thousands of Israelis. Their beliefs and opinions differ, but the common humanity that unites them always remains. They don’t know each other because of the media, and I believe in what I do and in every person’s right to life and safety, regardless of their religious or political beliefs.”

Working with “the enemy” has become Aman’s life mission. This, despite having been imprisoned and tortured by Hamas, having had loved ones killed or taken away from him by both Israeli forces and Hamas, and his neighbourhood in Gaza being destroyed by Israeli bombs.

“It’s true that, as a person, I suffer every day from this news and all the memories,” he admitted. “In addition to what Hamas did to me, it was horrific and psychologically and physically painful. However, there are people around me from whom I get this energy, and I always feel that I must be their partner in promoting dialogue and respect between Palestinians and Israelis.

“With every loss of a person, I always feel that they are advising me to continue my path and take care of their children,” he said. “Therefore, in my activities, I always aim to help families and individuals I know well, and I don’t want them to feel that I am far away from them. That is why I do my best to make their voices heard and that is from where my sense of responsibility for this matter comes.”

Aman is certain there are partners for peace on both sides.

“I consider myself a partner to any Israeli who seeks peace and an end to the war,” he said. “I know that there are Israelis who consider themselves peace partners with the Palestinians. I know Palestinians and Israelis who have lost their children and parents and still believe in peace, so that no more victims fall.”

He stressed the need to stand together.

“Our voices must unite to stop the war, free the Israeli hostages, protect the Palestinians in Gaza and help them rebuild their society,” he said. “We must find 50 Palestinian and Israeli leaders who will work to bring Palestinians and Israelis together.”

As Aman responded to the Independent’s questions, he said Israel Defence Forces tanks were “stationed hundreds of metres away from where my family and friends are. But I always know,” he said, “that life exists and so does death. Anyone can be the next hope and anyone can be the next victim.”

More unenforced laws?

Rumours were that the federal government was about to table “bubble zone” legislation last week, which, if passed, would have criminalized protests in specific locations such as places of worship, community centres and schools.

That didn’t happen.

While the almost-proposed legislation was to be universal in terminology, there were few doubts that its intent was really to limit protests at synagogues, Jewish community centres and Jewish day schools. This was a response to concerns from Jewish organizations about persistent and often aggressive targeting at community institutions.

Bill C-9, which saw first reading Sept. 19, proposes amending the Criminal Code to add new hate-related offences and to criminalize obstruction or intimidation that prevents people from accessing certain places, like those mentioned. It does not include the “bubble zone” provision, at least not as most advocates had envisioned it. It would proscribe not mere “protests” but criminal behaviours such as obstructing or intimidating people accessing community spaces. However, if such obstruction or intimidation is already criminal behaviour, we’re not sure why new legislation is needed. In fact, this is the larger issue with this whole approach.

The so-called “bubble zone” idea was mooted alongside another piece of legislation being considered. In the last Parliament, the Liberal government had proposed an online harms bill that was wide-reaching, emphasizing content that could lead, for example, to young people self-harming, but also addressing racist ideas that foment hatred. This died on the order paper when the election was called, as all incomplete legislation does.

Both of these proposals elicited concerns from civil libertarians, and rightly so. The right to free expression, while not as unrestrained in Canada as it is in the United States, is, we assume most Canadians agree, a sacrosanct characteristic of Canadian society. Canadians also, though, have tended to accept some limitations on individual expression for what is perceived as the greater good. For example, limiting hateful commentary in the interest of intercultural harmony.

In the case of the bubble zone approach, there is at least one court case that will presumably help determine the balance between free expression and the ability of identifiable groups to be protected from harassment. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association is challenging a municipal bubble zone bylaw in Vaughan, Ont. Some commentators believe the bylaw – and, by extension, the concept – will be determined to be excessive and an unnecessary impediment to legitimate protest under Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

One’s hearts and minds can be at odds on this issue, as they can be on so many things. The infuriating and deliberately taunting protests we have seen adjacent Jewish institutions belies the idea, in many cases, that these protests and protesters are always operating in good faith. But people being deliberately provocative and mean isn’t the legal litmus test here.

While the Liberal party made commitments during last spring’s federal election to introduce bubble zone legislation, we do not fault them for awaiting relevant legal decisions. (If we fault them, it would be on making promises in a campaign that they might have known would be subject to Charter challenge.) Here, though, we come back to what we consider the larger issue: we already have laws.

The Criminal Code has prohibitions against harassment, incitement to hatred, uttering threats, intimidation, mischief motivated by hate targeting religious property, schools, community centres and so on. And yet, too often these laws act neither as a deterrent nor as a form of accountability and consequences, perhaps because they don’t seem to be enforceable or enforced. For example, it has been noted that police hesitate to recommend charges because Crown prosecutors don’t lay charges. Crown doesn’t recommend charges, we are told, because they have wasted too many resources on cases courts throw out.

A particular case that has upset and disturbed Jewish community members involves a Vancouver woman who led a shameful chant of “Long live October 7” and called the perpetrators of those atrocities “heroic and brave.”

This case seems, to many of us, an example of incitement to hatred. And yet, no charges have been laid, a reality that some observers have attributed to a lack of political will at the top of the province’s law enforcement bureaucracy – that is, the attorney general’s office.

When a case like this languishes for more than a year without charges, is the problem the people in charge, or the system more broadly? Given the multiplicity of laws already on the books, is the answer to this problem more laws? Or is the problem something related to the human, political and judicial forces that are responsible for enforcing and judging those laws that leads to frustration in communities like ours?

This is the national conversation we would like to see as the new-ish Parliament approaches these topics in the coming weeks.

It’s important to vote

You may have received anxious emails or other messages from friends in the last few days. Throughout the community, there is concern about a Vote Palestine campaign for Monday’s federal election. Emails and social media posts are flying.

However wrongheaded you may think this advocacy campaign is, its proponents are doing exactly what they should be doing during an election campaign. They are highlighting the issues that are important to them and encouraging others to support them. You may disagree with the approach and policies, but there is nothing fundamentally different in what they are doing from what plenty of Jews and community organizations are doing right now.

The Vote Palestine campaign is an initiative of several groups of usual suspects, including Independent Jewish Voices and other anti-Israel groups. The platform, which federal election candidates can choose to endorse, calls for a two-way arms embargo on Israel; ending Canadian support for settlements (whatever that means); combating anti-Palestinian racism and protecting pro-Palestine speech; recognizing the state of Palestine; and funding Gaza relief efforts, including through UNRWA, the controversial UN body that has been at the centre of this conflict for almost 80 years.

By press time, 124 New Democrats, 44 Greens and 13 Liberals had endorsed this platform. Given that there are 343 electoral districts in the country and the three largest parties are running candidates in almost every seat, the number of endorsers should be, frankly, a bit of an embarrassment for the campaign’s organizers. Almost all the endorsers are candidates for the New Democratic and Green parties. Of the Liberals who have signed on, just one is in British Columbia: West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky Country incumbent MP Patrick Weiler.

Most of the candidates who have endorsed the campaign and its platform are unlikely to be elected. That, though, is largely beside the point. The issue, we believe, is not the Vote Palestine campaign, but our community’s overwrought reaction. It is a symptom of a particular sort of impulse that seems to believe people do not have a right to raise issues in an election campaign in the manner that the Vote Palestine organizers are doing.

Though they may not have come across your social media feeds or in other ways to capture your attention, there are probably scores of organizations right now campaigning for or against policies that are important to you. Many organizations are encouraging Canadians to vote based on candidates’ positions on such things as the climate crisis, taxes, housing, and the cost-of-living. Agree or disagree with the positions, many of these campaigns fulfil an important civic purpose, assuming they comply with our country’s election laws around third-party advocacy spending.

The next time you receive an email or catch wind of some sort of advocacy campaign that you disagree with, here is how you should respond: take the anger and energy that you would otherwise direct into sharing your outrage with your friends and family and redirect it instead to something positive, a result you desire and hope to achieve.

Here are a few ideas …

Find out which of your local candidates share your values on the issues most important to you. If you find one that suits you, express your support. Get a lawn sign to let your neighbours know who you support. Donate to their campaign.

Offer to volunteer – it’s not too late! Election day is the most intense time in a campaign. You can drive voters to the polls or otherwise help your preferred candidate. (Check out cjpac.ca for more info.)

Ensure that friends and family go out to vote. Contact them over the weekend to make sure they plan to cast a ballot.

On Monday, message or telephone everyone you know who agrees with you on the issues most important to you and make sure they have voted. Suggest they block out at least an hour or maybe two or even three – advance voting statistics tell us Canadians are deeply engaged this election, so high turnout is expected. Prepare for lineups. Bring water and snacks for yourself and your neighbours in line.

Check the voting card you received in the mail to confirm your polling place so you know where to go on election day. If you did not receive a card in the mail, go to elections.ca right now and ensure you are registered to vote.

Democracy is threatened in countless places around the world. Voting is a right and a privilege we should never take for granted.

Meanwhile, as we know from the flurry of messages making their way around the community in the past few days, people who may disagree with you are planning to vote. They are organized and ready to mobilize. The most important thing you can do in response is to make the trek to your polling place and mark a single X on a ballot.

Test of Bill 22 a failure

A small cluster of anti-Israel activists protested outside the Jewish Community Centre of Greater Vancouver last week, apparently assuming incorrectly that an Israeli diplomat was in the building. Regardless of the motivations, the protest was against the law. And police did not enforce the law.

In May of last year, the provincial government passed Bill 22, the Safe Access to Schools Act, which includes provisions known as “bubble zone” legislation. The law prohibits protests that could interfere with or threaten students in schools or engaged in formal school activities off school premises. In other words, if there is a class field trip, say, to the Vancouver Aquarium, it would be illegal for protesters against cetacean captivity to protest there.

Students from King David High School routinely use the gymnasium and other facilities at the JCC. They were there when the protesters were outside. And there was another formal program taking place in the building involving elementary school students. In other words, the law set out under Bill 22 was undeniably broken. (The existing legislation affects only public and private elementary and secondary schools, so the fact that there is a permanent childcare facility in the JCC does not mean protests of the premises are universally prohibited.)

This is a relatively new law, less than a year old, but, of course, police are required to be aware of legislation as it emerges or is amended. It was not, for example, the responsibility of the JCC or others in the building to notify the police that the law was being broken.

At a minimum, police should have ascertained whether there were school programs happening at the JCC and, discovering that there were, informed the protesters that they were in contravention of Bill 22 and ordered them to disperse.

One can agree or disagree with the law, based on free expression. But the law exists and the protesters were breaking it.

This incident speaks to a larger problem.

In recent years, there has been discussion about the need to address online hatred and harassment. Last year, a federal online harms proposal, known as Bill C-63, met with concerns on civil liberties grounds and underwent significant amendments, including being broken into two separate bills. Both bills died on the order paper when the federal election was called last month.

As commentators pointed out during that debate, Canada already has laws prohibiting expressions of hatred and harassment. Should it matter whether those expressions happen online or in person? And, while elected officials are busy passing new laws, existing laws that might remedy the problems they are trying to address are going unenforced.

There are problems in our legal system. Occasionally, police will defend their actions (or inaction, as the current case may be), complaining that when they recommend charges to the prosecution service, the prosecution service does not pursue them.

In turn, prosecutors sometimes contend that courts, too often, do not convict. In each case, it is an example of one level of the system blaming the one above for inaction.

While governments need to step gently and seriously around the danger of political interference in policing, prosecution and the judiciary, it is unequivocally governments – primarily provincial and federal – who have the responsibility for setting guidelines around things like hate speech and harassment. Governments need to send a message to police, prosecutors and courts that we, as a society, take these issues seriously. We do not send that message when a clear breach of the law results in no consequences whatsoever.

From the perspective of the Jewish community, what happened at the JCC last week may have been the first test of Bill 22’s efficacy. It was a failure.

Considering that clear violation of provincial law, British Columbia’s Attorney General Niki Sharma has an obligation to explain what went wrong. She would also do well to reiterate (or iterate) that the government takes seriously harassment of Jewish students. (Harassment of the broader Jewish community is also a serious concern, but there seems to be a societal consensus that young people deserve greater protections from this sort of behaviour.)

If police will not enforce the law because they do not believe prosecutors will press charges, we need to address, as a society, this problem in the system. If prosecutors will not act because they have been dissuaded by courts that won’t convict, then we need to educate the judiciary or amend the laws.

Reviving civil discourse

Heterodox Academy is a nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting viewpoint diversity, open inquiry and constructive debate in higher education. It works to counter ideological conformity on campuses by providing research, resources and programming that foster an environment where diverse perspectives are welcomed and critically examined.

If that sounds like what a university is intended to be, says one local professor, it’s a commentary on the state of contemporary campuses that such an organization is necessary to encourage the academy to live up to its principles.

Dr. Rachel Altman, associate professor in the statistics and actuarial science department at Simon Fraser University, is one of the campus co-chairs of the Heterodox Academy chapter at SFU.

“Heterodox Academy is an organization that fosters free, open inquiry and free discussion even about controversial issues,” she said. “It’s not just about freedom of speech. It’s also about our conduct, the way we have these conversations. I think that’s what really distinguishes it from the general free speech advocacy groups.”

photo - Dr. Rachel Altman is one of the campus co-chairs of the Heterodox Academy chapter at Simon Fraser University — Dr. Rachel Altman is one of the campus co-chairs of the Heterodox Academy chapter at Simon Fraser University. *(photo from SFU)*

Heterodox Academy provides guidelines that urge interlocutors to present their case with evidence, bring data when possible, assume the best of one’s opponent and be intellectually humble, among other principles.

HxA, as it is shorthanded, offers events, conferences, resources and other materials that “try to teach our society, especially within academia, how to interact in a productive and civilized way, even when we disagree,” she said.

These tools are intended to help bridge the divide between the ideal of a university and the reality of creating a dynamic marketplace of ideas.

“Just because we have it in our head that in the academy we should be able to discuss anything in a civilized way doesn’t mean we actually know how to do it,” she said. “They provide tools and modeling of those tools to actually teach people how to be civilized.”

The HxA chapter at SFU emerged after a group of scholars got together because they were concerned about the state of academic freedom at the university. They founded the SFU Academic Freedom Group.

Within a few months of that group’s founding, Heterodox Academy launched its Campus Community Program, recognizing chapters on individual campuses. Some SFU professors applied and were accepted among the first chapters chartered.

“We hosted a so-called Heterodox Conversation event this past September,” she said. “That’s a model developed by HxA where you invite two people who have different views on a topic and they sit down and have a conversation with the model [called] the Heterodox Way and then the audience gets involved and we have a group discussion.”

The topic of that dialogue was “The purpose of today’s Canadian universities.”

“The timing was perfect because, just the previous week, our president had issued a statement on institutional neutrality,” she said, referring to an announcement by SFU’s president, Joy Johnson, on maintaining an environment where scholarly inquiry remains unbiased by partisan agendas. “For me, I was celebrating like crazy, but there were others on campus who were very unhappy.”

Altman can’t say whether the Heterodox Academy chapter or the SFU Academic Freedom Group deserve credit for the president’s statement or for other recent developments she and her colleagues view as positive.

“I’m a statistician, so I rarely claim causation,” she said wryly. “I’m very conservative that way. But I think so.”

The groups are comparatively small, but they may be having an outsized impact.

“Everybody knows about us,” she said. “The administration clearly knows and it’s just been so gratifying to see the change in the whole tenor of the administration’s approaches over the last couple of years. It’s a clear change.”

Numbers may remain relatively small, Altman suspects, because of a false perception of their group.

“We are consistently being cast as this right-wing, conservative group and it’s not true,” she said. “We have people across the political spectrum in the group. It is a nonpartisan group.”

The idea that academic freedom and institutional neutrality are right-wing positions, she said, is belied, for example, by the gay rights movement, which emerged in the 1960s, in part thanks to the viewpoint diversity of campuses.

It is not a coincidence, Altman believes, that several HxA members, including herself, are Jewish.

“Jews have a long tradition of arguing and debating in a civilized way, the whole ‘two Jews, three opinions’ thing,” she said. “Jews are just a natural fit with the HxA model.”

In contrast, the equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) model that has become increasingly prevalent on North American campuses in recent years is antithetical both to the academic ideal and to Jews, she argued.

“For some Jews like myself, I realized very early on that the EDI ideology that’s become so predominant in academia and elsewhere, that it was terrible for Jews,” she said. “This model of the oppressed and the oppressor, it didn’t work. Jews did not fit into that mold.”

EDI is the opposite of what it claims to be, said Altman.

“I think it’s exclusionary, it discriminates against groups,” she said. “It’s antithetical to everything I believe in because I truly believe in inclusion and anti-discrimination.… I was very unhappy about the rise of the EDI ideology and, in my groups of people who are also similarly concerned about that ideology, I think Jews are overrepresented. That would suggest I’m not the only Jewish person who sees the fundamental conflict, the contradictions in the EDI ideology.”

Altman said few people would openly admit they oppose academic freedom.

“Really, it becomes about the definition of academic freedom,” she said. “When I say I support academic freedom, that’s the end of my sentence. What I look for when I’m talking to people is the ‘but’ that can follow. ‘Of course, I support academic freedom, but … there are limits.’ Things like that.”

In some cases, Altman thinks, this equivocation comes from a lack of understanding around the core principles of academic freedom.

“But then, there are some people who truly want to change the foundation of the term, the concept,” she said. “They truly believe that we should have limits on both our academic freedom and our freedom of expression more generally.”

In addition to the SFU branch, Heterodox Academy has a chapter at the University of British Columbia, Okanagan. While there are some HxA members at the Vancouver campus of UBC, Altman said, there is not yet an official chapter there.

For more information, visit heterodoxacademy.org.

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.

Online harms mooted

A federal bill to address online harassment, bullying and hate has aspects to admire and others to cause concern. What happens in the committee process will determine the success of the proposed law.

That is the take of two experts – including one who had a hand in drafting the legislation. The devil, as always, is in the details of balancing free expression with the right to be free from threats and harassment.

Dr. Michael Geist, the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, who also serves on the advisory board of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, was joined in a recent online panel by Dr. Emily Laidlaw, Canada Research Chair in Cybersecurity Law and associate professor in the faculty of law at the University of Calgary. Her recent work includes projects on online harms, misinformation and disinformation, and she co-chaired the expert group that advised the federal government on the development of the Online Harms Bill, which is known as Bill C-63. The virtual panel, on April 17, was presented by the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs and moderated by Richard Marceau, CIJA’s vice-president, external affairs, and general counsel. More than 850 people registered for the event, indicating what CIJA board chair Gail Adelson-Marcovitz indicated is a depth of interest, and perhaps concern, about the bill.

Geist explained that the new bill is a result of years of work, following the federal government’s withdrawal of an earlier attempt at addressing the problem of online harms.

Bill C-63 is really three separate concepts rolled into one. It would amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code, as well as introduce a new Online Harms Bill. Together, the components would codify currently inconsistent approaches to the problems.

The bill would redefine “hatred” in the Criminal Code and define a new crime of “offence motivated by hatred.” That offence, as well as advocating or promoting genocide, could lead to life imprisonment.

Amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act would add the “communication of hate speech” via the internet or other telecommunication technology as a discriminatory practice. Individuals would be empowered to bring a complaint before the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which could penalize offenders up to $50,000. The law, if passed, would affect public communications, like social media posts, not private messaging or emails.

Separate components of the bill would make it easier and quicker to address specific offensive content, such as “revenge porn” and posts that could harm children, encourage suicide or bullying or otherwise endanger young people.

A digital safety commissioner and ombudsperson would help guide individuals through the process of dealing with bullying or other issues related to the law.

image - On April 17, Dr. Michael Geist of the University of Ottawa spoke as part of a CIJA panel discussion on the Online Harms Bill — On April 17, Dr. Michael Geist of the University of Ottawa spoke as part of a CIJA panel discussion on the Online Harms Bill. *(screenshot)*

Geist said many legal experts who seek to balance freedom of speech with freedom from abuse “breathed a sigh of relief” after the federal government abandoned earlier efforts and relied for the new bill on expert advice.

“It’s a pretty good starting point,” Geist said. “We know the broad brushstrokes of what that might include but there is a lot of uncertainty still, so it’s easy to like it when we don’t know the specifics.”

Geist and Laidlaw agreed on most points but had some differences around oversight. Geist said the bill appears to grant enormous powers to a new digital safety commissioner. The idea of life imprisonment for an online comment, he added, may be a sticking point. “I find that hard to justify,” he said.

Laidlaw said the new office of ombudsperson is an important step in helping individuals navigate online hate and harassment. The ombudsperson would be able to pass specific information on to the digital safety commission, whose mandate includes education and research supported by a digital safety office.

The bill would also place new obligations on corporations that run online platforms, like social media companies. At present, Laidlaw said, some companies, notably X (Twitter), are not taking the problem very seriously.

While Jewish advocacy organizations have long advocated for legal responses to hate speech, Geist warned of a double-edge sword.

“Could somebody who is supportive of Israel will be accused of promoting genocide?” he asked.

Geist upended the binary assumption of harassment and free expression, noting that the idea that limits on hate speech could chill expression ignores the existing, difficult-to-measure effects of online (as well as offline) harassment and bullying.

“There is already a chilling effect for anyone in our community and, frankly, in a number of communities, that speaks out on these issues,” he said. “The backlash that you invariably face causes, I think, many people to [reconsider] whether they want to step out and comment, and it’s not just online. There’s a chilling effect offline as well. These issues are very real and many of them will not be solved by legislation no matter what the legislation says.”

He fears a barrage of complaints, many vexatious, from all sides of many contentious issues.

While there is a needle-in-a-haystack challenge in addressing online harms, Geist said, addressing the problematic major players could have a broad impact, though no one believes online hate and bullying can be completely eradicated.

“The legislation talks about mitigating these harms, it doesn’t talk about eliminating them,” he said. Social media platforms, he believes, are looking for guidance on these issues and will be amenable to adhering to legislation. Moreover, he said, Canada’s proposals are somewhat belated responses that would put us roughly in line with the European Union, Australia, the United Kingdom and other jurisdictions.

image - Dr. Emily Laidlaw of the University of Calgary, who joined the CIJA panel discussion on April 17 — Dr. Emily Laidlaw of the University of Calgary, who joined the CIJA panel discussion on April 17. (screenshot)

The inability to erase hate and harassment is not an excuse to do nothing, Laidlaw said.

“Enforcement has always been an issue,” she said. “But I don’t think it’s a reason not to pass laws.”

Laidlaw took exception to criticism that the new bill would represent government censorship. The proposed digital safety commissioner would be an independent body comparable with the existing privacy commissioner.

“Where there is some risk is in the fact that, in the end, government appoints the individuals,” she said. Still, the appointees would need to be approved by Parliament, not just the government in office.

“And remember,” she added, the commissioner’s “oversight is of companies, not of individuals. They’re not making individual content decisions or holding individuals accountable here.”

The commission would not be subject to legal rules of evidence, making it possible to immediately take down things such as child porn, encouraging suicide or other especially egregious posts.

Geist said this significant power demands that the government spell out more clearly the limitations of the commission.

“At a minimum, it seems to me that it is incumbent on the government to flesh out in far more detail where the limits, where the guardrails, are around the commission, so that we aren’t basically adopting a ‘trust us’ approach with respect to the commission,” said Geist.

Parliament is expected to take up consideration of the bill in committee soon and Laidlaw argued that some aspects deserve speedy passage while others require far more sober consideration.

“The Online Harms Bill could be passed with minor tinkering,” she said. The Criminal Code provisions, she said, give her serious concerns and deserve major revisions or complete scrapping. She also struggles with changing the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Geist agreed on taking the bill apart.

“I would separate out the bill,” he said. Criminal Code and Human Rights Act amendments deserve much deeper consideration, he said. The online harms piece, he said, could be tidied up and passed with tweaks.

Universities have obligations

My mom left Brooklyn, NY, to attend Cornell University in the early 1960s at age 16. Among other things, women students had nighttime curfews. This type of legal responsibility or intervention, called in loco parentis (in place of a parent), was common, but, by the time my mother graduated, in the mid-1960s, times had changed. Curfews became a thing of the past.

When I got to Cornell in the 1990s, some things were the same. Cornell impressed upon its new students that “actions have consequences” and that “with rights and privileges come responsibilities.” That is, you were privileged to be there. If you did something stupid, you were held responsible. All this hit me while watching North American college campuses’ turmoil since the Oct. 7 Hamas massacre of Israelis.

I have a front row seat to the drama. My husband is a professor in Manitoba. Between the two of us, we have six degrees from five different universities. We’ve got insider knowledge. I watched some of the behaviour on campuses with horror during the first days after the attack, including seeing Dr. Russell Rickford, a Cornell professor, speak of his “exhilaration” in response to Hamas’s actions. I’m not listing all of the concerning antisemitic events that continue to occur at North American universities. We’re all seeing it on social media and the news.

The first good news I read was from an article written by Rob Eshman in the Forward, which covered Dartmouth University’s response. Dartmouth is a small school. Its academic experts on the Middle East collaborated quickly. On Oct. 9, they announced two public teach-ins, with expectations of a small crowd. Hundreds attended, and there were thousands of YouTube views. What’s the primary responsibility of a university? To educate and encourage students to be critical thinkers. Dartmouth rose to the challenge.

There are other universities following this educational approach, with mixed results. Some universities don’t have the academic firepower or the will to provide an appropriately diverse panel of experts. Some attempts have been derailed by harassment or protest. Other institutions have made poor educational efforts by platforming only one side (usually the pro-Hamas/genocide/apartheid side) of the conversation.

Most professors are evaluated for their performance and tenure on several measures: teaching, research and service. To do these aspects of their job, many feel that free speech is essential and that, while the university employs them, the administration may not hamper their speech as it pertains to teaching or research. Since early October, many professors have felt stifled when expressing their political views, particularly when it comes to anti-Israel political rhetoric about the war.

I recently read a Canadian university faculty union’s stance. The document stated all members had a right to academic freedom and free expression and the union would defend that. However, that right comes with “the responsibility to respect the rights and freedoms of others” and “does not confer legal immunity from hate speech and other violations of the law.” It also doesn’t protect a professor from criticism or condemnation from others.

This document reminds academic professionals what I was taught as an undergraduate: actions have consequences, and they must take responsibility for any consequences that may occur.

Many Jewish students are being physically harassed, verbally assaulted and intimidated on college campuses. Some universities are trying to take action. Cornell had a situation where a student made death threats towards Jewish students at the kosher dining hall. The FBI was quickly involved, the student was arrested. Soon after, the president of the university and the New York State governor sat down to eat in that dining hall with students. Rickford, the professor who spoke out about the Hamas attack as an exhilarating sign of liberation, is now on leave.

Other US universities have responded with less force. Some, like George Washington University, suspended student groups who used pro-Hamas rhetoric. Others, for example, MIT, have suspended students who participate in violent or disruptive protest from all non-academic activities. There are efforts to offer antisemitism education and awareness at some universities. Hillel, the Jewish student organization on many American and Canadian campuses, offers support and advocacy for struggling Jewish students.

Universities now also face legal action when they fail to protect Jewish students. The US Department of Education is opening investigations of antisemitism (and Islamophobia) at US schools such as Cornell, Columbia, Cooper Union, University of Pennsylvania and Wellesley College. There’s a lawsuit being brought against McGill in Montreal, with support from B’nai Brith Canada, and the University of British Columbia, York University, Toronto Metropolitan University and Queen’s University have had class action lawsuits filed against them for alleged antisemitic incidents.

Where does this lead? Consider again the notion that actions have consequences. In some widely circulated video clips, university students or professors scream obscenities and tear down posters of kidnapped victims of the Hamas attack. Some cover their faces; others sneer at the camera. Sometimes, a student is seized by regret later and begs others not to post the images. These choices, caught on video and distributed online, may affect students’ careers forever – and I think that’s OK.

Yes, university students are often (but not always) still adolescents. Perhaps, according to the research, their brains are still developing and they have poor impulse control. But they are also adults in our society. These are people who legally drink, drive, vote and fight in wars. These students are old enough to work, marry and have kids. With all these rights and also the privilege of attending university, they have the responsibility to behave appropriately. Think you might be embarrassed to be caught vandalizing posters of missing persons? Don’t do it.

University leadership and professors have an important role to play “in loco parentis.” It appears many have forgotten this. Students attend universities to get an education, to become critical thinkers and to contribute to leading and shaping our future society. They deserve more than “free speech” from their teachers. They need to learn multiple perspectives, history and policy, and that includes understanding nuance.

While most universities no longer impose curfews or other restrictions, professors owe it to their students to be mentors and role models. Professors should be upstanding community members beyond academic research and teaching. They should behave with integrity. The obligation to do service means different things in various academic disciplines, but, in every case, professors shape the next generation’s professionals beyond giving exams and classroom lectures. Teaching students how they should behave, with compassion and respect for others, matters.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s OK to speak out. Academic freedom is important, but universities have an obligation, too. They should expect students to behave with dignity and respect for the law, even when speaking out. Alumni can pressure universities to do better, as can lawsuits.

There’s no “one size fits all” answer. However, we should expect that every student should have access to education without discrimination. All students – Jewish and non-Jewish – deserve nothing less.

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. Check her out on Instagram @yrnspinner or at joanneseiff.blogspot.com.

Countering lies and hate

Peter Julian, the New Democrat member of Parliament for New Westminster, recently tabled a bill to address what he suspects are algorithms that encourage online extremism. B’nai Brith’s annual audit of antisemitic incidents, released recently, said three-quarters of antisemitic incidents last year took place online. And, as the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs notes in their Not On My Feed campaign, “Online hate leads to real-world violence.”

Few people would disagree that online hate and incitement are problems. How we confront it – that’s where we get into the weeds.

It is possible to control what people read on the internet – countries like China and Iran have demonstrated that, in anti-democratic and oppressive ways. Democracies like Canada should not join the high-tech book-burning that is internet censorship by government. Governments and regulatory bodies, of course, do have a role, however. Setting parameters for acceptable online behaviour and then enforcing these to the extent possible must be a role authorities take on. Staffing limitations are obviously a challenge, but several precedent-setting cases could send a message to others.

Social media behemoths like Facebook and Twitter should take action where they can to delete the most dangerous incitement. These corporations have proven themselves either incapable, unwilling or incompetent at this task. Governments need to incentivize vigilance by making lack of response financially unsustainable. In Germany and France, for example, social media platforms have 24 hours to take down hate speech or risk fines. Likewise, internet service providers (ISPs) have a responsibility to monitor the independent sites housed on their networks, the places where hate groups recruit and train.

Interventions like these are important, but of limited impact. For example, ISPs are based everywhere and every country has different rules around online content. Even Canada and the United States – countries perhaps as comparable as any two on earth – have dramatically different ideas about limitations on freedom of expression.

Attacking online hate and incitement is a perpetual game of Whac-A-Mole. However, just because a task is difficult does not mean we should shy away from it. On the contrary. We must do more of what is difficult.

We are a mere two generations into a connected civilization. We are still babes in the online woods. Yet, in many ways, we behave as though we are in the world we once knew.

We are no longer in a world of three TV networks and two daily papers. We are on a planet of nearly eight billion people – and anyone with an internet connection has an ability to reach audiences exponentially greater than the most powerful voices of a century ago.

It is simply not possible to effectively police online content – though we are correct to monitor and identify the worst of the worst.

There are two things that democratic societies that seek social peace and coexistence must strive toward. First, we need to empower individuals and organizations to counter untruths with truths. We must make it as easy to access the facts as it is to stumble upon misinformation and disinformation.

Google News, for one, has taken to adding a fact-checking section to their search results pages. The site Snopes.com provides a compendious analysis of online truths and fictions (although it has had its own veracity issues, involving a plagiarism controversy in 2021.) On issues of antisemitism, a veritable constellation of organizations exists to identify and correct misinformation, including HonestReporting, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis (CAMERA) and the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI).

But we also need to attack this problem at the other end, on the “consumer” side. We must do a better job of educating and equipping people in democratic societies to critically discern fact from fiction, news from commentary, legitimate criticism from unfounded bias and hate. In a time when parents and others are concerned that education systems are not effectively teaching what are collectively, if imprecisely, called “the basics,” anyone asking teachers to also become instructors in the complexities of media bias and online incitement is going to come up against preexisting groups calling for more life skills training, more “three Rs,” more economic literacy, more mathematics and science, more physical fitness, etc. There is only so much that can be fit into a six-hour school day.

We live in a time and place where one of the most watched “news” networks routinely feeds falsehoods to viewers, even if a cost of doing business is a legal settlement of $787 million. Those lies led to an insurrection that tested the strength of American democracy more than anything probably since that country’s Civil War. That was an early warning signal for every democracy about the price of disinformation. We cannot hope this problem goes away, because what is likely to go away in such a scenario are our most cherished societal values.

We must do more of everything we are already doing. We must confront and contest the lies and hatred online (and in other media). We must allocate our philanthropic funds to organizations that counter lies and incitement. We must include everywhere we can – in formal and informal educational settings – lessons on identifying facts from falsehoods.

In an online world where conflict and hatred get algorithmic kicks to the front of the line, we must teach the young (and the older and less tech-savvy) to value that which unifies and enriches. In the simplest formulation, we need to remind our children, our grandchildren and ourselves of that old truism: don’t believe everything you hear or read.