Canada prides itself on being a country where free expression is a core value. We have always differed from our American cousins, though, in recognizing a balance between an “anything goes” right to speech and the contending right of individuals and groups to live free from fear and incitement.
Canadian law draws definite lines. Speech that incites violence against an identifiable group, that promotes hatred or that crosses into criminal harassment is not protected. Those limits are not theoretical – they exist precisely because history has shown what can happen when words move from expression into incitement.
Even as governments take steps towards legislation that would create “bubble zones” and strengthen hate crime laws, many Canadians Jews are concerned that limitations already set out in law, intended to protect minority communities, are not being enforced. Rhetoric like “Globalize the intifada,” which is heard as an overt call for violence against Jews by most Jews and other people who can hear clearly, is going uncontested by police and courts, for example.
The Criminal Code is clear: advocating or promoting violence against identifiable groups crosses a line. The question is no longer whether such limits exist. The question is whether they are being enforced. And, increasingly, the answer appears to be no.
What we are seeing is not simply robust debate. It is a climate in which harassment and intimidation are proliferating, often without legal consequence.
There are, of course, consequences. Jewish institutions require heightened security after so many incidents that it is hard to keep up with the grim news. Students and faculty experience actively hostile campus environments. Public demonstrations brazenly cross the line between protest, provocation and hate.
There is no provable causal chain between rhetoric and violence. Democracies are right to err on the side of speech. But, when the same language, the same slogans and the same patterns of escalation appear alongside an unprecedented rise in hate incidents and targeted attacks, the correlation becomes increasingly difficult to dismiss – and demands attention.
Canada is not alone in confronting this tension. The British authorities have begun to draw firmer lines – distinguishing between lawful protest and language and conduct that threatens public safety or targets vulnerable communities.
The approach is not without controversy. It raises legitimate concerns about overreach and the risk of suppressing dissent. But it also reflects a recognition that inaction carries its own dangers.
Canada is facing a similar showdown.
The goal must not be to silence political views, however unpopular. Or to criminalize protest or suppress debate about complex international issues. Those must remain protected. The goal must be far narrower – to enforce the laws that already exist and to ensure that calls for violence,harassment and intimidation are treated as such, regardless of political context. To make clear that free expression does not extend to threatening the safety and dignity of others.
This is a position that seems simple enough, even unquestioned, when it comes to hateful language and physical intimidation against other vulnerable populations. The situation is serious and it demands the willingness to confront uncomfortable truths.
Canada should not abandon its commitment to free expression. But we must recognize, as we always have, that free expression has limits – and that those limits exist for a reason. In this instance, the reason is the evident correlation between rampant anti-Israel, antizionist and antisemitic rhetoric and the violence against Jews and Jewish institutions we are experiencing.
The government of the United Kingdom is now experimenting in enforcing limitations on hate expression. It is a courageous step. It could also be a turning point – in either direction.
The inevitable pushback around “silencing” (itself often founded on antisemitic tropes of Jewish power) and the more legitimate concerns about free speech make this a fraught policy area. However, if the UK, which shares much of our political culture, can find a middle ground, we would be wise to pay attention.
If, on the other hand, more violent protests, adverse court decisions or – more damagingly – if the government suffers internal splits or popular disapproval over its approach to anti-Jewish harassment, it could set a precedent in which politicians in places like Canada learn that it is best not to provoke the harassers. If that happens, it will signal an open season for anti-Jewish agitation and an extraordinary abandonment of free speech’s twin core value of being able to live free from fear and incitement.
What is needed right now is political courage. Some of that exists, but it needs to exist in a sufficient number of decision-makers and in the places of power where it is most needed and can have the most effect. For better or worse, we will know if this is the case soon enough.
Recently, my kids walked home from high school latebecause of their games club, which meets once a week. On their way, they saw a man on the sidewalk, coming from a pedestrian trail. He wore a sign on his back that read, “Netanyahu, Butcher of Gaza.” They hung back, took photos and alerted me when they got home.
Here’s a good reason to give Jewish teens access to cellphones. I used the “Find My” app to watch them walk home. They used the phone to document this. We found this signage offensive and upsetting, but it hadn’t been an emergency incident, so they didn’t use their phones to call 911.
I reported this incident to B’nai Brith Canada, who suggested also filing a police report. Over dinner, we discussed the sign. Was this antisemitism or just free speech, when using the IHRA definition of antisemitism? Is the test for this, “Would anyone reasonably use this kind of language about other countries’ publicly elected officials?” The answer for us was, “Well, yes.” We don’t approve of it, but, in 2022, we heard all this as part of the truckers’ convoy that came through Winnipeg. They parked (and honked) at the provincial legislature, close enough to our home so we saw their signs and hateful rhetoric.
I Googled the phrase on the man’s sign. Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan started using this phrase in November 2023. It’s been used repeatedly in the last 2.5 years of the Gaza conflict. Knowing a phrase’s “origin story” doesn’t make it less virulent. It still didn’t feel OK. Something can be legal, but also shameful, wrong or antisocial, bad behaviour.
As a family, we debated whether we should do a police report. In Winnipeg, it’s not that easy to report something like this. There’s an online form, but it specifically rejects claims due to hate crimes or speech. In situations like this, there is calling 911 to report it or going downtown to the only police station that takes these reports. We chose to leave this one up to B’nai Brith, but the situation remained fresh and upsetting.
First, there’s the debate over whether something hateful and harmful is illegal or immediately dangerous. Our city’s police service is overburdened. Everyone in Winnipeg has heard of someone who has called the cops and been told that, unless the situation was life threatening, no police would show up. This means that squatters without life-threatening weapons aren’t immediately tossed out of vacant homes – but then the homes catch on fire. In one awful case, a panicked teen, trying to protect his grandmother, called the police during a home invasion. He was killed before the police arrived. This horrific incident puts our hate-signage sighting in perspective.
Second, though, is the question of whether we (Jewish people) or teens walking home from school deserve to feel safe. This man wasn’t walking in front of a consulate or legislature in protest. He was near multiple schools, a library, a synagogue, several churches, a hospital and a care home. If bubble legislation existed in Canada or in Winnipeg, it would have been possible to report this and expect a police response. As things stand, it didn’t seem forthcoming.
This incident reminded me of a conversation I had at Kiddush lunch at synagogue. A Jewish family at our table insisted, in alarm, that Bill C-9 (the one for federal bubble legislation) would interfere with their right to free speech. I asked how often they wrote for the press or how this risked interference with their current modes of protest. I asked if they felt that their right to protest was in jeopardy. When I Googled them later, I found that they don’t write widely. Their names don’t appear in the news regarding protests. Their right to free speech or protest was likely not being threatened in any way. It seems they had fallen prey to misinformation. At the table, I brought up multiple incidents that our children face as they leave a public school and walk home past our congregation.
When a protester is outside the synagogue just after school lets out, the police say that it’s public space. The protest is allowed, even though the signage blocks the sidewalk. Kids walking by are exposed to potential hate speech, and normalizing hate speech or graffiti can lead to acts of violence. This kind of protest first happened about two years ago, but, this spring, the signage on a man’s jacket left us in the same quandary.
Well-intentioned allies have asked, “Do you feel safe?” or “What can I do?”
The answer to the first question is, “no.” There are a lot of reasons for that. For one thing, I’d like my kids to be able to walk home without feeling threatened or having to dodge protesters or shoot photos.
I regularly encounter non-Jewish Canadians who ask the second question. I try to help them learn more about the issues, so they feel ready to be “upstanders” rather than just “bystanders.” Calling the police, paying privately for huge amounts of security or shielding children from hateful protest shouldn’t be something Jewish Canadians navigate alone. We’re less than 1% of the Canadian population. It’s necessary to educate and mobilize allies to help.
Political “free speech” can be legal and still hateful. A society that speaks up can make change, even if the offender isn’t arrested. Education happens when we say, out loud, that some behaviours are shameful and un-Canadian. Bad behaviour affects all of us. It’s time to find adults willing to speak up. If somebody wants Jews to feel safe in Canada, then the status quo is not what they want either.
Joanne Seiffhas written regularly for the Winnipeg Free Press 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.
I am graduating and, somehow, my school, the University of British Columbia, feels more isolating than ever. This campus prides itself on the ideas of critical thinking and open dialogue. But, right now, it feels like neither is being practised. Instead, I see a culture where misinformation about Israel and the Jewish people spreads easily, where hateful slogans replace dialogue and where Jewish students are intimidated and harassed for expressing their Zionism and connection to Israel as an integral part of their Jewish identity. More than that, it feels like expressing these views comes with a social cost – one that many students quietly calculate before deciding whether it is even worth speaking at all.
I’m a Jewish student at UBC. And I’m done pretending this is normal.
Universities are supposed to be spaces where ideas are tested, challenged and debated openly. My four years at UBC have shown me that certain perspectives are treated as inherently unacceptable before the conversation even begins. If freedom means anything, it must include viewpoints that fall outside dominant campus narratives, including Zionist perspectives.
The role of campus groups and student politics cannot be ignored. UBC Staff for Palestine and the way BDS (boycott, divestment and sanction from Israel) is promoted within spaces like the Alma Mater Society elections are not just frustrating. They reflect a campus environment where hateful and discriminatory movements and campaigns are tolerated and normalized.
While BDS is framed as a progressive, justice-oriented movement, it seeks to end Israel’s existence and strip away Jewish rights to self-determination. If BDS were to achieve its political goals, Israeli Jews would either be killed, ethnically cleansed or forced to live as an oppressed minority. According to an official BDS handbook, campus divestment is merely a “stepping-stone” to larger-scale boycotts and other measures aimed at ending Israel’s existence. This hateful and destructive movement is experienced by most Jewish students as contributing to an environment that marginalizes and endangers the campus community.
At its core, this is where the disconnect becomes impossible to ignore. A movement presented as advancing human rights dismisses the legitimacy of a Jewish homeland altogether. When that position becomes the norm on campus without any serious scrutiny, it is not political activism but the legitimization of hate and exclusion.
It is also worth asking why this issue dominates student political spaces in the first place. In a world full of ongoing conflicts and humanitarian crises, Israel is consistently singled out in student government discourse with false and misleading accusations. It does not feel like a coincidence or a legitimate concern for human rights, but rather a pattern of disproportionate focus that shapes how we are perceived and treated on this campus.
These narratives often leave no room for nuance. There is no space to acknowledge complexity, no willingness to engage with perspectives that don’t fit a predetermined frame, and no recognition that calling for the dismantling of a Jewish homeland has real implications for Jewish students on this campus. BDS, for instance, actively tries to shut down Israeli-Palestinian cooperation and dialogue.
You cannot claim to advocate for justice while erasing the legitimacy of other people’s existence. And yet, that contradiction is increasingly accepted here at UBC.
Students like me are excluded from conversations that directly affect them. Discussions about our own homeland often unfold without any Zionist Jewish perspective present. And, many of us are hesitant to speak up, not because we lack arguments, but because we know how quickly disagreement is shut down or mischaracterized.
And there is one final point that cannot be ignored.
The rhetoric and imagery that have surfaced within anti-Israel activism on this campus go far beyond political critique and cross into something far more disturbing. Slogans, symbols and messaging that frame violence as “resistance” or elevate martyrdom are not abstract ideas. For Jewish students, they are not theoretical – they are deeply personal, and they create a real and growing sense of fear for our safety on campus.
When violence is normalized or even implicitly justified, it sends a message about whose lives are seen as expendable. That is not activism. That is not justice. And it has no place at a university that claims to value safety, inclusion and critical thought. UBC cannot continue to ignore this.
What kind of campus we are willing to accept? One where certain students feel unsafe, unheard and pushed to the margins, or one where difficult conversations happen without crossing the line into dehumanization? Right now, we are closer to the former.
A university should not act as an ideological gatekeeper. Its role is not to decide which perspectives are acceptable, but to ensure that all students can participate in good faith without fear of exclusion or intimidation.
UBC, it’s time to wake up.
Avigail Feldman is a fourth-year student at the University of British Columbia, completing a bachelor’s in political science, and set to begin a master of management. She is also a StandWithUs Canada Emerson Fellow.
As a political science student at the University of British Columbia, I believe fiercely in free expression, open debate and intellectual diversity. I have defended the idea that universities should be places where ideas are rigorously challenged, interrogated and tested against competing visions of the world. But debating controversial ideas is not the same as giving a platform to only one side. It’s not the same as presenting individuals whose speech crosses the line into hate and dehumanization.
Universities are not neutral stages without consequence. They are institutions that make choices, and those choices carry weight. The people a university decides to platform is never incidental. It is a statement of values. It shapes the tone of campus discourse. It sends a message about whose voices are elevated and whose concerns are dismissed. And, in moments of deep political tension, it can determine whether students feel genuinely safe, respected and included, or alienated in their own community.
It is because of these reasons that I am deeply concerned that UBC decided to include Hasan Piker in its America First, America Alone? lecture series.
The Phil Lind Initiative claims to explore global politics in an age of uncertainty. That is an important and timely goal. But the credibility of such a series depends on the seriousness and integrity of its speakers. When a university invites someone whose public commentary has repeatedly included inflammatory, dehumanizing or violent remarks, it undermines the very academic rigour it claims to promote.
US Democratic Congressman Ritchie Torres warned about the amplification of antisemitism on Twitch and specifically in reference to Piker: “Since October 7th, there has been an explosion of Jew-hatred on social media platforms,” Torres wrote. “Hasan Piker has emerged as the poster child for the post-October 7th outbreak of antisemitismin America.”
This is not about disagreement. Universities should host controversial thinkers. They should invite people whose views make us uncomfortable. But there is a difference between complex ideological debate and rhetoric that outright promotes violence, questions the suffering of victims and/or uses language that dehumanizes and endangers entire communities, including marginalized groups.
Piker is not merely a “polarizing” internet personality. He has built a brand around extremist commentary, from justifying 9/11 to repeated attacks on Israel and Zionism that go beyond policy criticism to attacking Jewish identity and calling for the destruction of Israel.
He has compared Zionism to Nazism, a comparison that is as morally distorted as it is historically indefensible. This kind of talk isn’t political critique, it’s erasure. Piker takes Zionism, a movement rooted in Jewish survival and self-determination, and distorts it into the Nazis’ attempt to annihilate us. These are not accidental slips of the tongue. They reflect a consistent pattern of language that crosses from criticism into dehumanization.
Piker has been temporarily suspended from Twitch multiple times for violating community guidelines related to hateful or abusive speech. That matters. Even if someone wants to defend his right to speak, we can’t pretend his public record reflects thoughtful, careful debate.
His style is built on provocation – on pushing buttons and escalating outrage – because that’s the business model of social media. The louder and more inflammatory the take, the more clicks, the more engagement, the more money. Academic spaces are supposed to prioritize nuance, depth and serious inquiry, not viral moments designed to generate cash and controversy.
For Jewish students on UBC’s campus, this isn’t some abstract political theory debate. Since Oct. 7, 2023, campus has felt different. Heavier. As antisemitism and openly hostile rhetoric have increased, many of us feel more exposed than we did before. I know I do. It has changed how openly we express our identity, how we participate in class discussions and how comfortable we feel in spaces that once felt safe. Friendships have been strained. Conversations are more tense.
So, when the university invites a speaker who has compared Zionism to Nazism, brushes aside concerns about antisemitism and treats Jewish self-determination as inherently illegitimate, it is difficult to believe this is simply about “intellectual curiosity.” It does not feel neutral. It feels dismissive. It feels like our fears and lived experiences are being minimized. More than anything, it feels like no one is listening.
UBC often speaks about inclusion, safety and belonging. Those commitments are not tested when we invite speakers everyone agrees with. They are tested when we decide whether “academic freedom” should be used as a shield for rhetoric that alienates vulnerable students.
To be clear: academic freedom protects speech from censorship, but it does not obligate a university to amplify any individual voice. Universities curate speakers all the time. They reject invitations. They choose who represents them.
Some will argue that silencing controversial figures sets a dangerous precedent. I agree that censorship is not the answer. But accountability is not censorship. Standards are not censorship. Students have every right to question whether this invitation reflects the kind of discourse a serious institution should highlight.
At the least, UBC has a responsibility to ensure ideological balance in the series. But where are the scholars who defend liberal democracy from the populist left and right? Where are the voices that articulate the Jewish experience of antisemitism in progressive spaces? Where is the intellectual diversity that the series claims to value?
Universities should be raising the nuance of conversation, not bringing the loudest parts of internet culture into serious academic spaces. Piker already has millions of followers. He did not need UBC to amplify him. The real question is whether our university’s stage should have been used to legitimize Piker’s approach – I don’t think it should have been.
As students, we deserve better.
We deserve debate that is rigorous, not reactionary. We deserve speakers who challenge our ideas without dehumanizing entire communities in the process. We deserve administrators who understand that inclusion cannot be selective.
Inclusion cannot mean protecting some students while asking others to tolerate hostility in the name of “dialogue.” If UBC is serious about equity, then protecting Jewish students from being dehumanized should not be controversial. It should be common practice.
If views like Piker’s were directed at almost any other marginalized group, there would have been immediate outrage, with statements, listening sessions and other institutional responses. There would have been no confusion about whether they crossed a line. So why was it different when it came to Jewish students?
UBC’s brand is built on excellence, inclusion and global leadership. Excellence requires discernment. Inclusion requires sensitivity. Leadership requires moral clarity.
The decision to host Hasan Piker fell short on all three values.
Avigail Feldman is a fourth-year student at the University of British Columbia, with a bachelor’s in political science and going into a master’s of management. She is also a StandWithUs Canada Emerson Fellow.
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.
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.”
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
