Tag: Green party

Green leader condemns BDS

B.C. Green party leader Andrew Weaver, MLA for Oak Bay-Gordon Head. (photo from Andrew Weaver)

Andrew Weaver calls the two-party system that typifies B.C. politics a “dichotomy of dysfunction.” As leader of the provincial Green party, he hopes to hold the balance of power in the next legislature so that his party can “hold to account either the B.C. Liberals or the B.C. NDP.”

“That would be a very, very wonderful situation,” Weaver told the Independent. While he is ostensibly running to be premier of the province, the scientist and MLA for Oak Bay-Gordon Head acknowledged he would be satisfied with a lesser role. Some opinion polls have suggested that Weaver, the first and only Green elected to the B.C. legislature, may be joined by other Green colleagues after the May 9 election. If the race between the Liberals and the NDP remains close across the province, that could put the Green party in an enviable position in the next legislature.

“I’d be very pleased,” Weaver said of the potential to hold the balance of power in a minority government. “One of the reasons why that’s important for people to know is, frankly, people don’t trust the Liberals right now. I see that all around. But they also don’t trust the B.C. NDP. Our role, if we should if we form the balance of power, is to actually hold to account either the B.C. Liberals or the B.C. NDP because they can trust us. The others can’t be trusted but we are convinced that people could get behind us and trust us to actually ensure that the others, if we were in a balance of power, actually follow through with what they say they would do.”

While touting his party’s comprehensive platform, which he urges Jewish Independent readers to review online, he also emphasized the quality of candidates the party has recruited.

“They’re not career politicians, they are stepping aside from their careers because, honestly, they can’t stand by and watch what’s going on anymore, this dichotomy of dysfunction,” he said.

Weaver, who was elected MLA in 2013 and became party leader in 2015, was the Canada Research Chair in climate modeling and analysis in the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Victoria. He has been at UVic for 25 years and has degrees from UVic and Cambridge University and a PhD in applied mathematics from the University of British Columbia.

On issues of community security and culturally appropriate delivery of services, Weaver insisted that, before committing to any actions affecting ethnocultural groups, his party would consult with the communities in question.

“The first thing you would do is consult with those ethnocultural groups to ensure that what you think is the best approach is also what they think the best approach is,” he said. “I think that, in government, we do not have all the solutions.”

On threats and violence against minority groups, such as the desecration of the Jewish cemetery in his hometown of Victoria, Weaver said leaders have a role in shaping public opinion by “expressing clear and unequivocal disdain for hatred – hatred in all forms. There is nothing positive that can ever come of it.”

Supporting cultural events and other avenues where communities can learn about one another is critical to society’s cohesion, he said.

“Celebrating our diversity is one of the strongest things that can happen,” said Weaver, noting that his wife, who is Greek, grew up when Greeks were discriminated against in Canada and his mother, who is Ukrainian, faced discrimination growing up in Montreal.

“Celebrating our diversity is critical to embracing diversity,” he said. We have cultural festivals in Victoria and Vancouver – these need to be supported and celebrated because you break down barriers when people meet each other. When people get together and they talk … they share more commonalities than they do actual things that they disagree on. What’s important is the celebration of our multicultural values, ensuring that there are funds available, ensuring that there are places available that will bring cultures together, rather than apart.”

Education is another key to multicultural success, Weaver added.

“We’ve gone through extensive reevaluation of the curriculum to ensure that indigenous values and rights and culture is covered appropriately in our K-to-12 system, but that should be true of all multicultural values,” he said. “When a child is born, they don’t even understand what prejudice is. Prejudice is a learned concept, it’s not something that a child understands. So, if one is able to develop an educational system that promotes tolerance, promotes respect for diversity, promotes multicultural values, promotes religious tolerance, you’re not dealing with any perceived kinds of barriers to inclusion early on. [The Green party has] a major investment that we propose in the K-to-12 system and one of the things we’re hoping to do is ensure that teachers can deliver the new curriculum, which does have more multicultural values expressed in it, and to ensure that barriers early on are not put up.”

Involving cultural communities in the delivery of social services is good for the communities and the government, Weaver added.

“You are going to get a lot further partnering, for example, with the Jewish community to provide social support for those who share the Jewish values, culture, religion, than you would trying to impose a one-size-fits-all model,” he said.

This extends to Green support for independent schools.

“Continued funding for the independent system is critical because there are people who determine that their children are best served by an education system that provides the curriculum – because that’s provincially mandated – but does so in a manner that shares the values and cultures that the child is being educated in. So, for example, a Jewish school, we would support the independent funding to continue there, same with a Sikh school, same with a Christian school. It’s important though that the province maintain control of the curriculum to ensure that it’s consistently taught across society.”

Weaver has been an outspoken opponent of the anti-Israel boycott, divestment and sanctions movement.

“Solutions to complex issues come through dialogue and bringing people together, not dividing and picking winners or losers,” he said.

Last year, the federal Green party passed a resolution endorsing BDS. Weaver condemned it forcefully and publicly.

“It’s just not my style,” he said. “It’s not the B.C. Greens’ style to be divisive and hurtful. We are here to be inclusive and bring people together…. You’re there to actually broker solutions and that’s what troubled me so much about the federal Green party. What had happened there, clearly, was they had had a large sign-up of members going into the convention and it was just outrageous that this policy – I’m not a member of the federal Green party, just so you know – but it was outrageous that this would end up on the floor for discussion.… It’s not something that would have made it to the floor of the B.C. Greens, it would never have got past our policy committee.”

He is particularly passionate on this matter in part because of the experience of his mother’s family in Ukraine.

“They were kulaks,” he said, referring to a category of independent peasant farmers who were declared “class enemies” under Stalinism. The family’s farm was collectivized, Weaver’s grandfather was sent to Siberia and his mother and grandmother were interned in a camp.

Another experience that impacted him was meeting a survivor of the Holocaust who came to see him when a billboard in the Victoria area, paid for by a group called Friends of Cuba, called for a boycott of Israel.

“She was devastated,” Weaver recalled of the meeting. “People who live these horrific stories and bring them home, when you hear them, you can only imagine what they’ve gone through. And when you see people really taking positions that I don’t think are fully informed, comments that are divisive positions … they don’t understand the hurt that they are doing. By putting that up, they don’t understand that they are hurting people.… It is tone deaf.

“Everybody recognizes that the situation in the Middle East is one where there is a lot of tension. But we also have to recognize that there is one stable democracy in the Middle East and we have to work with that democracy and ensure that the values that we instil within our society are consistent with the embrace of inclusive values that we expect others to follow.… We need to be very careful about how we approach the situation. It’s very volatile and we need to understand it better before we just start blindly picking winners and losers.”

The Independent invited the leaders of the B.C. Liberals, the New Democratic Party and the Greens to be interviewed for our election coverage. The Liberal campaign did not make their leader available. An interview with NDP leader John Horgan appeared in the March 31 issue and is available at jewishindependent.ca.

Apartheid impacted views

Michael Barkusky, Green candidate for Vancouver-Quilchena. (photo from Michael Barkusky)

Michael Barkusky was a teenager when he canvassed for Helen Suzman’s anti-apartheid Progressive Party in South Africa’s 1970 election. Now, he is the Green party candidate in Vancouver-Quilchena. An old friend told him, “You were always good at spotting trends ahead of time.”

“I thought that was a great compliment,” Barkusky told the Independent. “I’m kind of used to being with small parties that everybody writes off as not really relevant yet that, over time, become very relevant.”

He has given a great deal of thought to the ethical behaviour of governments.

“If you were a morally aware individual, you kind of knew that there was this huge moral question about how the whole society ran in South Africa,” he said.

Barkusky left South Africa in 1980 and came to Vancouver to do a master’s in business administration at the University of British Columbia. He obtained a certified general accountant designation in 1985, the same year he became a Canadian citizen. He has run an accounting practice since then, while also at times working for nongovernmental organizations like the Rainforest Solutions Project and the Coastal First Nations alliance.

While he said the Green party is seeing a surge in the campaign – a recent poll showed the party in first place on Vancouver Island – Barkusky admitted his bid is a longshot. He is running in one of the safest Liberal seats in the province. Vote-splitting may result in interesting upsets in some ridings, but Quilchena would be a shocker.

“I’ve taken on a very tough riding,” said Barkusky, who served with incumbent Liberal MLA Andrew Wilkinson on the board of the B.C. Mountaineering Club. “What I want to do is have a very issue-oriented, respectful-of-my-opponents contest in which we talk about ideas and we talk about where the province is heading.”

He wants British Columbians to see the environment and the economy as inextricably related.

“People often tend to think of the environment as a side issue, a minor issue in politics, and tend to say, well, the Green party is mostly for that, so it’s not really concerned about the economy,” he said. “In my view, these things are all very closely interconnected. We believe in an economic strategy that will give us prosperity but not at the expense of our future, and my worry is that the B.C. Liberals, in particular, with their focus on traditional economic indicators – particularly what will make the GDP go up the most – give up a tremendous amount in terms of stewardship of our natural capital, or the innate riches that make British Columbia such a spectacular place to live.”

Addressing recent incidents in Canada and elsewhere, in which Muslims and Jews have been targeted, Barkusky said there are opportunities for intercultural solidarity, adding that it is important that communities stand together at times like these.

“Some of those who are threatening both vulnerable groups are the same people with the same racist attitudes,” he said.

Confronting prejudice is a matter of education, but it can also be a matter of modeling behaviour, he suggested.

“We should look to what we can do through education because dealing with it through criminal law is really the last resort. It’s what you do when all else has failed,” he said. “The education area is where we should be most active. I think we’re doing quite well, really, in teaching tolerance in the schools in a jurisdiction like B.C. I think we can perhaps model it a bit better in our public life and the way we conduct politics. A slightly less sneering, adversarial style of politics would be helpful. In the Jewish community, we can do that, too, in the way that we have our own internal debate as Jews about Israel.”

Barkusky is well versed in the diversity of discourse in the Jewish community.

“I went to a Jewish high school in Cape Town, Herzlia High School, and our headmaster was probably more of a Likudnik than a labour Zionist, but my mother was more of a labour Zionist. So, there were always debates … about South Africa, about Israel, about other things that were going on in the world.”

Growing up in the apartheid era caused ambivalent feelings, he said, because Jews “had to deal with our role in a society in which we were actually legally classified with the privileged.

“It was a complex history because Jews were very prominent in the struggle against apartheid, but there were plenty of Jews who thought, ‘thank God they’re persecuting someone except us.’ They were maybe not enthusiastically participating in making the lives of black people miserable, but they weren’t too concerned about it and were more concerned about whether the establishment of the time might dislike them if they were too strong in their opposition. Those tensions ran through the Jewish community of South Africa the whole time that I lived there.”

Barkusky has a nuanced perspective on the use of the apartheid label against Israel.

“To me, apartheid wasn’t just a monstrous system that I read about in a book,” he said. “It’s a system that I saw in action.”

Even so, he rejects the idea that comparisons can’t be made.

“You can compare anything to anything,” he said. “The point is, what conclusions do you draw when you compare it?… I don’t like a simpleminded comparison because the situation is different in a number of ways, the history is different, but I don’t think it’s something that should be silenced.”

There may, in fact, be something to be learned, he said. The way the current constitution in South Africa was arrived at may have some lessons for a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian situation, he suggested.

On the issue of the movement to boycott, divest from and sanction Israel, Barkusky said he doesn’t agree, but avoids getting on a moral high horse about it.

“I personally think it’s not the greatest way to conduct politics,” he said. “Persuasion, discussion and education, thinking things through, looking at the evidence, makes much more sense.”

Boycotts can also harm the people they are intended to help, he warned.

“I continued to buy South African wines after I moved here from South Africa, not because I particularly wanted to support the government but because I thought that boycotting the wines would put farm workers out of work and the farm workers were mostly not white,” he said.

Barkusky blames the Israeli government for some of the criticism aimed at the country.

“I do find the current government in Israel so far to the right that it’s very hard to not see them as, in some sense, the author of their own misfortune,” he said, but added: “I think a situation in which Israel is treated as the worst example of human rights abuses on the planet is really just ridiculous. It’s just not in keeping with the evidence.”

May defends new resolution

Green Party of Canada leader Elizabeth May. (photo from cjnews.com)

Federal Green Party of Canada Leader Elizabeth May said she was able to support a revised policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict because it rejects the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel, but still puts the onus on the Jewish state to move towards a two-state solution.

At a special general meeting held Dec. 3-4 in Calgary, 350 members voted to pass a policy titled “Measures to pressure the government of Israel to preserve the two-state solution: addendum to current

Middle East policy.” It replaced a policy titled “Palestinian self-determination and the movement for boycott, divestment and sanctions” that passed in August at a Green party convention in Ottawa.

“It needs to be said very clearly that the BDS movement does not understand the issue properly and is in fact undermining the peace process itself,” May told the CJN the day after the addendum passed.

Immediately following the August convention, May firmly opposed the policy that supported the BDS movement.

“The reason I couldn’t accept our policy in August is because it looked very much as though we were adopting the BDS movement. And the BDS movement, although there are well-meaning people who support it, when you get down to it, their core goals do not include at all … the right of the state of Israel to exist,” May said.

At that time, May considered stepping down as leader as a result but, following a family vacation, she ultimately announced she would stay on as leader, partly because the party’s executive council agreed to call a special meeting to give members the opportunity to revisit the BDS resolution.

The amended policy states, among other things, that the “Palestinian people are among the indigenous people of the geographic region now designated as Israel and the OPT [occupied Palestinian territory],” and it supports “only non-violent responses to violence and oppression, including economic measures such as government sanctions, consumer boycotts, institutional divestment, economic sanctions and arms embargoes.”

It calls for a ban on products produced “wholly or partly within or by illegal Israeli settlements, or by Israeli businesses directly benefiting from the illegal occupation,” and it calls on the Canadian government to repeal the House of Commons resolution that condemned the BDS movement last February.

According to a statement by Thomas Woodley, president of Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East, Green members voted 85% in favor of the revised policy.

Although the policy remains critical of Israel and still supports boycotts, divestment, sanctions and arms embargoes, its drafters were careful not to specifically endorse the international BDS movement. May insists the Green party is committed to a two-state solution.

“We condemn anyone who imagines that they don’t support, unequivocally, the right of the state of Israel to exist. That prefacing is critical to understanding the addendum,” she said.

“We’ve never been a party that was afraid to say out loud that we are critical of the decisions of the Israeli government from time to time. I think many Israelis are also critical of the decisions of the government from time to time.”

May said retired Israeli generals and intelligence officers who accuse Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu of undermining the peace process and weakening security for Israelis “make the case better than we can as Canadian Greens that there needs to be a course correction on the occupation, expansion of illegal settlements and so on…. We’d rather be aligning ourselves with criticisms that come from within the state of Israel, than with a movement that doesn’t understand the critical necessity to defend the right of the state of Israel to exist.”

May said she understands that the policy won’t sit well with many members of the Jewish community, but added, “There are a limited number of mechanisms that governments and parties can use to signal to a foreign government that we think you’re making a mistake here, while at the same time, remaining allies.”

Shimon Koffler Fogel, chief executive officer of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, said in a statement that the group condemns the resolution, “which confirms the Green party has been co-opted by extreme activists who – in their obsessive campaign of prejudice against Israelis – threaten the party’s own credibility and relevance in Canadian politics.

“The new policy is rife with historical distortions and places the Green party at odds with the Canadian consensus that BDS is discriminatory and counter-productive to peace. The Ontario legislature just voted by a tenfold margin to reject the differential treatment of Israel, underscoring how out of touch the Green party has become.”

The statement also pointed to the policy’s assertion that Palestinians are Israel’s “indigenous people,” and the implication that Jews have no ancestral or indigenous roots in Israel.

“Elizabeth May and the party’s leadership have turned their backs on the mainstream Jewish community, including the many Jewish Greens who no longer feel welcome,” he said, adding that despite calling attention to the Green party that the vote would take place on Shabbat, excluding observant Jews from the vote, the vote was held on Dec. 3.

Although May rejected the idea of boycotting Israel, she made a distinction between “legal Israel” and “illegal Israel.”

“I’d go out of my way to buy a product that is labeled a product of Israel from within the legal boundaries of Israel. But, personally, I prefer not to buy products that come from an area that is in illegally occupied territories, which, again, even retired members of the Israeli Defence Forces are saying are making life less secure for legal Israel.”

B’nai Brith Canada chief executive officer Michael Mostyn said he was encouraged by the rejection of the BDS movement.

“No matter how the party came to this position, it is a positive thing for Canadians that, once again, the antisemitic BDS movement has been rejected. It is especially significant given the amount of energy, time and resources being poured into the promotion of the antisemitic BDS movement by certain factions within the Green party.”

That being said, Mostyn added there is still misinformation in the policy.

“For example, the very characterization of settlements as ‘illegal’ under Article 49 of the Geneva Convention is either a deliberate misreading of that document, or complete ignorance of international law,” he said.

– For more national Jewish news, visit cjnews.com

Greens’ policy on Israel

On Saturday, Dec. 3, at a meeting in Calgary, the Green Party of Canada (GPC) passed a resolution updating the party’s position on the Israel-Palestine conflict. It puts the entire onus for the conflict’s continuation on Israel, specifically on Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

“The possibility of a two-state solution is diminishing directly due to the Netanyahu government’s support for illegal expansion and increasingly brutal military occupation,” reads the Dec. 4 statement on the Green party’s website. “Even over 200 former members of Israeli Defence Forces (‘Security First’ [plan for West Bank, Gaza]) have decried the worsening security situation for Israelis and Palestinians – and laid the blame directly on Prime Minister Netanyahu’s policies. The former Israeli military officers have raised the alarm of a ‘humanitarian crisis in Gaza’ and the diminishing chances for a two-state solution.

“Clearly,” continues the statement, “Canada needs to do more to register with the Israeli government that flouting international law and threatening the security of its own people while violating the human rights of Palestinians is not acceptable. In doing so, Canada must continue to condemn violence from the militant elements of Palestinian society.”

While rejecting the boycott, divestment and sanction movement – as its goals “do not include supporting the right of the state of Israel to exist” and are “incompatible with Green party policy”– the addendum to the party’s policy “is based on clear differentiation between ‘legal’ Israel, as within the 1967 borders, a democracy respecting the rights of citizens of all ethnicities within its borders, and ‘illegal’ Israel – the occupied territories beyond Israel’s legal borders. The Palestinian civilians within the occupied territories are subjected to virtual continual abuses of their human rights. The occupied territories are maintained under a brutal military occupation. Products from illegal Israel should not be granted the preferred trading status of products of legal Israel.”

With this in mind, the Green party would like to see the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement renegotiated, the “termination and indefinite suspension of all military and surveillance trade and cooperation” between Canada and Israel, and the repeal of “the House of Commons resolution condemning the BDS movement.”

According to the Dec. 3 article “Greens vote for new Israel policy without BDS” by James Munson on ipolitics.ca, “Approximately [350] members voted on the ‘compromise’ resolution that purged the party’s policies of any reference to the Palestinian-led boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement, which pressures companies, governments and institutions with ties to Israel.”

The article cites Green party president Ken Melamed as saying, “The party wanted to be careful not to align with a particular organization or movement. The essence of it, I think, is that the party feels that diplomatic approaches to achieving peace and justice in the Middle East have been ineffective and it’s time to move to economic actions.”

The article said that, according to Melamed, about 85% of those who voted at the meeting supported the resolution – others opposed or abstained – but that it still had to be voted on electronically by all 20,000 party members before it became official policy.

Shimon Koffler Fogel, chief executive officer of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA), condemned the resolution. In a Dec. 3 statement, he noted, “The new policy is rife with historical distortions and places the Green party at odds with the Canadian consensus that BDS is discriminatory and counter-productive to peace. The Ontario legislature just voted by a tenfold margin to reject the differential treatment of Israel, underscoring how out of touch the Green party has become.

“Elizabeth May and the party’s leadership have turned their backs on the mainstream Jewish community, including the many Jewish Greens who no longer feel welcome. Despite repeatedly flagging that the anti-Israel vote was scheduled to take place on the Jewish sabbath, senior Green party officials insisted on holding the vote today, thereby excluding many Jewish Green party members from voting. This is an alarming development and a stunning failure of leadership.”

The December resolution replaces a resolution that was passed at the Green party convention in August.

In the backgrounder to Fogel’s statement, CIJA notes, “The party’s decision to endorse economic penalties against Israel is incompatible with the wishes of the party’s grassroots. A survey of Green members conducted by the party after their convention revealed that, of 2,800 respondents, 28% agreed with the decision to support BDS, 44% wanted it repealed and 28% thought it should be amended to remove any reference to a specific movement or country.”

The backgrounder further explains, “The text’s exclusive recognition of Palestinians as ‘the indigenous people’ of the region implies that Jewish people have no ancestral or indigenous roots in Israel. This misleading suggestion contradicts millennia of archeological and documentary evidence.”

And, CIJA warns, “The one-sided nature of the resolution and its call for extreme measures against Israel puts the Green party outside the international consensus for achieving peace, which emphasizes the need for both parties to compromise and negotiate.”

Note: This article has been edited to reflect later reports that about 350 party members voted on the resolution, versus the number cited on ipolitics.ca, which was approximately 275.

Will state be free?

Binyamin Netanyahu may not have expected the international reaction he received when he accused opponents of Jewish settlements in the West Bank of supporting the ethnic cleansing of Jews. While he went too far, there is some truth to be learned from the fallout.

The Israeli prime minister made the comments in a video, where he noted that nobody suggests that two million Arab citizens of Israel are an obstacle to peace. Yet the presence of Jews in the areas most people assume will eventually be Palestine under a two-state solution, he said, is repeatedly held up as proof that Israel is not acting in good faith toward a two-state objective.

Netanyahu was pointing out one of the glaring hypocrisies in the discussion of an eventual peace agreement and a two-state solution. He was intentionally inflammatory but, in the process, he set off a reaction that is illuminating and worth consideration.

First, we need to understand this basic fact: nobody expects Jews living outside the Green Line to voluntarily become citizens of a future Palestinian state. The entire discussion is an exercise in rhetoric. But this fact, too, raises other issues. Not many believe that Jews in an independent Palestine could live as citizens the way Arab citizens of Israel do under law (however imperfect this ideal might be in practice), partly because it’s probable that nobody would be free in an independent Palestine. If history is any measure, an independent Palestine might be a theocracy run by Hamas, a kleptocracy run by Fatah or some hybrid thereof. Regardless, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, among others, has insisted that no Jews will be permitted to live in an independent Palestine. The world ignores these racist statements, or excuses them as the legitimate reaction of a people long oppressed by the Jewish state.

Since most Jews would flee of their own volition if they found their homes outside the new borders of Israel, Netanyahu’s claims of ethnic cleansing can be seen as inflammatory and false, since it is not the Palestinians who would evacuate the Jews from the West Bank, but the West Bank Jews themselves, knowing the place held no future for them. But, while Netanyahu should be criticized for exploiting the term ethnic cleansing, perhaps to deflect criticism from the settlements, he has also drawn attention to the uncomfortable truth that the dream of Palestinian “freedom” for which so many in the world (including, for instance, most delegates to the recent Green Party of Canada convention) have devoted so much of their energies, is in fact a cause that may instead create a country that is nobody’s dream of a free and independent homeland.

Netanyahu is guilty of poking a hornet’s nest. However, his critics, too, should look at their own assumptions and motivations. The prime minister went too far in summoning imagery of mass deportations, but others have not gone far enough in addressing the reality that the movement for Palestinian independence in infused with unhealthy ideologies, of which excluding Jews from citizenship is just one.

BDS puts Green party in turmoil

In early August, the Green Party of Canada voted at its national convention to endorse boycott-divestment-sanctions (BDS) measures against segments of Israel’s economy and society. BDS advocates were quick to claim victory, citing that the Greens are now the first Canadian political party of any significance to support BDS.

But not so fast.

In the wake of the vote, party leader Elizabeth May immediately declared she was “devastated” by the decision and “disappointed that the membership has adopted a policy in favor of a movement that I believe to be polarizing, ineffective and unhelpful in the quest for peace and security for the peoples of the Middle East.” May added that, “as is the right of any member, I will continue to express personal opposition to BDS” – a breath-taking statement to hear from a party leader, particularly when the leader is the party’s sole voice in Parliament.

In the weeks that followed, May openly mused to the media about how this entire episode was causing her to rethink her future in the Green party. In an interview with CBC Radio, May talked about the possibility of walking away from the party: “I would say as of this minute I think I’d have real difficulties going not just to an election but through the next month. There are a lot of issues I want to be talking about with Canadians, and this isn’t one of them.”

And May wasn’t alone. The leader of the Green Party of British Columbia, Andrew Weaver, issued a scathing statement disavowing the federal party’s decision. “This is not a policy that I nor the B.C. Green party support,” said Weaver. “I think the Green Party of Canada needs to take a careful look at their policy process and ask themselves how a policy that goes against Green party values could have been allowed on the floor of a convention.”

Various Green candidates likewise condemned the decision. One from Ottawa said, “I’m in a state of disbelief.… I don’t agree with it, I don’t like having that over me going into [the next] election.” Another, from Halifax, said the policy is “destructive for the party.… Every country has its issues. When we specifically single out Israelis, I worry about the buzzwords and subtext and code language, which is antisemitic.”

A party torn apart. A leader willing to quit. Controversial headlines eclipsing anything else the party intended to highlight coming out of convention. Is this what a BDS victory looks like?

The fight against BDS revolves around psychology much more than economics. Israel’s economy is strong, with trade and ties growing despite calls for BDS. But, on the psychological level, BDS activities have the potential to poison attitudes toward Israel among civil society organizations and demoralize the Jewish community. On both levels, BDS proponents failed when it comes to the Green party.

While May has since declared she will stay on as leader, every Green voter should be outraged that BDS activists – in using the party to promote their own marginal agenda – nearly pushed the Greens’ only voice in Parliament out of the party. If anything, this initiative has exposed the toxic nature of BDS to those it intended to seduce. As CIJA Chair David Cape recently wrote: “Once again, BDS has proven bitterly and publicly divisive for political parties that contemplate endorsing it. In this case, BDS has sown resentment among Greens and come at a great cost for anti-Israel activists.”

And when it comes to the morale of the Jewish community, this issue has mobilized thousands of Jewish Canadians across the political spectrum (including former Green party members) to speak out and condemn the party’s hostility toward Israel. In a matter of weeks, CIJA galvanized some 7,500 Canadians to email the Green party’s leadership to express their opposition to this initiative. Without question, our united efforts had an impact, with May openly admitting BDS is “very clearly a polarizing movement that leaves most of the Jewish community in Canada feeling that it is antisemitic.”

Hopefully, this will spur May and other Greens to take the steps needed to annul the BDS policy and regain control of the party’s direction from those behind this hateful agenda.

Steve McDonald is deputy director, communications and public affairs, at the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs.

BDS infiltrates Greens

In a turn of events that party regulars and, really, no Canadians anticipated, Elizabeth May is spending her vacation this week considering whether to resign as leader of the Green Party of Canada.

The impetus, apparently, is her party’s decision at its recent convention to adopt a resolution that attacks Israel and calls for boycotting, divesting from and sanctioning the Jewish state. It’s all part of a movement (shorthanded BDS) that hides behind the language of human rights to separate Israel from the community of nations, while ignoring not just the atrocities perpetrated by the Palestinian governments of Hamas and Fatah but also the most serious human rights abuses in the world.

May made it clear before the convention that she opposed the resolution, though most delegates probably did not realize it was a stay-or-quit litmus for the leader. After the vote, May complained that the issue was not subjected to a fulsome debate at the convention and that she did not have the opportunity to explain why she opposed the policy and why delegates should join her in rejecting BDS. Still, most delegates would surely have known how their leader – who earlier this year was endorsed in a leadership review with a whopping 93% – stood on the issue, given extensive media coverage.

There was something odd even in some of the remarks by opponents of the BDS policy, which emphasized the electoral albatross BDS would hang around the party’s neck, rather than the inherent immorality and hypocrisy of BDS. Critics seemed to assume BDS is a vote-loser, but is this assumption based on the fact that informed Canadians would oppose the movement? Or on the stereotype-founded idea that messing with the “Zionist lobby” is a no-win proposition? This may be unfair criticism if we assume rational people equate immoral, hypocritical policies with electoral failure.

May has spent a decade attempting to put the Green Party of Canada on the political map and succeeded, in 2011, in becoming the first Green MP elected to Canada’s House of Commons. She was reelected in 2015. She is almost certainly the only Green party public figure most Canadians can identify. Without her at the helm, the party would lose its sole recognizable face.

After the convention vote, May said there were plenty of issues she was happy to defend going into the next federal election, but BDS is not one of them. The anti-Israel movement has put her in this spot and it is an object lesson for Canadian politics more broadly.

BDS is a parasitic movement, attempting to infiltrate vulnerable hosts like the Green party and other well-intentioned trade unions, academic groups and social justice movements with an ideology that is not progressive at all, but anti-democratic and anti-intellectual.

BDS, and the anti-Israel movement more broadly, has attempted and in many cases succeeded in convincing progressive Canadians that they share values and ideals. Had the Green party engaged in the fulsome debate May says she wishes had happened, there would have been an opportunity to point out that BDS presents a one-sided, unbalanced interpretation of events that does not advance peace, that demonizes Israel and that makes common cause with the world’s most misogynist, homophobic and illiberal forces.

It was when the New Democratic Party of Canada was at its lowest ebb, in the 1990s and early 2000s, that the party’s policy was co-opted by extremists who used the language of human rights to advance an anti-Israel agenda that was anything but rights-oriented. Since then, the anti-Israel movement (because, as we have reiterated here, “pro-Palestinian” does not do justice to the injustices the movement excuses) has tried to graft itself onto any emerging cause.

It began, most visibly, with the eccentric Queers Against Israeli Apartheid – who privilege official Palestinian oppression of LGBTQ people over the reality that Israel is (at the very least) an oasis of freedom for gay people in a desert of sexual repression – and has spread to other movements, including Black Lives Matter.

Black Lives Matter, a desperately necessary effort to confront police violence and systemic discrimination against African-Americans, recently adopted a manifesto rife with boilerplate loathing of Israel and attestations of support for the national cause of Palestinians. Black Lives Matter has no foreign policy, except inasmuch as smearing Israel constitutes a worldview.

Why? Because the anti-Israel movement is adept at playing on the guilt of progressive people and movements to advance an agenda that is, at root, backward, violence-justifying and ignorant of history.

The BDS movement succeeded in co-opting the Green party into adopting its regressive position and now, depending on May’s decision on her future, may have done irreparable harm to the party, as BDS continues to harm the prospect of peace in the Middle East and a better life for Palestinians, the ostensible beneficiaries of the movement.

A chance to educate

Monika Schaefer is a violin instructor in the Alberta mountain town of Jasper. She was also a candidate for the Green Party of Canada in the federal elections of 2006, 2008 and 2011. Last week, a video went viral of Schaefer declaring that, after “a great deal of time researching this topic,” she has concluded that what Canadians have been taught about the Holocaust is rife with “inaccuracies.”

“When I started to look at the evidence, and I researched, and I researched and I researched, and the lies are coming apart,” she told the CBC. “This house of cards is crumbling, and that is why there is this very fierce reaction against what I’m saying, because this lie, this public myth, has shaped our world.”

She calls the Holocaust “the six million lie” and “the biggest and most pernicious and persistent lie in all of history.”

With all the things happening in the world today, the misguided ramblings of a soundly defeated candidate for Parliament is far from the most crucial issue we face as a civilization. Yet, the incident deserves consideration.

Despite that the Green party is being rightly condemned for anti-Israel resolutions set for debate at its upcoming national convention, let’s not attribute to an entire group the poison of one of its (soon-to-be-former) members. Holocaust denial and antisemitism have been expressed across the political spectrum and no party has a monopoly on that. Green party leader Elizabeth May responded immediately and appropriately, condemning Schaefer’s comments and moving to have her membership in the party revoked. That is one positive outcome.

The most generous assessment of the video is that Schaefer herself, who is of German heritage, is a victim of the collective trauma of Nazism. As the director of community relations and communications for the Jewish Federation of Edmonton, Tal Toubiana, told the CBC: “I find it curious that a woman who allegedly faced bullying based on her country of origin would rather continue a cycle of irreflexive hate than reflect deeply on the wounded history and trauma the Holocaust did create.… The Holocaust is a historical event that is not only undeniable in regards to the facts and documentation of its existence, but in the collective trauma it created. Ms. Schaefer is a product of the very trauma she claims does not exist.”

This is a very insightful analysis. It is easy to dismiss the people who conjure such fabrications as irredeemably wicked, but to adopt a more humane response in the face of inhumane statements would invite us to wonder what personal circumstance would lead an individual to such a distorted and easily disprovable worldview.

This appears to be the first public utterance Schaefer has made on the subject and perhaps it will open the door for her to be confronted with facts and have the sources upon which her deeply flawed conclusions rest debunked. Whatever happens in this instance, little is to be gained by demonizing the individual even though we rightly demonize her words.

Each time such an incident occurs is an opportunity to return to the basics and realize that we still have work to do. We need continued vigilance and we must educate all people, especially young people, about history.

Googling Schaefer’s name confirms this. Her ideas attract some breadth of support in the dusty extremities of the internet, where she is lauded as a “truth revealer and free speech advocate.” It is, of course, impossible to tell whether the hordes of online comments coming to her defence represent a sizable cohort or a tiny but prolific cluster of keyboard pounders. What they certainly represent is an unadulterated reminder that shockingly inhumane ideas retain sway among some of our fellow citizens.

There are now human rights complaints lodged against Schaefer in the Alberta and Canadian human rights commissions and already Schaefer is positioning herself as a martyr.

“Right now, the issue for me is freedom of speech,” she told a Jasper news outlet. “Last I checked, I thought we had freedom of speech in Canada and suddenly I’m the criminal.”

Wrong again. By law, Schaefer is innocent until proven guilty, so she is not “suddenly” a criminal. Moreover, her research fails her once more. Canada has freedom of speech, but not without limitations. To become the criminal Schaefer contends she already is would require proof that she intended to incite hatred against an identifiable group. This is a very difficult motivation to prove.

Whatever happens in the quasi-judicial processes Schaefer faces, we should be heartened by the response of many of Schaefer’s fellow residents of Jasper and we should take the opportunity to recommit ourselves to sharing the truth.

Greens’ true colors?

Voters in the United Kingdom – well, in England and Wales, at least – have decided to quit the European Union. The referendum last week turned British politics, and world economic markets, upside down.

The potential for a Scottish withdrawal from the United Kingdom is again front and centre. More than this, politicians and commentators worldwide are extrapolating the vote’s meaning across Europe and North America to try to comprehend the potential impacts of a coalescence of disgruntled, anti-elitist, populist, nativist and xenophobic tendencies. Already, the result seems to have given licence to some people to act out on xenophobic hatred, with numerous incidents of verbal and physical assaults against visible minorities reported across Britain in just the couple of days following the referendum.

Among those who supported the losing “Remain” campaign are some who threaten to move to Canada. This is a default for Americans and now, apparently, Brits who dislike the democratic outcomes in their own countries. The Canada strategy is much talked about but rarely executed. Ironically, people from countries that move toward exclusionary practices and tightened immigration policies assume that Canada is an uncategorically welcoming place that would greet them with open arms. On Canada Day, of all times, we should take it as a compliment that our reputation is one of haven and acceptance.

And yet … while Europe may be aflame with xenophobia and demagoguery, Canada is not immune to strains of something nasty. The current example comes from none other than Canada’s Green party.

For a movement that ostensibly subscribes to the precept of thinking globally and acting locally, the policy resolutions for the party’s August convention are starkly parochial. Only two items proposed for consideration approach foreign affairs issues – and both attack Israel.

One resolution calls for the party to join the BDS movement to boycott, divest from and sanction the Jewish state. More hypocritically still, the Green party is seeking to have the Jewish National Fund of Canada’s charitable status revoked. That a Green party would target one of the world’s oldest and most successful environmental organizations is symptomatic of something irrational in the mindset of those who promulgated the resolution. Whether it advances to the convention floor – and what happens then – will tell us a great deal about the kind of people who make up the Green Party of Canada.

In a world where human-made and natural catastrophes seem unlimited, from the entire population of Green party members across Canada, only two statements of international concern bubble to the surface – and both are broadsides against the Jewish people.

Elizabeth May, the party’s leader and sole MP, said she opposes both resolutions but, since the determination of policy is made on the basis of one member one vote, there is a limited amount she can do. She met last week with Rafael Barak, Israel’s ambassador to Canada, and said the Green party’s support for Israel’s right to exist is “immovable.”

We’ll see.

May on foreign, domestic issues

Green party leader Elizabeth May. (photo from Elizabeth May’s office)

“Let’s face it, Israel is a miracle in the world – in innovation, and science and technology, solar energy!” Green Party of Canada leader Elizabeth May told the Independent in an interview last week.

While the Green party passed a motion last year against the expansion of settlements in Israel, which they claim are illegal and pose an obstacle to a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, May noted that there is a Green Party of Israel, and shared some of its accomplishments. She said her party supports Israel and the collaboration of Canada with Israel, particularly on science, technology and climate change.

She added, “I think that it really needs to be stressed that world peace depends on Canada playing a role where we command respect from a lot of different communities and support for the state of Israel has never marginalized Canada in the world, never. But, aligning ourselves with only one of the political threads of the Israeli body politic, basically being a pro-Likud country, reduces our influence in the world, for sure. And our influence in the world is needed for many things, including striving for peace in the Middle East – real, durable, sustainable peace, so we don’t have Israeli children or Palestinian children fearing for their lives.

“The Green party has always condemned Hamas, we condemn Hezbollah, we also want the response [to their actions] to be proportional, so it’s a very difficult issue and I don’t think it helps in our democracy when we can’t discuss it. I’ll clearly say that we draw a very strong line [between] any campaigns that criticize Israel, I think that’s legitimate, [and] any campaign that criticizes Israel but has at its base an even hidden agenda of antisemitism. I think we can spot that pretty quickly, and we’ve always condemned those.”

While prime ministers Stephen Harper and Binyamin Netanyahu opposed the Iran nuclear deal, May said, “We think it’s a good thing. We think that you can’t risk having Iran have nuclear weapons. You can’t take a chance on missing the opportunity for diplomacy to give you inspections – they are real. They’re not even going to implement the lifting of sanctions till Iran shows good faith and allows for inspections…. I think it’s important to say trust but verify.

“We also recognize that, if we’re going to solve the crisis in Syria, we have got to start making more alliances in the region and Iran could play a significant role. I think, obviously, that was on [U.S. President] Barack Obama’s mind in pursuing an agreement with Iran … we do not have enough natural enemies of ISIS [the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria] and extremism. Leaving Libya as a failed state was a mistake in the region, so we’re very concerned with the big picture, and maybe you have to take some water in your wine sometimes.”

If there were a Green government, May said she would consider deploying Canada’s military in action on foreign soil with a United Nations sanction, “which makes it legal under international law. We’re global, we have Greens in 80 countries around the world. We believe that you act within international law, with a UN approval. That’s one of the tragedies with the Libyan engagement, of course, was that we used the responsibility to protect with a UN sanction then, midway through, changed the mission to regime change, and we really contaminated the usefulness of responsibility to protect for future missions.

“… I could see Canada participating now in a mission that involved troops on the ground if it was to fortify the border between Syria and Turkey to stop the flow of black marketability. ISIS is funding itself in the millions through black-market operations, both its sale of black-market oil and its sale … of antiquities from the archeological and culturally significant sites they are looting. We should be using all of the tools at our disposal to stem the flow of money to ISIS….”

“But, for instance, I could see Canada participating now in a mission that involved troops on the ground if it was to fortify the border between Syria and Turkey to stop the flow of black marketability. ISIS is funding itself in the millions through black-market operations, both its sale of black-market oil and its sale … of antiquities from the archeological and culturally significant sites they are looting.

“We should be using all of the tools at our disposal to stem the flow of money to ISIS, but the recent figures – I saw today in the press that the number of recruits to ISIS has grown and, I have to say, of course! That’s why they wanted the West to come at them. If the West comes at them, that’s their best recruiting tool…. What they’ve done in terms of recruiting youth through social media tools, what they’ve done through brutal, sadistic and public murders, it’s unprecedented historically. Their brutality is not unprecedented historically but their techniques, like social media, are, so you have to ask yourself, why are they putting beheadings and tortures on YouTube? They want to recruit from the West and they want to excite Western nations to retaliate.

“And,” she added, “I think we have to ask ourselves, what’s Saudi Arabia doing? There’s certainly a lot of concern that Saudi Arabia is actually supporting ISIS. We need to have a significant effort involving all regional governments to end the war in Syria. If we have the focus on ending the war in Syria, shutting down ISIS becomes one of the many objectives.”

On security domestically, including Bill C-51, May said, “I supported that community and Jewish schools and facilities should have additional funding for security and that it should be government funded. C-51 is in another category altogether because C-51 actually makes us less safe against terrorists in every way.”

In 2012, with Bill C-38, she said, “Stephen Harper’s administration eliminated the inspector general for CSIS [Canadian Security Intelligence Service]. In 2015, they bring out C-51, which says CSIS can now – [with] what was in C-44 in December – is CSIS can … operate overseas and domestically, can collect intelligence and can act … [with] access to something that doesn’t exist in any other democracy anywhere around the world, which is access to a private, secret hearing to get a warrant for constitutional breach.”

With C-51, she said, there is no oversight. “It’s not a question of inadequate oversight,” she stressed. “Zero oversight of the RCMP, zero oversight of CSIS, zero oversight of the Canadian Border Services Agency, zero oversight of CSEC [Communications Security Establishment Canada]…. You take this together and – what a former MI-5 agent testifying to the Senate said was that – Canada has created a tragedy waiting to happen. If C-51 had been drafted as the legislative tool to implement the recommendations from the Air India inquiry, it wouldn’t look anything like it now looks. It would be about your intelligence agencies having pinnacle control, somebody know[ing] what everybody else is doing. Israel would never put in place a zoo like this. This is a three-ring circus with no ringmaster, and it’s dangerous.”

“We opened up our doors to ‘boat people’ from Vietnam. You could have made the same case – you could have said, there could be communist sympathizers who are sneaking into Canada. Now, the reality of the situation in Syria is that people are fleeing Syria because you can’t live there. The extent of the violence, there are very few areas of the country that are untouched by it.”

With respect to the refugee crisis, and balancing the acceptance of more immigrants with security, given that these refugees are coming from countries that inculcate antisemitism and anti-West views, May said, “We do apply security screens when people come to Canada. We always have. We opened up our doors to ‘boat people’ from Vietnam. You could have made the same case – you could have said, there could be communist sympathizers who are sneaking into Canada. Now, the reality of the situation in Syria is that people are fleeing Syria because you can’t live there. The extent of the violence, there are very few areas of the country that are untouched by it.

“I’ve helped some Syrian families reunite and I’ve known the extreme fear and terror that young men live under if they do not want to be captured by any one of the rival forces and forced into servitude,” she continued. “The military in Syria – whether it’s Bashar al-Assad’s forces … [or those that] oppose Bashar al-Assad – they’re all looking for people for their army. These young men that are fleeing, these young families that are fleeing, older people, are trying to get away from a war zone, and they are legitimate refugees. That said, we have a security screening process. They get interviewed before they come to Canada. We can create a situation where we know [through] ongoing surveillance and interviews for anyone. And, within the community itself, there’s a strong degree of networking that would not want someone coming here who posed a threat to them. We really can put in place effective security.

“Stephen Harper announced in January that we would accept 10,000 Syrian refugees and, having worked to try to bring refugee families to Canada, I absolutely say this is a system that was designed not to work. On one hand, he promised 10,000 refugees would be able to come to Canada; with the other hand, he made it impossible to accept them, which is devastating and tragic. I understand the fear, I’m not discounting it. I’ve been so impressed with the number of Jewish communities and religious leaders within the Jewish community who’ve called for us to accept more refugees. I think it matters. We call on accepting more but, obviously, not without security checks.”

May and the Green party have had to be innovative to get their ideas across during this campaign. When May was not invited to the Globe and Mail’s leaders debate on Sept. 17, for example, she countered with Twitter. Figures from North Strategic were cited in the media: “May was mentioned in 1,799 tweets in a 24-hour period leading up to the Calgary debate. That was about 300 more than NDP leader Tom Mulcair but fewer than Conservative leader Stephen Harper and Liberal leader Justin Trudeau.” May apparently gained 5,000 Twitter followers after the debate.

“… this may be the least fair election yet because the public expects to see all the leaders in a national televised leadership debate before the election is over, and … we are unlikely to have a single additional English language debate, and none that are broadcast nationally.”

“In terms of the fairness of the elections,” she told the Independent, “this may be the least fair election yet because the public expects to see all the leaders in a national televised leadership debate before the election is over, and it hasn’t been really explained in the media that, as things now stand, we are unlikely to have a single additional English language debate, and none that are broadcast nationally.”

In responding to a question about her party’s approach to the economy, May eschewed labels.

“Our solutions, and our view is, too, that we are not left or right,” she said. “If there’s a solution to a problem that comes from what we might say is a free-market, right-wing toolkit of solutions, like a pricing mechanism, we’ll use that, if it works. But, if you need a regulation, we’ll use regulation.

“So, our fee-and-dividend approach is less free market than Tom Mulcair’s cap-and-trade – he says the market will determine the price for carbon, I heard him say that the other night…. We’re pragmatic more than anything else. But, Greens around the world, where Greens have been in government, the kinds of programs we put in place really work…. We’re the only party left that opposes free-trade deals if they include investor-state agreements.”

As an example, she gave the Green party’s opposition to the Canada-China investment treaty. “It amazes me that it didn’t ever really get understood by the media, we never had a vote in Parliament on it, and we are trapped in the Canada-China investment treaty till the year 2045 without any real discussion of it and what it means to have the People’s Republic of China have the right to sue us for decisions we make they don’t like. I’m hopeful that, after this next election, with a minority Parliament, we can bring forward some legislation to require transparency, so that when China complains, there’s an obligation on governments to make that public, to make it known.”

The Independent has interviewed Liberal leader Justin Trudeau, Minister of National Defence and Minister for Multiculturalism Jason Kenney and has an invitation out to NDP leader Thomas Mulcair. The federal election is on Oct. 19.