hate crimes

Does Bill C-9 matter?

Canada’s new Combatting Hate Act, which has just come into force, says many of the right things. The question is whether anyone in the justice system will act on them.

The passage of Bill C-9 into law creates a distinct hate-motivated crime offence, defines hatred in the Criminal Code and prohibits intentionally intimidating or obstructing people trying to enter places of worship, schools, community centres, cultural facilities and other spaces used by identifiable groups. It also makes it an offence to wilfully promote hatred through the public display of symbols principally associated with listed terrorist organizations, as well as specified Nazi symbols. The legislation removes the former defence based on good-faith expression of a religious opinion in certain hate-propaganda cases.

The law does not ban peaceful protest, political advocacy, religious teaching, disagreement or criticism. Its threshold remains high: expression must amount to the wilful promotion of hatred, which the Criminal Code now defines as an intense and extreme emotion associated with vilification and detestation. Merely offending, humiliating or discrediting someone is not enough.

Despite claims of threats to free expression, Canadians remain free to criticize governments, religions, ideologies and political movements. The law will (theoretically) intervene when protest becomes intimidation or when access to a synagogue or community centre is deliberately obstructed.

Of course, Canada already had laws against assault, threats, arson, vandalism, criminal harassment, intimidation and hate propaganda. Hatred was already an aggravating factor at sentencing. Yet, Jewish Canadians have watched an alarming procession of apparently serious incidents produce no charges, no convictions, no outcomes that reflect the gravity of the conduct.

In October 2023, in Montreal, Adil Charkaoui led a public prayer asking God to count the “enemies of the people of Gaza,” exterminate them and spare none. Prosecutors concluded that the evidence could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the words constituted incitement to hatred against an identifiable group. No charges were laid.

In Ontario, Waisuddin Akbari was convicted after threatening to plant bombs in every Toronto synagogue and kill as many Jews as possible. In July 2025, he received 60 days of house arrest, followed by probation and a weapons prohibition. The judge rejected a discharge, but a sentence served at home for threats of mass murder against Jewish worshippers hardly communicates the full force of public denunciation.

Here in Vancouver, more than two years ago, an unidentified attacker poured accelerant at the entrance of Vancouver’s Schara Tzedeck Synagogue and set it on fire. Police released surveillance footage, but no suspect has publicly been identified or charged. The inability to identify an offender is not the same as prosecutorial reluctance, of course, but, for the targeted community, the practical result is identical: an attack occurred and nobody was held accountable.

These cases reveal different failures at different stages. Police may not recognize the significance of antisemitic language or symbolism. Investigators may lack the resources or specialized knowledge required to build a case. Prosecutors may decide that the high legal threshold or limited prospect of conviction makes proceeding unwise. Courts may convict but impose nominal sentences.

As we have said before in this space, passing a law does not close any of these gaps.

Police officers need training in the legislation and more broadly in the contemporary forms antisemitism (and its sister scourge antizionism) takes, including violence-inciting slogans like “from the river to the sea” and “globalize the intifada.” Crown prosecutors need the expertise and institutional will and support to bring difficult cases forward. Attorneys general must provide timely consent where the Criminal Code requires it. Judges must apply the law in ways that recognize not only harm to an individual victim, but the broader intimidation inflicted on an entire community.

The Combatting Hate Act may help. A distinct hate-crime offence could make motivation central to a prosecution rather than an afterthought at sentencing. The access provisions respond directly to the intimidation that has increasingly surrounded synagogues, Jewish schools and community gatherings, and neighbourhoods with a higher proportion of Jewish residents. Clearer statutory language may also give police and prosecutors more confidence about where lawful protest ends and criminal conduct begins.

Still, legislation is mere paper until institutions give it life.

That said, laws do have a purpose beyond prosecution. They express the moral judgment of society. At a time when antisemitism and antizionism have become louder, more extreme, more brazen and more socially tolerated, Parliament has drawn a line.

That imprimatur is significant in itself. Enforcement will determine whether the Combatting Hate Act becomes an effective instrument or another unfulfilled promise. But, even before the first prosecution, the law sends a necessary message: hatred is not acceptable, intimidation is not activism and Canadians should not have to run a gauntlet of hostility and danger to worship, study, gather or just go about daily life in this country.

Sharing stories, advice

photo - Vancouver City Councilor and Deputy Mayor Peter Meiszner holds the city’s proclamation of April 19 as Raoul Wallenberg Day — Vancouver City Councilor and Deputy Mayor Peter Meiszner holds the city’s proclamation of April 19 as Raoul Wallenberg Day. *(photo by Masumi Kikuchi)*

The Wallenberg-Sugihara Civil Courage Society (WSCCS) hosted its 21st annual Raoul Wallenberg Day event on April 19. Held at the Peretz Centre for Secular Jewish Culture this year, its theme was “Confronting Hate Speech and Scapegoating.”

Alan Le Fevre, the society’s current president, opened the proceedings with a brief history of the organization and the annual event.

“Our name is taken from Raoul Wallenberg and Chiune Sugihara, who were two outstanding diplomats who, at great personal risk, saved thousands of Jews in World War II,” he explained. “Our aim is to recognize and remember those who have acted with similar civil courage in the present day.”

Vancouver City Councilor and Deputy Mayor Peter Meiszner read the city’s annual proclamation of April 19 as Raoul Wallenberg Day. He thanked the society “for their leadership in establishing and sustaining this important event and their dedication to recognizing those who act in defence of human dignity.” He spoke of the need for such leadership, when, “across Canada and around the world, we are witnessing the consequences of hate speech, including acts of violence that undermine the safety of our communities.”

WSCCS board member Gene Homel introduced the three speakers, starting with Kim Reclama-Clutesi (Oqwilowgwa), who has served as the elected chief of Kwakwaka’wakw (Qualicum First Nation), and is a Kwakwaka’wakw and Pentlatch knowledge holder and an ethnobiologist.

photo - Kim Reclama-Clutesi (Oqwilowgwa) speaks at this year’s Wallenberg-Sugihara Civil Courage Society Raoul Wallenburg Day event April 19 — Kim Reclama-Clutesi (Oqwilowgwa) speaks at this year’s Wallenberg-Sugihara Civil Courage Society Raoul Wallenburg Day event April 19. *(photo by Masumi Kikuchi)*

She shared various experiences with hate and injustice, along with examples of resilience, including work that her father did to protect children in residential schools, and his family. She spoke of how she is always seeking connections. “Even if it’s a thin thread, we have to honour those connections…. A lot of what people are doing today is trying to remove those connections and putting us into different places and categories,” especially regarding treaty and land claims issues, she said.

“You have to remember that this began over 500 years ago, with the Doctrine of Discovery and the papal bull that was issued in the late 1400s,” said Reclama-Clutesi. “It gave permission for European colonizers to ‘discover’ lands if they assumed that the people were ‘not organized’ or were in need of ‘spiritual healing’ – I’m paraphrasing dramatically.”

Prior to colonization, she explained, there was food security through traditional land and water stewardship, there were cultural practices that promoted spiritual growth and community cohesion.

Reclama-Clutesi spoke of the need for compassion. “We share this land with many,” she said.

“The bottom line is education,” she concluded. “Not just education as in taking cultural competency courses. It’s about getting to know each other. It’s about going into each other’s sacred places and understanding them. It’s about looking at things with a different lens.” It’s also about calling out those who spread hate and deny injustices that have happened, she said.

The second speaker was Hasan Alam, a human rights and labour lawyer, president of the BC Civil Liberties Association and co-founder of the Islamophobia Legal Assistance Hotline. He addressed the fact that the relationship between the Muslim and Jewish communities has not always been easy, saying it is important to hold onto “our shared histories and our shared experiences.”

He described the power of words to engender hate, to scapegoat and to “other,” as well as the dangers of silence. As a youth in the post-9/11 era, he experienced and witnessed the increased suspicion of Muslims, including instances of detention without due process “not because of anything they had done, but because of their names and what they believed.”

This not only influenced Alam’s decision to become a lawyer, it also taught him a lesson: “Words are not neutral. They carry weight. They shape how we see each other, how institutions treat us and, when weaponized, they can strip people of their dignity, their safety and, in the worst moments in history, their lives.”

Alam discussed the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as the Criminal Code. He gave the R v. Keegstra case as an example of an appropriate and successful prosecution of someone promoting hatred. His focus, however, was the injustices that occur within lawful boundaries. He noted that “the framework, as it operates in practice, too often assumes an equal playing field” between those spreading hatred and the targeted community. Yet, those with the widest platforms, such as politicians and the media, through apparent credibility and through repetition, can generate broad acceptance of their ideas, to the detriment of the “othered,” he said.

photo - Hasan Alam — Hasan Alam *(photo by Masumi Kikuchi)*

Alam warned that the state is not a “neutral arbiter of free expression.” Those in power can select who gets heard, “punishing certain voices while giving others a free pass,” he said, highlighting Canada’s genocide of Indigenous culture, and the internment of Japanese-Canadians during the Second World War.

The public’s “moral panic” can lead to political rhetoric that eventually results in laws or selective application of laws that target specific communities, said Alam. This can have a “chilling effect,” so that people self-censor – “freedom of expression doesn’t have to be formally taken away to be lost,” he said.

“I think real dialogue works,” he added. “The research on prejudice reduction consistently shows that when people who hold mistaken assumptions driven by fearmongering, driven by misinformation, driven by othering, or maybe just limited exposure, when they actually engage with the community they fear, those views do change.”

Making space for good-faith dialogue, where someone can admit they don’t understand something, might be uncomfortable, said Alam, but “that discomfort, when it’s honestly expressed and when honestly engaged, is often the beginning of understanding, and that’s where change lives … when the person in front of you becomes real.”

Marsha Lederman – a Globe and Mail columnist and author of two books – spoke about how Sugihara saved some 6,000 Jews by issuing them transit visas.

Referring to a statue of Sugihara in Los Angeles that was defaced earlier this year with red paint, she asked, “How, in any way, is this statue, is this man, an appropriate target?” It’s understandable to disagree with the actions and policies of the current Israeli government, she said. “It’s quite another thing to self-righteously target a historical figure whose heroic act was saving Jewish lives.”

photo - Marsha Lederman — Marsha Lederman *(photo by Masumi Kikuchi)*

Since the Oct. 7, 2023, terror attacks on Israel, there has been increased hostility toward Jews and a greater acceptance of speech that is hateful, if not the legal definition of hate speech, she noted.

Acknowledging that “what is happening in Gaza is catastrophic,” Lederman does not believe it should be compared to the Holocaust. Such comparisons, she said, are being used to delegitimize the state of Israel, and she shared some of her family’s experiences and other Holocaust history as proofs of why this line of thinking is wrong.

Lederman has become a frequent target of hate speech and she read out some of the names she has been called, including “Zionist nutcase” and “blood thirsty ghoul,” and, by supporters of Israel, “traitor” and “self-hating Jew”; she has been threatened. “Both sides have accused me of weaponizing the Holocaust, which my parents survived and which my grandparents [and other family] did not,” she said.

Lederman’s strategy for dealing with hate is to continue to exercise her freedom of speech. “I refuse to stop writing about these wars, about antisemitism, about Gaza, about Oct. 7, about Iran, Lebanon, with context, nuance and, I hope, heart, always trying to come at it from the humanitarian middle,” she said.

A panel discussion and question period followed the presentations, and the program concluded with the National Film Board short For Angela, the true story of a Winnipeg mother and daughter who successfully confronted bullying aimed at their Indigenous identity.

The April 19 event was supported by the Peretz Centre and the Vancouver Jewish Film Centre.

Ann Daskal is an independent writer and a member of Or Shalom.

When boundaries have shifted

The beginning of January has not been easy in Winnipeg. We’ve dealt with hate crime graffiti, including swastikas, on Shaarey Zedek Synagogue, Kelvin High School, the Abu Bakr Al-Siddique Mosque, as well as a hookah café, residential properties and street signs. For my household, it was personal. It hit our congregation and my kids’ school. It marred street signs near where we live. It defaced a mosque where I know one of the members. This is a lot to deal with. The police triumphantly made an arrest, but, from what I’ve heard, it seems unlikely that this individual did all these crimes. The story is familiar to Canadians at this point. Here it is.

Hate crimes happen. “Oh!” our leaders say. “Hate crimes are horrible. This isn’t Canadian. We will seek justice!” Then, an intermittent flow of outrage and misinformation follows. Suddenly, there’s an arrest. Everything’s solved. Canadians live happily ever after.

That is, until a new crime pops up. When that’s reported, the response sometimes is, “Well, this isn’t fitting into our narrative. We don’t know how this happened.” It even extends to, “Oh, we (police or officials) don’t clean up graffiti, so you can go ahead and do this yourself.” Essentially, another episode is swept under the rug as inconvenient.

I learned about the Overton Window in a social science class years ago. However, when it came up in reference to societal change and antisemitism, I had to review its meaning. The term is neither positive nor negative. It defines something that we have all experienced. Imagine you have a spectrum of beliefs: about school choice, disabilities, tolerance and diversity, human rights, whatever. The term was originally designed to describe how a politician might use a “window” to define policies on this spectrum. Occasionally, it’s used to say where someone’s beliefs fall on the political spectrum. We can shift the Overton Window; for instance, towards increased accessibility for those with disabilities. Some shifts are good, some are not. This term helps describe what’s happening with respect to antisemitism.

As the police described their arrest of the suspect in this recent series of hate graffiti, they said something like they “would have to examine the motive behind the crimes.” I was flummoxed. How could a swastika on a minority’s place of worship or a public school be anything other than an act of hate? Discussion followed about the suspect’s mental health situation, as he is unwell. Soon after he was released from custody, he was arrested again, for breaking into a home and violating the conditions of his release.

Many people have mental health issues, but going out in the dark at 4 a.m. to paint swastikas isn’t a normal, common expression of those challenges. People who perform hateful acts should face consequences. The Overton Window of what is considered “acceptable” antisemitism seems to have shifted.

I’m guessing there are multiple people committing this hate in our city. Yet the narrative here indicates that “Hurray! We’ve got the culprit” and no more effort is being made to resolve the bigger issues.

Meanwhile, I concluded my Daf Yomi (daily page of Talmud study) of Tractate Zevachim, on how sacrifices worked in the days of the Temple in Jerusalem. I’m lucky I didn’t start my learning with this – it felt like a slog. However, I continued studying the tractate, even while I found it somewhat dry and lacking in fun aggadah (stories).

Zevachim examines questions like when is a religious ritual sacrifice acceptable? What is the right physical and mental space for doing these holy rituals? When is it considered transgressive because it’s done wrong? When is it accepted even if it is not done in quite the right time or place? What rituals are exempt from repercussions, even if they are not done exactly right or considered acceptable practices?

These questions are intellectual exercises. We have no Temple in Jerusalem. The rabbis quoted in this approximately 1,500-year-old text didn’t have a Temple anymore. We Jews in modernity don’t do ritual sacrifice. Still, questions about what feels acceptable or forbidden, exempt or meaningful, have real-life repercussions. When the rabbis discussed different parts of ritual, they considered shifting their Overton Window about what they could see as correct, acceptable, exempt from punishment, or such a violation that one was cut off from the Jewish people.

Historically, the Overton Window about what’s considered appropriate discourse or hate speech has also shifted – multiple times. Slurs and crimes against Jews are commonplace throughout millennia. We’ve also had some golden eras, when things felt safe.

This January was another shift in Winnipeg. It’s been horrible, but we knew it was coming. It’s part of a worldwide shift of what’s considered “acceptable” antisemitism. I’ve been asked what can be done. I suggested giving this hate a broad, inclusive definition. Re-read the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition. Nothing good is intended when someone spray paints a swastika on a synagogue door. It’s even more of a threat when it’s on a classroom whiteboard or hidden in a Jewish kid’s locker, as was the recent case.

We must educate people about history, including how to avoid antisemitic hate. Make that education required. With definitions and education, our window of what’s acceptable or a crime firms up.

These experiences have felt like a terrible personal violation. It feels threatening and unsafe. Yet, our congregation responded with courage and love. We welcomed many non-Jewish supporters at our Shabbat services afterwards. We responded with pride and inclusivity.

The kid was so brave. He took a photo of the graffiti on his locker, asked a parent for help, went to the school office. Now, there’s a police report, all his classmates know what happened.

The kid also faced extended questioning from administrators about “if he’d told the whole story.” He was told that “everyone makes mistakes.” One lesson the kid learned is that maybe reporting the hate crime itself was a mistake, because, instead of supporting him, the approach involved the suggestion that the victim did the graffiti to begin with. This is bad news, and a familiar type of antisemitism, where Jewish victims are blamed for having “brought it on themselves.” We shouldn’t say this to any victim. It’s not OK. If this is treated as being OK, it means that victims may trust institutions less, and report less often.

Sunshine is the best disinfectant. Actions like education and transparency can clean up and eradicate hate. We don’t know who did this, but we know who we are. We’re Jewish. We’ve been here before. We’re made of stern, proud stuff. The Overton Window has shifted. It’s time to ask our allies to all lean in to help shove it back again.

Joanne Seiff has 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.

Prison sentence for hate

An Ontario court has handed down a 12-month prison sentence to a man who incited hate against Jews in public during a vigil last year at Nathan Phillips Square in Toronto.

“We commend the Court for making clear that there is a difference between free speech and hate speech, and for demonstrating that those who target our community, or any Canadian community, will be held accountable under our country’s laws,” said Richard Robertson, B’nai Brith Canada’s director of research and advocacy.

Razaali Bahadur, 45, was convicted this past June of inciting hatred at the April 7, 2024, event. His outbursts included blood libel, such as that Jews enjoy killing children and are, as a collective, responsible for killing Jesus.

During Bahadur’s sentencing, B’nai Brith Canada delivered an impact statement reflecting the fear and anguish many Jewish Canadians have felt as antisemitism has increased in this country.

As part of its advocacy at the federal level, B’nai Brith Canada penned a formal submission to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance, which is preparing an official report to inform the federal government’s fall budget.

In addition, B’nai Brith Canada is calling on the federal government to use the Budget Implementation Act to eliminate a loophole that temporarily allowed Samidoun, which was listed as a terrorist entity in this country in 2024, to continue operating as a nonprofit corporation.

“It is astonishing that, in Canada, an organization does not automatically lose its corporate status when it is declared a terrorist entity,” said Robertson.

In its fall budget submission, B’nai Brith recommended that the government:

• Make new investments to strengthen Canada’s resilience against violent extremism;

• Ensure that recipients of federal grants are in compliance with Canada’s anti-racism strategy: Changing Systems, Transforming Lives, 2024-2028;

• Develop a five-year plan to enhance Canadian youths’ understanding of contemporary antisemitism, as outlined in the IHRA working definition of antisemitism, which Canada adopted in 2019; and

• Make mandatory the existing antisemitism training approved for federal public servants.

– Courtesy B’nai Brith Canada

Tolerating intolerance

It was mayhem outside the BC Provincial Court, near Main and Hastings, Aug. 20, as anti-Israel protesters screamed, chanted and shouted into megaphones to drown out the words of Dallas Brodie, member of the BC Legislature for Vancouver-Quilchena and leader of the upstart OneBC party.

Brodie attempted a media conference outside the courthouse before filing a “private prosecution” against Charlotte Kates, the Vancouver woman who is international coordinator for Samidoun, a group the government of Canada has designated a terrorist entity.

Kates was arrested by Vancouver police in April 2024 under suspicion of public incitement of hatred and wilful promotion of hatred, a criminal offence in Canada, after a public rally where she led a crowd in a chant of “Long live Oct. 7,” called the Hamas attack “heroic and brave” and described designated terrorists as “heroes.”

She was released on condition that she refrain from participating in any protest activities. Those conditions expired Oct. 8, 2024, when the BC Prosecution Service and the assistant deputy attorney general had not approved the charges recommended by police. It was a week later that her organization, Samidoun, was officially designated as a terrorist entity by the government of Canada.

Brodie’s prosecution – an obscure legal move similar to a citizen’s arrest – is unlikely to have a direct impact on the case, though it might refocus the spotlight on the failure of authorities to follow through on a criminal prosecution.

In a statement, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs noted that a report to Crown counsel has been sitting on the desks of relevant officials for more than a year.

“Every day they do not press charges,” said CIJA’s Pacific region vice-president Nico Slobinsky in a statement, “she acts with increasing impunity, including by flying to Iran to receive a ‘human rights’ award from its government and attending the funeral of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in Lebanon. Our legal system must send a clear message: antisemitism and hate have no place in British Columbia or anywhere else in Canada. Charges must be pressed without delay.”

Ezra Shanken, chief executive officer of the Jewish Federation of Greater Vancouver, observed that more than two-thirds of the BC Jewish community have reported experiencing an antisemitic hate incident.

“Individuals and organizations like Charlotte Kates and Samidoun have exacerbated this dramatic wave of antisemitism, which is why our community has been calling for accountability since her despicable remarks on April 26, 2024, on the steps of the Vancouver Art Gallery,” Shanken said. “Justice delayed is justice denied.”

We wrote in this space recently about an incident at the Jewish Community Centre of Greater Vancouver that clearly violated existing laws banning political protests at locations where official school functions are taking place. Police did not recommend charges in that instance.

The inner workings of the Crown prosecutors’ office and other components of the judicial process are not entirely transparent, the sensitivity of the issues they address necessitating a degree of privacy. However, some observers have suggested that there is a systemic problem up the ladder of the process. Police often do not pursue instances of apparent offences because they have seen prosecutors decline to charge. Prosecutors are said to hesitate to lay charges because they have seen courts throw out cases they presented.

There has been a great deal of hand-wringing about a massive spike in antisemitism, including violent incidents. There are many remediative and preventive opportunities that do not involve criminal charges – public awareness campaigns and restorative justice and diversion programs among them. But, at some point, the laws on the books to prevent the spreading of hatred and incitement to violence must be tested. If they do not stand up in court, then we as a society need a dialogue about what we will tolerate.

We may find that we need new laws that courts will uphold, so that Crown prosecutors will be empowered to lay charges, so that police will know that enforcement is not a waste of energy, and so that Canadians will recognize what is acceptable and what is not in our country.

What is not tolerable is doing nothing.

Candidates share views

Parm Bains, incumbent MP and Liberal candidate in Richmond East-Steveston, and his Conservative opponent, Zach Segal, spoke at Beth Tikvah April 15. (photo by Alan Marchant)

Liberal and Conservative candidates made their pitches to the Jewish community in a candidates’ forum at Beth Tikvah Congregation April 15.

Parm Bains, incumbent member of Parliament and Liberal candidate in the riding of Richmond East-Steveston, and his Conservative opponent, Zach Segal, who hopes to unseat Bains as MP on April 28, shared their visions, and those of their parties, to a crowded sanctuary at the Richmond synagogue.

Both candidates spoke of their lifelong roots in Richmond.

Bains explained that his engagement with at-risk youth and combating gang violence first emerged through coaching sports. He became a community liaison for the provincial government under premiers Gordon Campbell and Christy Clark.

Segal worked in Ottawa during the Stephen Harper administration for the ministers of defence and transportation. He credited the former Conservative government for making Canada a “moral compass in the world.” However, he suggested that Jewish Canadians are wondering if there is a better tomorrow in Canada, not just because of rising antisemitism, but because of challenges around housing, affordability and community safety.

On the issue of antisemitism, Bains pointed to his Liberal colleague Anthony Housefather, who is the government’s special advisor on Jewish community relations and antisemitism, and urged members of the community to ensure authorities are made aware of every incident of antisemitic bias and hate.

“You have to report it,” Bains said. “If it’s reported, it’s a data point that we can take action on.”

Both candidates spoke of the challenges in enforcing existing anti-hate laws.

Bains said it is crucial that police understand the definition of hate crimes and that they are educated to enforce the laws as they stand.

Segal condemned an “explosive rise in antisemitism” and credited it in part to “a horrible lack of moral leadership.” The intimidation of Jewish people and the employment of incendiary language has been tolerated by federal leaders and others on the basis of free expression, he argued.

“This is hate speech,” Segal said. “This is inciting hate and it is illegal.”

Police have said they don’t have the support to go after perpetrators, said Segal, adding that funding to increase security at Jewish institutions, for example, is a Band-Aid solution that deals with the symptoms and not the causes. He said that his party’s leader, Pierre Poilievre, has been “rock solid” in condemning hate rallies and marches. He said that a Conservative government would “close loopholes” that allow hateful events like the annual Al-Quds Day rally in Toronto to continue unchecked.

Existing laws need to be enforced, said Bains, and he suggested there is a need to understand why police are not calling for charges and Crown prosecutors are not pursuing them.

“Why is there a reluctance?” Bains asked. “Where does that leadership need to come from?”

Canada has seen some of the “most obscene” anti-Israel activism of any Western democracy, Segal asserted, citing Charlotte Kates, who was arrested in November, and her Samidoun Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network, which had been declared a terrorist entity shortly before her arrest, “years after Jewish and other community leaders sounded the alarm on them,” Segal said.

Segal also took exception to the fact that Canada instituted a military embargo on Israel before it recognized the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization.

“We were literally being tougher on Israel than Iran,” he said.

Bains said Israel has a right to defend itself and the hostages need to be freed. Canadians, however, want to play a role as “honest broker” and in peacekeeping. “Right now, Canadians want to see the violence stop, the bloodshed stop,” he said.

Segal condemned the Liberal government for resuming funding for UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency that functions as a quasi-governmental body in the Palestinian territories, some employees of which participated in the Oct. 7 pogroms.

“That is out of step with our allies in the Western world,” Segal said. Where the Harper Conservative government voted against one-sided resolutions of the United Nations, under the Liberals, said Segal, Canada has again begun supporting demonizing resolutions against Israel.

Both candidates called for more affordable housing, supports for seniors and economic opportunities for young people.

The candidates asked to speak were selected based on independent polling information which showed the Liberals and Conservatives to be the two parties leading or competing in both Richmond ridings. The Beth Tikvah Community Awareness Committee, which sponsored the event with support from the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs and the Canadian Jewish Political Affairs Committee, chose to give those candidates likely to form government or be in the official opposition the opportunity to address the issues.

Rabbi Susan Tendler opened the event with reflections on reconciliation and noted the significance of the event taking place during Passover, the celebration of freedom, while Jews remain captive in Gaza.

Test of Bill 22 a failure

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

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

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

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

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

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

This incident speaks to a larger problem.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Setting intentions, priorities

This year, the High Holidays fall later than usual, with Rosh Hashanah just a few days before the anniversary of Oct. 7, 2023 – the most tragic date in the history of modern-day Israel.

The High Holidays offer special opportunities for reflection and renewal, reaffirming what matters most, pursuing positive change and strengthening our connections with others.

As we look back on 5784, we should examine our own actions, reflecting honestly on our challenges and successes, and seeking lessons we can take from our experiences to carry into the year ahead. It’s a time to consider which elements of our lives and our relationships with others need improvement.

This leads naturally to an opportunity to contemplate our intentions and priorities and plan for the future. It is a means of charting a course that aligns with our values and contributes to the strength of our families and our communities.

While Canada remains one of the safest places for Jewish communities, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs’ advocacy – especially since Oct. 7 – has been fueled by a profound dedication to tackling the disturbing rise in antisemitism.

The alarming surge in antisemitism, both online and on the streets, has been deeply shocking. Yet, it has also driven us to forge essential connections with all levels of government, law enforcement, educational institutions and community organizations representing the majority of Canada’s Jewish population and other vulnerable minorities.

Just as the High Holidays are arriving late this year, so too are long-awaited protections from the government. We have seen some progress, but there is much to be done to ensure “bubble legislation” (safe-access laws to protect defined areas from protests, harassment and hate) becomes common, if not ubiquitous, across Canada. Vaughan, Ont., has adopted an encouraging example, and many other municipalities have expressed serious interest in following suit, but there is still much work ahead.

Federal online hate legislation has been in development under various ministries for years, and we are not backing down on contributing to and securing this fundamental legislation that will enhance security measures.

The accusations against Israel of war crimes from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) are both absurd and detrimental to Canada and the West’s long-standing policies aimed at achieving peace in the Middle East. If the Canadian government wants to rescue the reputation of the ICJ, it must denounce this evidence of its politicization.

Antisemitism is not a “Jewish” problem. Jew-hatred poses a grave danger to all who cherish our core Canadian values. We know from history that, wherever antisemitism is allowed to thrive unchecked, social malaise and political oppression follow. Its defeat requires a concentrated, multi-pronged approach involving many cultural, political, ethnic and faith organizations, as well as individuals from across the country. Together, we are working to combat antisemitism while building relationships with many partner groups, promoting the Canadian values of dialogue and understanding, tolerance and respect.

As Canada’s special envoy on preserving Holocaust remembrance and combatting antisemitism, Deborah Lyons, wrote in a July op-ed in the National Post: “Jews did not create antisemitism and … it is not on them to fight it alone.”

As we approach the sad and sombre anniversary of the Oct. 7 massacre, many will join us in honouring the memories of those murdered by Hamas and in praying for the safe return of the hostages and for the restoration of peace to the region. And, if we are so blessed to have welcomed home the hostages by the time you are reading this, we’ll have more to celebrate as we begin the new year.

In the meantime, I wish you a sweet, healthy, peaceful and happy 5785.

Judy Zelikovitz is vice-president, university and local partner services, at the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs.

Arson at synagogue

The doors and the flooring outside the entrance of Congregation Schara Tzedeck were damaged when an arsonist set fire to them the night of May 30. (photo from B’nai Brith Canada)

Around 9:30 p.m., after evening prayers on Thursday, May 30, a group of people were shmoozing on 19th Avenue, outside Schara Tzedeck synagogue. A passerby alerted them that there was a fire at the main Oak Street entrance to the shul.

The group ran around the corner to the scene and a man used his jacket to put out the fire.

The arson attack was brazen – it was barely past sundown on a busy Vancouver artery. A resident across the street videotaped the scene from their apartment window.

The synagogue’s spiritual leader, Rabbi Andrew Rosenblatt, was immediately alerted by phone but his reaction was disbelief. The congregant who called him is an Israeli whose first language is not English and the rabbi wondered – perhaps hoped – that there was a miscommunication.

On Rosenblatt’s arrival, two fire trucks were on the scene and the rabbi let firefighters and police into the building, which was pervaded by the smell of the accelerant used to light the fire. The doors and the flooring outside the entrance were damaged, but the fuel had already begun burning out by the time the flames were doused.

Rosenblatt said he wasn’t focused on his emotions in the immediate aftermath.

“Honestly, I went very quickly into crisis management mode,” he told the Independent. “I wasn’t really processing any kind of deep emotions or letting the whole thing sink in.”

He dealt with police, notified the synagogue’s leadership and prepared for what he knew would be a media frenzy beginning the following day.

Support has been encouraging. Civic leaders, fellow clergy, multicultural representatives, members of the Jewish community and strangers have brought or sent well wishes and made donations.

Although Rosenblatt was in disbelief initially, he acknowledged that he and others have been warning about precisely this sort of escalation for months, including in a private meeting with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau earlier this year.

No arrests have been made but Rosenblatt said that the perpetrator is “theoretically identifiable” from photographic evidence. Police have asked Rosenblatt and others with firsthand knowledge not to share any additional details as they do not want any potential for affecting witness testimonies.

While the arson attack is deeply alarming, Rosenblatt believes it is a manifestation of a broader “mainstreaming” of antisemitism – a phenomenon he sees worryingly exhibited in last week’s decision by the BC Teachers’ Federation to reject the creation of a provincial specialist association, or PSA, addressing antisemitism and Holocaust education.

“When people ask me what I’m concerned about, I’m honestly more concerned with what’s happening in the public schools,” said the rabbi. “Not that someone being brazen enough to light the synagogue on fire isn’t a horrible thing. It’s reflective of a willingness to go to violence. But the person who did that, at least, was ashamed enough to obscure his identity.”

Those who voted against an association for Holocaust and antisemitism education not only did so publicly but seem to view their actions as a form of righteousness, he said.

“Those people are proud and giving themselves a pat on the back,” he said. “That, to me, is the one which is going to cause more lasting harm.”

Other incidents, in which Jewish artists have been removed from exhibitions and Jewish-themed plays have been canceled, send a dangerous message to young Jewish artists and performers that their identity, and their associations with Israel, could have negative consequences, said the rabbi.

Meanwhile, he is hearing from colleagues across the country about habitual harassment and vandalism, from broken windows to dead animals thrown on synagogue property.

“People are just sort of inching over the lines,” he said.

Rosenblatt said it is vital that all incidents be reported to authorities. The BC government has a Provincial Racist Incident Helpline at 1-833-457-5463. The website of the Jewish Federation of Greater Vancouver has information on reporting hate crimes. B’nai Brith Canada has an app and other resources for reporting hate incidents on their website. Individuals or institutions requiring legal advice due to a suspected antisemitic incident can access pro bono legal consultation through a new helpline, 778-800-8917 or alh@accessprobono.ca.

The arson took place less than a week before Mosaic, Schara Tzedeck’s major annual gala celebration. It was referenced at the event, but Rosenblatt said it did not cloud the celebration.

“It has not changed who we are or what we do and how we think about Schara Tzedeck,” he said. “You can’t let antisemites define you.”

Let’s talk about new bill

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Justice Minister Arif Virani responded to concerns over free expression.

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

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

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

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