Canada prides itself on being a country where free expression is a core value. We have always differed from our American cousins, though, in recognizing a balance between an “anything goes” right to speech and the contending right of individuals and groups to live free from fear and incitement.
Canadian law draws definite lines. Speech that incites violence against an identifiable group, that promotes hatred or that crosses into criminal harassment is not protected. Those limits are not theoretical – they exist precisely because history has shown what can happen when words move from expression into incitement.
Even as governments take steps towards legislation that would create “bubble zones” and strengthen hate crime laws, many Canadians Jews are concerned that limitations already set out in law, intended to protect minority communities, are not being enforced. Rhetoric like “Globalize the intifada,” which is heard as an overt call for violence against Jews by most Jews and other people who can hear clearly, is going uncontested by police and courts, for example.
The Criminal Code is clear: advocating or promoting violence against identifiable groups crosses a line. The question is no longer whether such limits exist. The question is whether they are being enforced. And, increasingly, the answer appears to be no.
What we are seeing is not simply robust debate. It is a climate in which harassment and intimidation are proliferating, often without legal consequence.
There are, of course, consequences. Jewish institutions require heightened security after so many incidents that it is hard to keep up with the grim news. Students and faculty experience actively hostile campus environments. Public demonstrations brazenly cross the line between protest, provocation and hate.
There is no provable causal chain between rhetoric and violence. Democracies are right to err on the side of speech. But, when the same language, the same slogans and the same patterns of escalation appear alongside an unprecedented rise in hate incidents and targeted attacks, the correlation becomes increasingly difficult to dismiss – and demands attention.
Canada is not alone in confronting this tension. The British authorities have begun to draw firmer lines – distinguishing between lawful protest and language and conduct that threatens public safety or targets vulnerable communities.
The approach is not without controversy. It raises legitimate concerns about overreach and the risk of suppressing dissent. But it also reflects a recognition that inaction carries its own dangers.
Canada is facing a similar showdown.
The goal must not be to silence political views, however unpopular. Or to criminalize protest or suppress debate about complex international issues. Those must remain protected. The goal must be far narrower – to enforce the laws that already exist and to ensure that calls for violence,harassment and intimidation are treated as such, regardless of political context. To make clear that free expression does not extend to threatening the safety and dignity of others.
This is a position that seems simple enough, even unquestioned, when it comes to hateful language and physical intimidation against other vulnerable populations. The situation is serious and it demands the willingness to confront uncomfortable truths.
Canada should not abandon its commitment to free expression. But we must recognize, as we always have, that free expression has limits – and that those limits exist for a reason. In this instance, the reason is the evident correlation between rampant anti-Israel, antizionist and antisemitic rhetoric and the violence against Jews and Jewish institutions we are experiencing.
The government of the United Kingdom is now experimenting in enforcing limitations on hate expression. It is a courageous step. It could also be a turning point – in either direction.
The inevitable pushback around “silencing” (itself often founded on antisemitic tropes of Jewish power) and the more legitimate concerns about free speech make this a fraught policy area. However, if the UK, which shares much of our political culture, can find a middle ground, we would be wise to pay attention.
If, on the other hand, more violent protests, adverse court decisions or – more damagingly – if the government suffers internal splits or popular disapproval over its approach to anti-Jewish harassment, it could set a precedent in which politicians in places like Canada learn that it is best not to provoke the harassers. If that happens, it will signal an open season for anti-Jewish agitation and an extraordinary abandonment of free speech’s twin core value of being able to live free from fear and incitement.
What is needed right now is political courage. Some of that exists, but it needs to exist in a sufficient number of decision-makers and in the places of power where it is most needed and can have the most effect. For better or worse, we will know if this is the case soon enough.
Recently, my kids walked home from high school latebecause of their games club, which meets once a week. On their way, they saw a man on the sidewalk, coming from a pedestrian trail. He wore a sign on his back that read, “Netanyahu, Butcher of Gaza.” They hung back, took photos and alerted me when they got home.
Here’s a good reason to give Jewish teens access to cellphones. I used the “Find My” app to watch them walk home. They used the phone to document this. We found this signage offensive and upsetting, but it hadn’t been an emergency incident, so they didn’t use their phones to call 911.
I reported this incident to B’nai Brith Canada, who suggested also filing a police report. Over dinner, we discussed the sign. Was this antisemitism or just free speech, when using the IHRA definition of antisemitism? Is the test for this, “Would anyone reasonably use this kind of language about other countries’ publicly elected officials?” The answer for us was, “Well, yes.” We don’t approve of it, but, in 2022, we heard all this as part of the truckers’ convoy that came through Winnipeg. They parked (and honked) at the provincial legislature, close enough to our home so we saw their signs and hateful rhetoric.
I Googled the phrase on the man’s sign. Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan started using this phrase in November 2023. It’s been used repeatedly in the last 2.5 years of the Gaza conflict. Knowing a phrase’s “origin story” doesn’t make it less virulent. It still didn’t feel OK. Something can be legal, but also shameful, wrong or antisocial, bad behaviour.
As a family, we debated whether we should do a police report. In Winnipeg, it’s not that easy to report something like this. There’s an online form, but it specifically rejects claims due to hate crimes or speech. In situations like this, there is calling 911 to report it or going downtown to the only police station that takes these reports. We chose to leave this one up to B’nai Brith, but the situation remained fresh and upsetting.
First, there’s the debate over whether something hateful and harmful is illegal or immediately dangerous. Our city’s police service is overburdened. Everyone in Winnipeg has heard of someone who has called the cops and been told that, unless the situation was life threatening, no police would show up. This means that squatters without life-threatening weapons aren’t immediately tossed out of vacant homes – but then the homes catch on fire. In one awful case, a panicked teen, trying to protect his grandmother, called the police during a home invasion. He was killed before the police arrived. This horrific incident puts our hate-signage sighting in perspective.
Second, though, is the question of whether we (Jewish people) or teens walking home from school deserve to feel safe. This man wasn’t walking in front of a consulate or legislature in protest. He was near multiple schools, a library, a synagogue, several churches, a hospital and a care home. If bubble legislation existed in Canada or in Winnipeg, it would have been possible to report this and expect a police response. As things stand, it didn’t seem forthcoming.
This incident reminded me of a conversation I had at Kiddush lunch at synagogue. A Jewish family at our table insisted, in alarm, that Bill C-9 (the one for federal bubble legislation) would interfere with their right to free speech. I asked how often they wrote for the press or how this risked interference with their current modes of protest. I asked if they felt that their right to protest was in jeopardy. When I Googled them later, I found that they don’t write widely. Their names don’t appear in the news regarding protests. Their right to free speech or protest was likely not being threatened in any way. It seems they had fallen prey to misinformation. At the table, I brought up multiple incidents that our children face as they leave a public school and walk home past our congregation.
When a protester is outside the synagogue just after school lets out, the police say that it’s public space. The protest is allowed, even though the signage blocks the sidewalk. Kids walking by are exposed to potential hate speech, and normalizing hate speech or graffiti can lead to acts of violence. This kind of protest first happened about two years ago, but, this spring, the signage on a man’s jacket left us in the same quandary.
Well-intentioned allies have asked, “Do you feel safe?” or “What can I do?”
The answer to the first question is, “no.” There are a lot of reasons for that. For one thing, I’d like my kids to be able to walk home without feeling threatened or having to dodge protesters or shoot photos.
I regularly encounter non-Jewish Canadians who ask the second question. I try to help them learn more about the issues, so they feel ready to be “upstanders” rather than just “bystanders.” Calling the police, paying privately for huge amounts of security or shielding children from hateful protest shouldn’t be something Jewish Canadians navigate alone. We’re less than 1% of the Canadian population. It’s necessary to educate and mobilize allies to help.
Political “free speech” can be legal and still hateful. A society that speaks up can make change, even if the offender isn’t arrested. Education happens when we say, out loud, that some behaviours are shameful and un-Canadian. Bad behaviour affects all of us. It’s time to find adults willing to speak up. If somebody wants Jews to feel safe in Canada, then the status quo is not what they want either.
Joanne Seiffhas written regularly for the Winnipeg Free Press and various Jewish publications. She is the author of three books, including From the Outside In: Jewish Post Columns 2015-2016, a collection of essays available for digital download or as a paperback from Amazon. Check her out on Instagram @yrnspinner or at joanneseiff.blogspot.com.
Israeli Minster of National Security Itamar Ben G’vir holds up a champagne bottle in the Knesset on March 30, toasting the passage of Israel’s new death penalty law. (screenshot)
On March 30, two days before erev Passover, Israeli Minister of National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir celebrated the passing of his racist, dangerous, vengeful and unjust death penalty law by raising a champagne bottle and drinking to victory. The customary toast in Jewish tradition, of course, is to exclaim “L’chaim!” (“To life!”) Partly for this reason, the name chosen for the Jewish anti-death penalty group I co-founded, which now includes thousands of members in Israel and abroad, is “L’chaim! Jews Against the Death Penalty.” Those members of the Knesset who support this law have upended the phrase meant to evoke Judaism’s core life-affirming principles.
While Ben-Gvir claims to be a pious and observant Jew, his actions once again reveal his blatant disregard for Jewish values, and an essential mockery of Jewish ritual symbolism. He might as well have screamed “Lamavet” (“To death”) for his celebratory toast. Make no mistake: the passage of this death penalty law will certainly bring death for both convicted terrorists and innocent Israelis and Jews across the world. It is an abomination that will prove disastrous for multiple reasons.
Wine at Passover
One of the most well-known facts about the Passover seder, which both Jews and many non-Jews are keenly aware of, is that it traditionally involves drinking four cups of wine or grape juice. These four cups are a mandatory rabbinic commandment, representing the four expressions of redemption God used in Exodus 6:6-7 to promise freedom to the Israelites. Consumed at specific intervals in the seder, they symbolize freedom, joy, and key stages of liberation, from slavery to becoming a nation.
Perhaps one of the most widely understood reasons for drinking wine on Passover, as on Purim and on any Jewish holiday, is its symbolism of life, joy, sanctification, and transformation used to elevate holy moments like Shabbat, holidays and weddings. It signifies “cheering the heart,” redemption (specifically the four cups at Passover) and divine blessing, while also serving as a reminder of the need for temperance and balance. By lifting a glass for death just ahead of Passover, Ben-Gvir has effectively desecrated this sacred tradition with inverted, grotesque symbolism.
Another tradition of the Passover seder highlights the extent of the sacrilege of Ben-Gvir’s celebration. It is customary for seder-goers to remove 10 drops of wine, one for each of the plagues they chant, symbolizing how the suffering that each affliction produced for our people’s enemies diminishes our joy. This list culminates in the 10th plague of the death of the firstborn of Egypt at the hands of Malakh Hamavet, the Angel of Death. Instead of honouring this Passover ritual, Ben-Gvir profaned it by using wine to glorify killing.
The 10 Plagues
It is most fitting, with Passover only recently having ended, for L’chaim to use the 10 Plagues – with which God cursed the Egyptians in response to Pharaoh’s “hardened heart” – as symbols of the many reasons to oppose the death penalty. We align these biblical maladies with 10 damning strikes against the death penalty to highlight that capital punishment itself is a plague on any society that enacts it. Capital punishment condemns any government that wields it, including Israel now, infinitely more so than any of the individuals it condemns to death.
Dam (Blood): Israel’s death penalty law could increase terrorism, making it more enticing to would-be martyrs (shahids).
Tzifatdeiya (Frogs): It will undoubtedly endanger Jews worldwide.
Kinim (Lice): From Adolf Hitler to Donald Trump, Machiavellian politicians wield the death penalty as a political tool, particularly for election campaigns, and that is the case with this law. Consider the recent examples in Israel of Ben-Gvir’s noose-shaped lapel pin and his video promoting the death penalty law, illicitly filmed at a gallows museum in Jerusalem, as well as Limor Son Har-Melech’s Nazi-inspired Purim costume featuring an injection syringe.
Arov (Wild Animals): Jewish tradition makes the death penalty virtually impossible to carry out. Passage of this law has betrayed the life-affirming core of that tradition.
Dever (Pestilence): Terms like “deterrence,” which is a fallacious delusion when applied to the death penalty, and “retributive” or “proportional” justice, are veils for vengeance. Unequivocally, revenge does not bring closure for murder victims’ loved ones.
Sh’chin (Boils): The death penalty is racist, and this law in particular is viciously discriminatory.
Barad (Hail): The death penalty inherently violates the human right to life. Relatedly, it often results in physical torture, and always is psychological torture, for individuals counting down to their execution day. There is no humane way to execute human beings against their will.
Arbeh (Locusts): Many execution methods are direct Nazi legacies, including firing squad, gassing and lethal injection.
Choshech (Darkness): Capital punishment will traumatize the executioners within the Israel Prison Service. This law also risks placing anyone involved in contravention of human rights treaties.
Makat Bechorot (Death of the Firstborn):The death penalty inevitably risks executing the innocent.
Onward toward repeal
On March 30, the same day that the Knesset passed this barbaric law, a vast coalition of Jewish organizations across Israel and the world immediately petitioned the Israeli Supreme Court to repeal it. The next day, the Supreme Court ordered that the state must respond to the petition and the request for an interim injunction by May 24. The members of L’chaim, together with Jews of good conscience and all of civilized humanity, will continue to do all we can to support this vital, sacred effort.
None other than death penalty abolitionist Elie Wiesel (1928-2016) aptly referred to capital punishment as the “Angel of Death.” It is high time to banish this medieval plague from Israel once and for all. The final uplifting song of the Passover seder is “L’shanah haba’ah b’Yerushalayim” (“Next year in Jerusalem”). It is our consummate hope and intention that next Passover, Jerusalem will see the repeal of this monstrous legislation.
Cantor Michael Zoosmanis a certified spiritual care practitioner and received his cantorial ordination from the Jewish Theological Seminary of America. He sits as an advisory committee member at Death Penalty Action and is co-founder of L’chaim! Jews Against the Death Penalty. Zoosman is a former Jewish prison chaplain and psychiatric hospital chaplain. He lives with his family in Vancouver.
At rallies held across Canada after the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel and during the Israel-Hamas war, there were protesters holding antisemitic signs and hollering antisemitic slogans. Bill C-9 would amend the Criminal Code to strengthen existing hate-related offences. (photo from Canadian Handbook on the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism)
Parliament resumed last month after its winter break and one of the bills on the agenda for the new session could have significant repercussions for Jewish Canadians.
While Jewish organizations welcome most components of the proposed legislation, the most important message that its passage would send is that political leaders take hate crimes seriously, according to Jewish organizational spokespeople who were interviewed by the Independent.
Bill C-9 would amend the Criminal Code to strengthen existing hate-related offences. But legal experts and advocacy agencies admit there is no quick fix for the explosion of antisemitic rhetoric and violence in Canada and around the world.
The proposed legislation, which is now in committee stage, would create new offences for intimidation and for intentional obstruction of access to religious or cultural institutions, schools, daycares, seniors residences and cemeteries. It would also create a new hate-crime offence tied to crimes motivated by “hatred,” add a definition of “hatred” and create an offence related to publicly displaying certain hate or terrorist symbols in ways that promote hatred. If passed, the law would remove the requirement of provincial attorneys general to approve police-laid charges and instead place that decision on Crown prosecutors.
In a rare joint statement in December, five national organizations – the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Centre, B’nai Brith Canada, the Alliance of Canadians Combatting Antisemitism, and Canadian Women Against Antisemitism – welcomed the bill. They also called for additional steps, including increased funding for community security and closing gaps in the country’s anti-terror laws. The statement further called for existing laws to be more vigorously and consistently enforced.
Despite the advocacy of community voices, and existing and proposed legislation, many Canadian Jews feel that antisemitic rhetoric and acts are getting worse, not better, and that few of the actions taken to stanch them are having the desired outcomes.
In British Columbia, for example, Vancouver police recommended charges against Charlotte Kates, a Vancouver resident who publicly called the Oct. 7, 2023, terror attacks “brave and heroic” and who led a rally in chants of “Long live October 7.” The recommendation has been on the desk of BC’s attorney general for more than 18 months. In an interview with the Independent late last year, Premier David Eby committed to providing an update on the case. Despite repeated follow-ups, the premier’s office has not yet responded with an explanation as to why no action has been forthcoming.
The Independent interviewed leaders in Jewish advocacy organizations, and a clear consensus emerged that expressions of political will may be as important as any particular piece of existing or new legislation.
While many people may feel things are on a downward trajectory, Dylan Hanley, senior vice-president, public affairs, for the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, noted some areas of progress. For example, though the situation on Canadian university campuses is not perfect, he said, there have been improvements in terms of how administrations respond to problems.
Hanley also said credit should be given where due, and intelligence agencies and law enforcement have, crucially, prevented several potential disasters from happening in Canada. More must be done, however, including additional immigration screening around connections to terrorist groups, and maintaining vigilance around foreign interference in politics and civil society, he said.
Further investigation is required around possible foreign support for domestic agitators, said Hanley. Although there is no solid evidence, there has been much speculation about external funding of anti-Israel activities, especially given the apparent preparedness of domestic groups immediately after the 10/7 attacks, he said.
“Has anybody shown us the smoking gun?” Hanley asked. “No. Do we suspect at least that there are foreign funds going into some of these campaigns? Sure.”
Ensuring government support for community security is an ongoing issue, as funding is cyclical. But Hanley noted that, while this support is necessary, it is also a response to the problem, which requires leadership and action that gets at the root of the issue – radicalization combined with a major increase in antisemitism.
The proposed changes contained in Bill C-9 are largely a step in the right direction in his view, but Hanley says no single approach can eliminate the underlying problem of antisemitism and hatred.
“None of these things are silver bullets on their own,” he said. “And we don’t want to raise community expectations that there is a silver bullet here.”
The Jewish community is feeling very alone, he said, and is looking for someone to fix the problem. The consensus among all those interviewed for this story is that political leadership must set the tone.
“I think the biggest piece – and we deliver this message at every level of government in every interaction – is we need to see clear leadership on this,” Hanley said. “We need our leaders to come out and say, clearly, this isn’t OK. You can’t target communities in Canada because of anger or frustrations from conflicts going on overseas, and what starts with our community isn’t going to end with our community.”
Even before Oct. 7, 2023, antisemitism was an increasing problem in Canada – this photo comes from a Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs’ post about Ontario’s 2022 election. A lack of political will at all levels of government is one reason the problem continues to worsen. (photo from cija.ca)
Jewish Canadians are frustrated with what appears like constant buck-passing, he said.
“The university says, ‘Well, actually, this is the police’s job.’ The police say, ‘Well, you know, we haven’t gotten any political cover from the city.’ The city says it’s the province. The province says it’s the feds,” Hanley explained. “And then you go around in the circle again and the feds say, ‘We don’t get involved in law enforcement in individual cases.’”
Aron Csaplaros, BC regional manager for B’nai Brith Canada, echoed several of Hanley’s comments and lauded the Bill C-9 provision that would create a law that most Canadians probably think already exists.
“In Canada, we do not right now have a freestanding hate crime offence,” he said. Instead, the Criminal Code prohibits wilful promotion of hatred and public incitement of hatred. At present, acts motivated by hate are usually prosecuted under general offences like mischief or assault, while bias or hate can be treated only as an aggravating factor at sentencing.
With Bill C-9, prosecutors would be able to lay a specific hate-crime charge that makes bias or hatred part of the offence itself. This means that prosecutions can centre explicitly on antisemitic or hateful motivation, and sentencing may be more severe because the hate element would be built into the crime rather than treated as secondary.
Bill C-9 would also create a prohibition against harassing people outside religious institutions.
“Everyone has the right to freedom of expression and protest,” said Csaplaros. “But, at the same time, those rights cannot come at the expense of the freedom of others.”
His views about the way things are handled – or not – are similar to Hanley’s.
“I think there’s a lot of passing the buck and finger-pointing going on between various levels of law enforcement and government,” said Csaplaros.
Like the other spokespeople the Independent interviewed, Csaplaros said he is not criticizing law enforcement.
“Law enforcement really needs to be empowered. They need to ensure that officers are using all of the resources available to them,” he said. “That means that all levels of government –federal, municipal, provincial – need to support law enforcement by ensuring clear directives and ensuring that they have the mandate.”
Officers on the frontline may need more awareness of the laws and the extent or limitations of those laws, he said. Crown prosecutors and the
judiciary might benefit from refreshers as well, he added.
Education is key, he said, not just for people at the frontline of law enforcement but for all Canadians. B’nai Brith is calling for a national digital literacy campaign so that all people, but especially young people, have the tools to be able to differentiate fact from fiction, disinformation from legitimate disagreement.
Jaime Kirzner-Roberts, senior director of policy and advocacy for Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Centre, said education is a core mandate of her organization. In this context, she has seen how the realities facing Jewish Canadians are questioned or discounted.
The centre educates a broad range of audiences, including law enforcement, government officials and civil society leaders. Almost invariably, she said, when trainers show statistics of antisemitic hate crimes, hands shoot up in the audience to contest the numbers, to question the methodologies or otherwise call into doubt the prevalence of attacks on Jews. Part of this, she believes, is due to the pervasiveness of the myth of the “powerful Jew.”
“This sort of racist understanding of the Jew has compromised the ability of the society to really understand that, in fact, we are the targets,” she said.
Even when people are not challenging the evidence, said Kirzner-Roberts, there seems to be a fundamental disconnect between approaches to antisemitism and reactions to other forms of racism.
“The response that we so often hear is, ‘Well, it’s a free country,’” she said. “This is not the kind of expression that you would get if the target were, in my opinion, anyone other than Jews.” This societal double standard is a challenge, she said.
Like the others interviewed, Kirzner-Roberts believes that leadership and political will are crucial to turning the tide. That includes legislation like Bill C-9 and also enforcement of existing laws. “There is a lot of legislation already that is being far underutilized,” she said.
Systemic issues, though, are addressed by leadership at the political level.
“We’re seeing a lack of political will across the board, and I’m talking here [about] cities, provinces and on the federal level,” said Kirzner-Roberts.
In addition to addressing the rise in hate-motivated crime and closing loopholes in existing laws, she said, Bill C-9 is important because it drives home the message of political will onto police and prosecutors.
Before the 2004 Summer Paralympic Games in Athens, Greece, organizers installed an elevator in the Acropolis. (photo from greecehighdefinition.com)
What does sports have to do with human rights? This was the question posed by Vancouver Jewish community leader Zena Simces as she and her spouse Simon Rabkin launched the seventh annual Simces and Rabkin Family Dialogue on Human Rights Oct. 23 in a national online event.
There is evidence of discrimination and exclusion, racism, sexism, ableism, athlete exploitation and maltreatment, labour rights violations, sex eligibility and gender identity issues and safety concerns in sport, Simces said. There are also funding issues, such as the high cost of participation in sport, including at the community level.
Sport is about more than just an active and healthy lifestyle, Simces noted, though it is about that, too.
“It can help to address social isolation and loneliness, which have been identified as major health concerns, not only for older adults, but also for children and youth,” she said. “Sports can be democratic, as it invites everyone to belong and contribute to strengthening and building community, but there is a dark side.”
The dialogue was moderated by Wendy MacGregor, a consultant, educator and lawyer who is the founder and executive director of Athlete Zone, a nonprofit that provides Canadians with support, guidance and education in the pursuit of healthy sports environments.
“Unfortunately, with all those wonderful attributes that sports brings, it is not accessible to everyone worldwide and not even to all Canadians,” said MacGregor. She cited statistics indicating that youth participation numbers “are dropping off a cliff and especially girls are dropping out of sport.”
Some of the reasons for this include increased costs, travel time, difficulty of access to facilities, discrimination, maltreatment or abuse in sport and the increased commercialization of sport.
Panelist Bryan Heal, the social impact research lead at Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment, spoke about a program his organization is involved with, called Change the Game, which advances youth access, equity and outcomes through sport.
Change the Game has engaged more than 25,000 young people around Ontario, he said, addressing factors of race, gender, ability, household income, geography and other factors around access and barriers.
More than 80% of young people who have participated in the program, he said, have experienced themselves or are aware of a problem in these areas but do not feel like they have anyone that they can talk to about it.
“There’s a culture and strategy of silence that is employed by default,” said Heal. “In a team environment, it can be incredibly isolating and deflating when you’re harbouring something like that. It draws people away to other sports, sometimes to leaving sports entirely.”
Jeff Adams, a lawyer specializing in labour, employment and human rights issues, is a decorated Paralympian, having won three gold medals in wheelchair races.
Accommodating different needs is fundamental and, too often, he said, excuses are made, such as the argument that sports facilities are often in buildings that are too old to be made fully accessible.
Before the 2004 Summer Paralympic Games in Athens, Greece, organizers installed an elevator in the Acropolis. “You want to talk about the most historically relevant building in the world,” he said. “It’s the cradle of civilization, and they put an elevator in it.”
An attitude exists that basic Canadian laws, embodied in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, do not apply to the playing field, he argued.
“We are not applying the fundamental supreme law of Canada to athletes who are bleeding for their country in competition,” Adams said. “We have laws that work. We have anti-violence and harassment legislation baked into labour and employment laws.”
Amreen Kadwa, founder and executive director of Hijabi Ballers, a Toronto nonprofit creating positive experiences in sport for Muslim girls and women, said her group’s programs provide more than just access to sport.
“They create safe, culturally affirming spaces where women can play without judgment,” she said. “They can learn new skills, they can grow in their confidence and, beyond sport, we nurture leadership. It really is human rights in action.”
Female athletes face far more violence and discrimination in sport than their male counterparts, Kadwa said.
“But this number is even higher for racialized women,” she said. “Muslim women, a lot of them who are hijab-wearing Muslim women, are often seen as outsiders, whether through their outfits, their clothing, the stereotype, a lack of cultural understanding.”
The annual dialogue event is a partnership with the Canadian Museum for Human Rights and Equitas, an international centre for human rights education.
My latest trip down a rabbit hole was inspired by this issue’s theme of Finance & Law. One of the first news items that caught my eye was “Model for U.S. Coin Revealed as a Jewess at Marriage.” The two-paragraph story appeared in the July 24, 1930, copy of one of the Jewish Independent’s predecessors, the Jewish Centre News.
“Through her marriage it was revealed that Miss Doris Doscher, whose face adorns the new twenty-five cent pieces issued by the National Treasury, is a Jewess. She was married yesterday to Dr. H. William Baum at the Jewish Institute of Religion,” reads the article.
“Miss Doscher was selected several years ago by the government representatives as the model for the new twenty-five cent pieces because she characterized ‘the highest type of American Womanhood.’”
Doscher, who lived from 1882 to 1970, was an actress (in silent films!) and model. Her main claim to fame movie-wise seems to have been the role of Eve in 1918’s The Birth of a Race. Her most famous modeling ventures were for the Standing Liberty Quarter (in circulation 1916-1930), designed by Hermon Atkins MacNeil, and for the Pulitzer Fountain of Abundance by Karl Bitter (and Thomas Hastings, according to nycgovparks.org), which was dedicated in 2016, having been completed by Isidore Konti and Karl Gruppe after Bitter died in 1915. The fountain is located at Grand Army Plaza in Manhattan.
From the late 1920s, Doscher worked as a newspaper columnist and radio broadcaster, even having her own health and beauty column for a time; she also lectured on the topic. But, back to the Standing Liberty Quarter, which was controversial for a couple of reasons.
A 1918 print of Doris Doscher, horizontally flipped for comparison to the Standing Liberty Quarter, for which she may have been the model. (photo from mediastorehouse.com)
The Standing Liberty Quarter, 1930.
The first iteration of Liberty was quite risqué, with her right breast exposed, which apparently appalled the women’s movement of the day, as well as clergy and others. According to edmontoncoinclub.com, “The initial production run of 52,000 pieces had made their way through the Treasury system by January 1917; by then, the production of the ‘Type 1’ 1917 issue was already in full-swing … but by early 1917 clearly something had to be done. Hermon MacNeil was obliged to modify his design, which he strenuously objected to [an article on uscoinnews.com asserts that MacNeil never authorized the design change], and the reasons that were given to him by the mint were everything from poor striking characteristics, relief problems, die wear, coin wear, anything else but that exposed breast. The dies were modified in time for the 1918 strike (known as ‘Type 2’), and it featured a now ‘clad-to-the-neck’ in chain-mail Liberty.” Other changes were made for that casting and there were later revisions.
“The last run of the Standing Liberty Quarter took place in 1930, with only Philadelphia and San Francisco minting them. None were made in 1931 or 1932, possibly reflecting an oversupply because of the Great Depression, which had decimated the world economy in 1929,” notes the article on edmontoncoinclub.com.
The second controversy – which is still unresolved – arose after Doscher died. In 1972, another actress and model, Irene MacDowell, claimed to have been MacNeil’s model. According to various reports, her husband was friends with MacNeil and would not have approved of her modeling for the sculptor, hence, the secrecy. Another rumour is that MacNeil’s wife considered MacDowell a threat to her marriage, and so the sculptor kept her identity hidden.
It may never be known whether MacDowell or Doscher was the real model for the Standing Liberty Quarter, but Doscher was publicly credited, becoming known as known as “the girl on the Quarter.” And the moniker stuck. As noted on a memorial site for MacNeil (hermonatkinsmacneil.com), “100 years after the birth of Hermon MacNeil and fifty years after the Standing Liberty Quarter was minted, Doris Doscher Baum appeared on the TV quiz show I’ve Got a Secret on April 4, 1966.” The video is on YouTube.
There’s even more on this whole topic – including the reason the Standing Liberty coin was made. According to a blog on greatamericancoincompany.com, “When Robert W. Woolley took office as Mint director in April 1915, he asked [Philadelphia Mint superintendent Adam] Joyce to have [Mint chief engraver Charles] Barber submit some new designs for the dime, quarter and half dollar. It seems Woolley misinterpreted a memo from the assistant treasury secretary stating that coin designs could be changed after 25 years. Woolley took it to mean they must be changed and set the redesign wheels in motion.”
Barber’s suggested designs did not impress, and so a few sculptors were asked to make a submission, and MacNeil’s won. In the end, the blog notes, more than 214 million MacNeil quarters were made.
I could have spent as many hours exploring the other clippings I picked for this issue’s theme. I settled on a group that, to me, shows the paper’s diversity, as well as how technology and societal attitudes change over the years.
April 4, 1947: In an article by Winnipeg Jewish community member David Orlikow, Saskatchewan’s then-premier Tommy Douglas talks about the Bill of Rights his province was introducing – the first such bill in Canada. Orlikow would have a 43-year political career, including 26 years as an MP (1962-1988).Oct. 17, 1969: An organization called the National Committee for Furtherance of Jewish Education was appalled, to say the least, by the goings-on at the Woodstock Music and Arts Festival, which, it contended, created “a national hallucination which has distorted the minds of 200,000,000 Americans as to what is wrong morally.”
Community organizations need to fundraise, of course. A couple of the longest-running initiatives were the Hadassah Bazaar, which may have started in 1933 as a small affair at the JCC that graduated to Seaforth Armories in 1952, though the 1952 bazaar is generally counted as the first one and the 2007 event at the Hellenic Community Centre as the last; and the community phone directory, a fundraiser for Vancouver Talmud Torah that ran from 1959 to 2013-14.
Nov. 17, 1995: Antisemitic graffiti on Beth Israel Synagogue concerned a passerby, but it was a “false alarm.” BI had agreed for its exterior to be used for “an episode of the locally-produced cop show The Commish.”
When we moved to Canada for my husband’s academic job in 2009, we had work permits. Mine stated I couldn’t work with children or do farmwork. I’d previously been a teacher, but, with this work permit, I only taught adults. I volunteered at friends’ farms, but these skills couldn’t offer income. I did a few Jewish community events, leading family services, for instance, but I didn’t want to jeopardize my status.
I felt all the upheaval was worthwhile. We lived in a college town in Kentucky before moving to Canada. We drove 121 kilometres each way to attend a congregation with a rabbi. The town we lived in had about 20 Jewish families and a lay-led small Reform congregation. While my husband’s professor job was good, I’d lacked job prospects there. It was lonely without much of a Jewish community. When my husband was offered a Canada Research Chair in Manitoba, moving north made sense.
We’re law-abiding folk. We followed all the visa requirements. However, when trying to get Canadian permanent residency, the process required a chest X-ray. Pregnant with twins in 2011, I had to wait until after I gave birth. This stalled things. Meanwhile, we never thought committing a crime was a good choice while in Canada on a visa or a residency permit. (Or now, as citizens.)
Canadian permanent residents have all the rights of citizenship except voting and running for public office. If you’re convicted of a crime, permanent residency can be revoked. At each stage, whether work permit, permanent residency or citizenship, it’s important to obey the laws of the place you’re living in.
Later, as a permanent resident, I pitched book ideas to publishers at a Winnipeg library event. The publisher asked if I was a citizen. If not, they said they couldn’t read my manuscript. Their government funding was “only for citizens.” Afterwards, I researched it and emailed the publisher – Canadian presses can publish eligible permanent residents’ work using the same government funding. I received no reply.
By then, I realized my non-citizen experiences were normal and considered acceptable. Citizenship means something. Those born in Canada often don’t understand their privileges. Newcomers will mention their credentials and the hard effort it took to enter Canada. Canada loves successful, educated immigrants. Yet, upon arrival, those credentials often aren’t recognized, meaning we’re not eligible to do the same work here. It might take years to requalify the “Canadian” way.
I recalled all this when the US government began to detain foreign university students before deporting them. The outcry has been fast and furious. How dare immigration take Mahmoud Khalil away from his pregnant wife? Yet, as a parent, I thought, “Why would anyone on a visa or residency permit risk illegal behaviour? They might be forced to abandon their family!”
Perhaps protesting international students never reviewed their visa terms. In the United States, green card holders aren’t allowed to try to change the government by illegal means. Those who trespassed on or vandalized university campuses, threatening resistance in support of groups deemed terrorists by both the United States and Canada, took big risks.
Some US international students knew they’d violated their visa regulations. Some students “self-deported.” A Cornell graduate student, Momodu Taal, left the United States on his own.
Cornell University emphasizes that actions have consequences and that, with privilege, comes responsibility. I heard this repeatedly during my undergraduate years at Cornell. However, when a Columbia University grad student, Ranjani Srinivasan, left the United States for Canada, CBC’s headline read, “Grad student who fled US says claims about her alleged support of Hamas are ‘absurd.’” Why did Srinivasan flee if the allegations were absurd and didn’t violate the law?
Long ago, my husband attended graduate school in Britain. As an American, he had to register his identity and contact information at the local police department. Though he didn’t break any laws, the trek to the station and the US passport stamped “ALIEN” were a sobering reminder of status.
It isn’t popular to take responsibility for one’s actions. Even expecting law enforcement to enforce the laws against some illegal activity isn’t common. Hate crimes against Jewish Canadians soared out of control in 2024. According to a recent B’nai Brith Canada audit, few cases are prosecuted. According to 2023 statistics, 72% of these types of hate crimes went unsolved.
Perhaps those fleeing the United States have seen this statistic. It’s now common in North America to protest on city streets, waving Hezbollah or Hamas flags. Protesters use words like “intifada” and “resistance” while claiming this is a right to free speech. These words and the actions that followed resulted in the deaths of thousands whose identities differed from the Islamist groups who“resisted.” Sometimes, Jews in Israel (or Canada) are the targets. Targets include Israeli Druze, Christians or Bedouin, too. In neighbouring Syria, minority groups targeted by Islamists are slaughtered, but without Canadian news coverage comparable to the Israel/Gaza conflict.
As but one example of many incidents across the country, it’s apparently legal to protest and yell “baby killers,” an antisemitic trope, outside of the Winnipeg Jewish community centre. That same building complex contains a daycare, school and programming for the elderly. In April 2025, protesters claimed they did this because two Israeli soldiers came to speak about their experiences on Oct. 7, 2023, and their military service in Gaza.
But, wait a moment, Canadian soldiers who speak about their military service in Afghanistan don’t face protesters. Do protesters stand near mosques when a relevant guest speaks, to protest violent upheavals in Syria, Nigeria or Sudan? No, it’s only about Israel, where half the world’s Jewish population lives. Protesters openly spout hatred against Canadian Jewish citizens, about 1% of the Canadian population, but not other minorities.
Immigrants, like foreign students, don’t get all the rights of citizenship. Citizenship is a “membership” and has its privileges. Freedom of expression isn’t absolute in either the United States or Canada. In both countries, discrimination, hate speech, incitement to violence and defamation are illegal.
Canadians must remember the responsibilities that accompany the privileges. Let’s enforce Canada’s laws against hate. Behaving properly towards one another and treating all Canadians as worthy of respect are Canadian values. Hate speech, and valorizing terrorist groups and their flags, aren’t.
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.
We’ve been getting a lot of weird phone calls lately. The caller ID says it is from our credit card company or the bank. Yet, the person on the phone seems a little off. What we realize, before giving away any important information, is that it’s likely some new kind of scam. The person calling knows our names, or knows where we shop or bank. Maybe that person has seen our mail. Maybe they work at the store and noticed our info when we ordered online. Maybe the information has been sold to them. No matter, it becomes clear it’s a scam. We hang up. Later, we might log on and check our accounts. Is everything fine? Is someone stealing money or information?
This is well worth asking because, sometimes, there is theft happening. If you read the news, there are often articles saying “Caution! Look out! There’s a new scam out there, beware!” Like everything we read, it’s helpful to think critically about this. Criminals are always upping their game to catch new victims. This isn’t a new phenomenon.
I’ve just started studying a new tractate of the Babylonian Talmud, Makkot. So far, it’s mostly about how a court of law rules and doles out punishment. I’ve learned about “conspiring witnesses.” That is, witnesses who arrange in advance to lie about something to the court. For instance, imagine there was a crime in Saskatoon and there were witnesses to it. The conspiring witnesses might swear that, in fact, the criminal was in Winnipeg that day, and not in Saskatoon. It’s clear to the court that the conspiring witnesses were lying, due to the testimony of others. How should the court punish those conspiring witnesses? How are they held accountable for lying?
This topic continues for awhile, but my absolute favourite moment happens on Makkot 5a. The situation is as follows, in summary:
Rava says: If two witnesses came and said, So-and-so killed a person in Sura on Sunday morning and two other witnesses came to court and said to the first witnesses, on Sunday evening, you were with us in Nehardea – if one can travel from Sura to Nehardea from the morning and arrive by the evening, fine, nobody is misleading us. If not? They are “conspiring witnesses.”
The Gemara (later commentators) say: This is obvious. Don’t be concerned that these witnesses traveled via “flying camel” – that is, using a magical or impossible way to travel with great speed. You don’t have to take that kind of thinking into account.
In practical terms, Sura and Nehardea were both places in Babylon with Jewish academies of learning, but they were far apart. Nehardea was destroyed in 259 CE. More than 1,766 years ago, the Mishnah described this. Later rabbis advised students not to be taken in by somebody lying outright in court. After all, these lying witnesses didn’t travel by “flying camels.”
It often feels like that we’re struggling with ever new and complicated scams. The pace and amount of information via the internet and social media is astounding. Yet, I sometimes hear the most interesting things close to home, in the old-fashioned way people have always communicated. When is that? Well, when I’m visiting with friends, having a cup of coffee after lunch on Shabbat, or at synagogue.
Both world news and “true accounts” are only as good as the people who tell them and how much trust we have in those sources. If those sources rely on witnesses who like to offer bald-faced lies, well, that’s not a good source. If we have trouble with the veracity of someone’s account, we must ask: What flying camel did you ride in on?! How were you in two places at once, that you witnessed both these things?
Jewish tradition is amazing. We have these ancient sources to remind us that “there’s nothing new under the sun.” The bigger point is a modern one: we must get out of our usual news bubbles or coffee klatches. We are so easily lulled into believing some versions of the “truth” when we trust our sources without question. For example, some Canadian news outlets suggest that Israel is targeting specific Gazan locations with a vengeance. Yet these same outlets fail to mention the Hamas rocket fire that came from that location just before the Israeli response. So, if the story conveniently fails to mention why the Israeli army is firing at a specific location, the news article may not be an objective source of war coverage.
In the Winnipeg Free Press newspaper, I read about a new lecture series created by professors supposedly concerned about freedom of expression. Their invited speaker, a professor from York University, brought up the suspension of her colleague, who had been charged with “vandalism of a bookstore.”Notably, the article did not mention which bookstore. My household strongly suspected it had been the incidents targeting Indigo, when Jews and Israelis were targeted by protesters. Further, the article didn’t mention that freedom of expression doesn’t mean freedom to commit crimes against businesses.
The article’s tone was matter of fact. A person could read such an article and feel that the professors were rightfully concerned about the loss of freedom of expression. To me, it seemed like the example given before, of the distance between Sura and Nehardea. If you don’t know the particulars, such as the distance between these two locations, you can miss the absurdity of the situation. In the guise of defending free speech, the professors wanted readers to bemoan the suspension of a professor who was charged with vandalism – a crime.
Sometimes, when someone presents a news story or a court defence that seems so smooth and practised as to be suspicious, well, perhaps that’s because it is. Likewise, the tidbits we gain at Kiddush lunch after services may also vary in their reliability. We may have faster transportation and cellphone connections today, but, sometimes, things still aren’t as they seem. As much as things change, much is still the same. Yes, a juicy bit of news is an interesting truth to ponder, but a lie is still a lie. We still have conspiring witnesses to contend with and, even now, we still don’t have flying camels.
Joanne Seiffhas written regularly for the Winnipeg Free Press and various Jewish publications. She is the author of three books, including From the Outside In: Jewish Post Columns 2015-2016, a collection of essays available for digital download or as a paperback from Amazon. Check her out on Instagram @yrnspinner or at joanneseiff.blogspot.com.
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.
Among the activities in which Hebrew University of Jerusalem’s Dr. Shiran Reichenberg, left, took part while she was in Vancouver was a lunch and learn at Lawson Lundell LLP, hosted by Peter Tolensky. (photo from CFHU Vancouver)
Dr. Shiran Reichenberg, executive director of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem law faculty’s Clinical Legal Education Centre, was in Vancouver recently, as part of a professorship exchange with the University of British Columbia.
The exchange program started in 2010, with funding from Canadian Friends of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and members of the local legal profession and judiciary. From 2013 to 2019, it was named in honour of Mitchell Gropper, QC, and, since 2021, in recognition of the Koffman family’s financial support, it has been formally called the Morley Koffman Memorial Allard School of Law UBC and Hebrew University Law Faculty Professor Exchange Program.
Koffman was an alum of UBC law school in 1952. He practised at Freeman, Freeman, Silvers and Koffman, and was awarded Queen’s Counsel in 1986. His firm, Koffman Kalef, was established in 1993.
One of the founders of the exchange program was Bruce Cohen, whose career has included, among other things, almost three decades as a BC Supreme Court justice. In the CFHU and UBC announcements of the Koffman family’s donation, Cohen says, “Given the high level of respect and regard for Morley’s reputation in the legal, university, Jewish and general communities as a wise counsel and recognized leader it is perfectly appropriate for the program to be named in his honour as a reflection of the importance placed by him and his family on scholarship, professionalism and tikkun olam.”
On the CFHU website, Cohen notes, “The ability of the program to operate in the initial few years of its existence was due in large measure to Morley’s assistance.”
The CFHU Vancouver organizing committee for the exchange program consisted of Cohen, Sam Hanson, Peter Hotz, Shawn Lewis, Randy Milner, Phil Switzer, Peter Tolensky, Dina Wachtel and the late Allen Zysblat. The annual exchange even operated during the pandemic, albeit virtually.
Dr. Shiran Reichenberg, left, visits Temple Sholom’s Oct. 7 memorial with the synagogue’s Associate Rabbi Carey Brown. (photo from CFHU Vancouver)
Reichenberg’s February-March visit to Vancouver was for just over two weeks, during which time she taught a course at UBC and spoke to various groups, including at Lawson Lundell LLP for a lunch and learn hosted by Peter Tolensky and at UBC’s Peter A. Allard School of Law, as well as at Temple Sholom for a lunch and learn organized by the Sisterhood, said Wachtel, vice-president, community affairs, at CFHU.
While Reichenberg regularly attends international conferences and lectures, this was her first time in Vancouver and, she said, “It was a very, very different experience to teach an intensive course for two weeks, each class three hours.”
Reichenberg, who is also the director of the Clinical Legal Education Centre’s Children and Youth Rights Clinic, said the course she gave here focused on the development of children’s rights and covered international documents, such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and other agreements, like the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights.
“We got very deep into several aspects of the convention and main principles, mainly best interest [of the child] and the right to participation. We talked about youth at risk, in criminal proceedings, in care proceedings,” she said.
Reichenberg graduated with her bachelor and her master of laws from the Hebrew University. She also studied in London, England, having received the Leonard Sainer Chevening Scholarship for LLM studies at University College London. She became interested in children’s rights law when she was a second-year student and participated in the Clinical Legal Education Centre’s Street Law Program, which is still part of the Children and Youth Rights Clinic she now directs.
“Each of us was put in a different residential care facility for youth at risk,” said Reichenberg, who was placed with a locked facility in Jerusalem. “When we entered this place and got an explanation about the girls and their life and what happened to them, it changed the course of my life. I stayed and I did another legal clinic in my third year of law school: representation of children’s rights, of children in court proceedings.”
In doing her PhD, Reichenberg focused on the right of youth at risk to participate in care proceedings, and her research included interviews with some of the girls from the Jerusalem care facility.
Children’s rights have their origin in labour law, Reichenberg said.
“Children, from the beginning of humanity until maybe the Industrial Revolution … died a lot, so parents didn’t get attached to them that much,” she explained. “And they were also considered as property of their parents, mostly their fathers, so they were sold, they were used to work, they were part of supporting the family; they weren’t what we consider them today. There is evidence that, in ancient times, children weren’t even given names, just numbers, because they died so much.”
But when children came to be working in mines and in factories, for example, “legislation gave them rights, to work only 12 hours a day and sleep at night, and things like that,” said Reichenberg, adding that the invention of the printing press, which meant that people needed to learn how to read, was an impetus for the establishment of schools.
The first child-related labour laws were English laws, passed in the early 1800s. The first youth court took place in the United States in 1874, and it involved the first case reported of child abuse, said Reichenberg. “[Mary Ellen McCormack] was abused by her stepmom and when the people wanted to help her, there was no law that protected children, so they used the law that protected animals from abuse.”
The Children and Youth Rights Clinic is one of nine offered by the Clinical Legal Education Centre. There are also clinics on climate change and environmental law; human rights in cyberspace; multiculturalism and diversity; representation of marginalized population groups; criminal justice; international human rights; the rights of people with disabilities; and wrongful convictions.
The centre can take a maximum of 140 students, with each clinic having, on average, 16 to 20 students.
“We have many more people who want to enrol than the places that we can give,” said Reichenberg, explaining that the clinics must be kept relatively small, given that they are working on legal cases.
“Each clinic is taught by a lawyer and there is a maximum number of cases that one person can handle, so we can’t have too many students,” she said. “Also, it allows us to have in-depth discussions in our classes with our students. And we always sit in a circle and there’s always dialogue, and it’s something that can be accomplished only in small groups.”
The Clinical Legal Education Centre takes a three-pronged approach. It handles upwards of 1,000 cases a year, providing legal aid and representation to individuals from marginalized groups. It also works for policy change, through test cases and position papers, for example, and offers public lectures and workshops to raise awareness, increase knowledge and promote discussion.
Since the Hamas terror attacks on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, the centre has taken on an increased role in teaching and advocating for human rights. It has represented groups like the Hostages and Missing Families Forum in front of different United Nations bodies, for example, and has been operating Hamal Hevrati (War Room), a Facebook page providing legal aid to vulnerable populations, which has handled about 100 inquiries to date.
As well, the centre serves diverse clients and has a multicultural staff and student body, all of which include members of the Palestinian minority.
“We are not in war with the entire Palestinian people, we are in war with Hamas, and there is a difference,” said Reichenberg.
“So, we help those who need our help. And we work together, we study together,” she said.
It’s been hard, she admitted. “But we have to believe in working together and living together because none of us is going anywhere and we have to live together and work together for a long time … we have to find a way to do that and this is what we do.”
Reichenberg is proud of how the centre has adapted to the situation.
“In class, we have students who came from military reserves, still with their uniforms and their weapons. We have Arab students who have family in Gaza, which they haven’t heard from,” she said. “We have students who lost people they loved on the 7th of October and since. I personally have a student who I loved deeply and he died in the war, in his military reserve [service] in Gaza. And, also, in the staff, as I said, we’re a mixed staff and a lot of emotions came out on the 7th of October and we did a lot of preparation for staff, how to work with the students in this environment.”
While it’s not perfect, Reichenberg said, “it is certainly an amazing thing to see how everyone is sitting together, learning together, doing legal work together, for the same goal.”
