Tag: law

הפסיקה נגד היין מהשטחים

(flickr)

בית המשפט הפדרלי של קנדה קבוע בסוף יולי כי סימון יין שיוצר בהתנחליות שבשטחים הכבושים, בתוך יין תוצרת ישראל אינו מותר. זאת כיוון שמדובר בדברי שקר, הטעייה והולכת שולל של ציבור הצרכנים.

הפסיקה הקשה נגד היין מהשטחים ניתנה בעקבות עתירה של אזרח יהודי מהעיר וויניפג, בשם דיוויד קטנבורג, שהוא פעלי פרו פלסטיני. הוא טען בעתירתו כנגד ממשלת קנדה, שיינות שיוצרו בהתנחלויות שבשטחים אינם יכולים להימכר עם תווית של יין שיוצר במדינת ישראל. לדברי קטנבורג הקהילה הבינלאומית וכן גם קנדה לא מכירות בהתנחלויות שבשטחים, כחלק אינטגרלי ממדינת ישראל. העתירה של קטנבורג הוגשה נגד סוכנות הפיקוח על המזון של קנדה, שבמקור אישרה את מכירת היין מההתנחלויות בשטחים עם התווית מיוצר בישראל.

שופטת בית המשפט הפדרלי, אן מקטביץ, פרסמה את פסק הדין שלה (שמתפרש על פני ארבעים ושלושה עמודים). היא אמרה בין היתר בהחלטתה כי יש מעט מאוד דברים כה מורכבים וסבוכים בהם המדיניות במזרח התיכון. וכן קיומן של ההתנחלויות הישראליות בגדה המערבית. אלה מעלים נושאים פוליטיים מסובכים, רגישים ועמוקים. עם זאת, אחת הדרכים השלוות אשר בה יכולים בני האדם להביע את עמדותיהם, היא דרך קבלת ההחלטות שלהם, כאשר הם רוכשים מוצרים שונים. כדי שיכולו להביע את עמדתם בהקשר זה, על הצרכנים לקבל מידע מדוייק לגבי זהות המוצר שנמצא במחלוקת. עוד קבעה השופטת של בית המשפט הפדרלי כי סימון יינות שיוצרו והוכנסו לתוך בקבוקים בהתנחלויות שבשטחים, כיין שיוצר במדינת ישראל, הוא דבר שקרי, מטעה ומוליך שולל את ציבור הצרכנים. לדבריה בהתנהלות שכזו מפירים את חוקי המקור של מוצרי מזון (כולל יינות) ותרופות. ההחלטה שמאפשרת לסמן יין שיוצר בהתנחלויות הישראליות שבשטחים כיין שיוצר במדינת ישראל, לא נופלת בגדר האפשרי והמתקבל על הדעת. אגב שופטת סירבה לקבוע כיצד כן יש לפרסם מהיכן היין בשטחים הכבושים יוצר. זאת לאור חילוקי הדעות המשמעותיים בכל הנוגע למעמד החוקי של ההתנחלויות הישראליות, בשטחי הגדה המערבית. היא ציינה כי אינה מתכוונת ליישב סוגיה זו בתיק שלפניה.

השופטת מקטביץ שלחה את התביעה של קטנבורג בחזרה לסוכנות הפיקוח על המזון של קנדה, על מנת שתדון בסוגיה מחדש. יצויין כי תחילה סוכנות הפיקוח הקנדית הסכימה לאור פנייתו של קטנבורג, להסיר את הסימון תוצרת ישראל על בקבוקי יין שיוצרו בהתנחלויות בשטחים. לאחר מכן היא חזרה בה ואז הוא עתר לבית המשפט העליון במדינה.

בהתאם לחוק הקנדי מוצרי מזון, כולל יינות אשר נמכרים בקנדה, חייבים לכלול פירוט מלא על מקור המדינה בהם הם יוצרו. כמובן שחל איסור להטעות את הצרכנים המקומיים.

לא ברור בשלב זה כיצד סוכנות הפיקוח על המזון תנהג לאור הפסיקה. לא מן הנמנע שסוגיה סבוכה זו תחזור לשולחנו של בית המשפט הקנדי לאור ערורים צפויים.

המרכז לענייני ישראל היהודים בקנדה פנה רשמית לממשלת קנדה וביקש תגיש עירעור לבית המשפט על החלטת השופטת מקטביץ. לדברי המרכז נפלו מספר טעויות משמעותיות בהחלטת השופטת. זאת כיוון שהדבקת התוויות על מקור היצור של בקבוקי היין מההתנחלויות בשטחים, תואמת את רוח הסכם הסחר החופשי בין קנדה לישראל שנחתם לאחרונה. וכן תואמת את החוק הקנדי והחוק הבינלאומי.

במרכז מציינים כי אם כן יוגש ערעור הם יבקשו מבית המשפט לקבל מעמד של מתערבים בדיון המדובר, על מנת להבטיח שהחוק הקנדי והחוק הבינלאומי יפורשו ויושמו כראוי.

Court’s segregation decision

Halifax-based lawyer Hanna Garson. (photo from Hanna Garson)

In 2015, the B.C. Civil Liberties Association and the John Howard Society launched a legal challenge to the federal government’s laws that allow administrative segregation – a form of solitary confinement – in prisons, calling it a cruel and inhumane punishment that can lead isolated prisoners to harm and even kill themselves. They won their case in the B.C. Supreme Court in January 2018, a decision that was appealed by the government the next month. Last week, the B.C. Court of Appeal affirmed the unconstitutionality of provisions that allow indefinite and prolonged solitary confinement of prisoners.

In the January 2018 decision, the B.C. Supreme Court gave the federal government 12 months to pass new laws. In January 2019, the court gave the government an extension to April, but said certain stipulations had to come into effect immediately. Correctional Service Canada was ordered to take several steps, including giving prisoners in segregation more time outside, requiring daily visits from healthcare professionals, allowing inmates legal counsel in hearings related to solitary confinement, and changing the authorization system regarding the placement of an inmate in segregation for more than 15 days.

The federal government was given another extension after the April deadline, to the end of June. Then, on June 24, the B.C. Court of Appeal came out with its decision on the matter – rejecting the government’s appeal.

“This particular case is very interesting, as there are no actual individual complainants,” said Jewish community member Hanna Garson, a lawyer based in Halifax whose focus is ensuring that everyone is treated fairly by the justice system. “So, the court [was] being asked to decide whether or not the written laws themselves breach provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada.”

According to Garson, sections of the Charter are indeed being breached when it comes to administrative segregation, especially as it comes with no time limit. “People are being put into segregation not knowing when, if ever, they’re going to get out,” she told the Independent. “That really plays on the mind.”

Noting that many people have mental illness or struggle with mental health before they are incarcerated, which “may have led to their negative interaction with the law,” she said, “That population, in particular, is very damaged by periods of segregation.”

The appeal court’s reasons for judgment, written by Justice Gregory Fitch, stated that the Corrections and Conditional Release Act violated Section 7 of the Charter, which protects an individual’s right to life, liberty and security of the person. The court “found that the harm caused by prolonged confinement in administrative segregation undermines the maintenance of institutional security, as well as the ultimate goal of achieving public protection by fostering the rehabilitation of offenders and their successful reintegration into the community.” It also “found that prolonged confinement in administrative segregation is not necessary to achieve the safety or security objectives that trigger its use.”

The judgment noted “that administrative segregation has a small, but significant, disproportionate effect on indigenous men and an even more significant effect on indigenous women” and that the “impugned laws” violated Section 15 of the Charter “to the extent that they authorize and effect a procedure that results in discrimination against aboriginal inmates.”

Section 15 states that, “Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.”

Another issue, said Garson – who, in addition to being part of the firm Planetta Hughes LLP, is chair of the East Coast Prison Justice Society and is on the board of the Elizabeth Fry Society Mainland Nova Scotia – is that, while prisoners being placed in segregation have access to review boards, administrative segregation review boards consist of the same prison administration that placed them there. “So, it’s not an independent review and so, basically, the people who initially made the decision then question their own decision, which doesn’t necessarily secure a fair assessment of whether or not a person really needs to be segregated,” she said.

While legal counsel is permitted at these reviews, it is not provided in many provinces and few prisoners can afford representation or are not in a mental state of being able to request it, she said. “If you’re running a facility with hundreds of people who may be violent, I can understand a time-out for a moment to see what else needs to be done,” said Garson. “But, there needs to be a time limit and other solutions.

“Long-term, serious mental health treatments take far more expensive staff and thorough training. Are these better solutions though? Without a doubt, yes. Unfortunately, a lot of the constraints are budgetary and this is something that, oftentimes, courts are hesitant to rule on. But, for example, the court did say that, as it says in Section 15 [of the Charter], everyone has a right to be equal before the law and receive equal treatment of the law. So, the court does an assessment of whether or not people are being discriminated against by these laws.”

After hearing testimony and expert opinions, Garson said, “the court decided that both aboriginal people and people suffering from mental illness are segregated far more often … and that the impact on them is far more negative. But, it went further, ordering incarceration facilities to put in place better solutions – better programming that does not involve segregation.

“Usually, the court is hesitant to make decisions that would force the government to put more funding into something. But, it did in this decision, which is, in my opinion, really wonderful and a great precedent. This case is really groundbreaking and, to a certain extent, it was a wonderful thing that it was appealed.”

The B.C. Supreme Court said, “basically, we had to come up with new laws. But then, they suspended it for a year, as the government needs time to pass new bills and stuff like that. In the meantime, the attorney general appealed, because they don’t think it’s fair,” she said.

The Constitution of Canada, which includes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is the supreme law in Canada, she explained. Section 52 (1) of the Constitution Act 1982 mandates that any law inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect. The decision by the appeals court will become a binding precedent in all provinces, not only in British Columbia.

Garson emphasized that she is especially happy with the decision because it is one that has really considered the damage segregation does on the mental health of those being isolated and notes that, “if we really care about rehabilitation, then [segregation] makes no sense as a strategy, especially for those with mental illness.”

Because the court looked at the experiences of those who have been segregated and the decision will affect them, the system and society as a whole in the long-term, Garson said, “It’s more like a living document in that way, and it’s a very exciting case for this reason.”

As for where Jewish law falls on this matter, the organization T’ruah has been leading a campaign to abolish solitary confinement in the United States. In a 2014 report on the compliance of the United States with the United Nations Convention Against Torture, T’ruah notes, “The very first two chapters of our Torah teach us that every human being is created in the image of God, and that no human being should be alone. The practice of solitary confinement violates these principles and diminishes the divine image. It also violates one of the Torah’s central moral teachings, expressed in Leviticus 19:18, that one should ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’ The rabbis explain that this is taught, so that no one can justify degrading treatment of a member of their community…. If you do thus, know that the person you have dishonoured was created in the image of God.”

The report argues that “Jewish tradition understands instinctively that humans are social creatures. In a story about a character who outlives his family, friends and study partners, the Talmud teaches, ‘Either companionship or death.’ Life alone is unbearable. Jewish law warns against excessive punishment, ‘lest your brother be degraded before your eyes.’ (Deuteronomy 25:3) Even a person who has committed a horrific crime must be regarded as a member of one’s own family and, therefore, deserving of dignity.”

T’ruah contends that Jewish criminal law seeks to inspire teshuvah (repentance) and that there are several principles that should hold in prisons:

“1. No matter his or her crime, the prisoner should be seen as our ‘brother or sister’ and treated with dignity.

“2. No human being should be alone for extended periods of time. Isolation diminishes the human being and can even be deadly.

“3. Prisons should seek to rehabilitate the prisoner and not simply to degrade him or her.

“4. A prisoner should have a fair trial before being placed in solitary confinement. Therefore, solitary confinement cannot be used for those in pre-trial detention.”

Rebeca Kuropatwa is a Winnipeg freelance writer.

החוק החדש בקוויבק

(Paul VanDerWerf)

חוק עשרים ואחד כך קוראים במחוז קוויבק לחוק החדש שעבר לאחרונה בפרלמנט של קוויבק, שישפיע משמעותית על אורח החיים של שומרי המסורת במחוז, יהודים ומוסלמים כאחד. החוק החדש אוסר על כל מי מאלה שעובדים במשרות הציבוריים ללבוש בגדים או לענוד מסמלים הקשורים בדת כלשהי, בשעה שהם מבצעים את תפקידיהם הציבוריים. יש לזכור שקוויבק היא המחוז השני בגודלו בקנדה ובעיר המרכזית והגדולה שלה – מונטריאול גרים יהודים ומוסלמים רבים

ומי יסבול בעיקר מחוק מהפכני זה: יהודים אשר הם חובשי הכיפות, מוסלמים אשר הם חובשי חיג’אב, סיקים והודים אשר הם חובשי טורבנים. האיסור עלול להשפיע קרוב לוודאי גם על נוצרים שעונדים צלבים. החוק יכול על כל העובדים הנושאים במשרות הציבוריות.ובהם בין היתר: אנשי כוחות האכיפה והשוטרים, תובעים ציבוריים, שופטים ומורים בבתי ספר ציבוריים.

הצעת החוק עברה בפרלמנט של קוויבק לאור כך שהמפלגה השלטת החדשה – מפלגת הקואליציה למען העתיד של קוויבק, הבטיחה לבוחריה בבחירות האחרונות (שנערכו בחודש אוקטובר אשתקד) ליישמו מהר ככל הניתן.

המושל של קוויבק, פרנסואה לגולט, ציין בהודעה לעיתונות כי בניגוד לביקורת הקשה נגד החוק, הוא אינו מנוגד לחופש הדת. וכן הגיע הזמן לקבוע כללים חדשים בנושא.

חשוב לדעת שחוק עשרים ואחד נקרא כך משום שהוא אינו משפיע ולא ישפיע על העובדים הנוכחיים, שעובדים במגזר הציבורי. הוא יחול על כל העובדים החדשים שיצטרפו למגזר זה. לפי ההערכות אוכלסיית קוויבק מונה כיום כשישה מיליון איש, בהם כתשעים אלף אלף מוסלמים וכשבעים וחמישה אלף יהודים.

דובר משרד ההגירה וההכללה של קוויבק, מארק-אנדרה גוסלין, הסביר את הצורך הדרוש בחוק החדש: אנחנו מאמינים כי אלה פונקציות מאד ספציפיות והן צריכות להיות ניטרליות לחלוטין. זאת על מנת להבטיח שירות ניטרלי

מהמדינה לאזרחיה. לדבריו הממשלה לא מכוונת לדת אחת בלבד וכי כל הדתות שוות ובאותה מידה.

ומי נמנה על רשימת המתנגדים לחוק זה: כארבעים אחוז מהמצביעים בקוויבק, חברי מועצת העיר מונטריאל וכן גם פקידים רשמיים של בתי הספר במונטריאל. כידוע גם ראש ממשלת קנדה הליברלי, ג’סטין טרודו, הביע ביקורת חריפה על הצעת החוק.

הצעת החוק נכתבה בצורה כזאת שהיא מוגנת לכאורה מפני אתגרים חוקתיים במשך חמש השנים הבאות. שתי הדרכים המשפטיות שעליהן ניתן להתבסס מבחינה של עתירה משפטית נגד החוק, הן של החוקה של קנדה ואמנת זכויות האדם והחופש של קוויבק. עם זאת נראה כי מנסחי החוק כיסו את עצמם מכל זווית אפשרית שתמנע מהמתנגדים לנסות ופסול אותו.

הצעת החוק אינה מגדירה בדיוק את מהו סמל דתי. ומה עם קעקוע או עגיל? האם עובד ציבור יהודי יכול ללבוש ציצית? האם הצעת החוק אוסרת על החסידים שיעבדו במשרות ציבוריות לגדל פאות?

כדי לטעון שהחוק אוסר על כל הסמלים הדתיים כאחד ואינו מפלה – הממשלה החדשה החליטה להסיר צלב קתולי שתלוי כבר שמונים ושלוש שנים בבית המחוקקים של קוויבק.

מסקר שנערך בחודש מאי האחרון בו השתתפו יותר מאלף ומאתיים מתושבי קוויבק (נערך בחסות האגודה ללימודים קנדיים), עולה כי רוב התומכים בהצעת החוק מנמקים זאת בשל רגשות שליליים כלפי מוסלמים ויהודים. על פי הסקר יותר מחמישים אחוז מהנשאלים אמרו כי מקובל על מורים בבתי הספר הציבוריים ללבוש צלב נוצרי, רק כשלושים אחוז ציינו כי מקובל על מורה בית ספר ציבורי לחבוש כיפה, ורק כשניים עשר אחוז הצביעו כי מקובל על מורה ללבוש כיסוי ראש מוסלמי.

The will of “the people”

The deed is finally done. For years, Quebec politicians have been talking about secularism, or laïcité, proposing a range of actions to ban the presence of visible religious symbols among government employees. On Sunday, following a weekend of almost round-the-clock debate, the Coalition Avenir Québec majority in the National Assembly passed Bill 21. The law bans symbols such as the crucifix, turban, hijab and kippah for provincial employees in positions of authority, such as judges, police, prosecutors, court clerks and schoolteachers.

The bill was met with lamentations and anger from the opposition. Catherine Dorion, a member of the National Assembly representing the left-wing party Québec solidaire spoke powerfully in favour of individual liberty and the right to exhibit religious identity.

“Each person in this room who will vote for Bill 21 will bear the responsibility for this first great breach in the dike we had proudly erected to protect the fundamental rights of all Quebecers,” she said.

The vote came a day after a similarly contentious debate on another bill, which addresses the province’s agreement with the federal government over immigration to Quebec. On the one hand, the bill aims to ensure that immigration reflects the province’s labour requirements, which is justifiable. On the other hand, the bill also permits the creation of a “values test” that new Quebecers would have to pass before admission to permanent residency. A test of this nature is one thing in theory – extreme examples like female genital mutilation are raised as justifications – but it is something else in practice.

Government measures to adjudicate an individual’s beliefs is a recipe for disaster. Certainly we would like to see people with hateful or violent attitudes toward particular cultural groups prevented from entering the country, or rehabilitated if they are already here. There are programs and policies in Canada to address this problem and they should be strengthened. But applying what amounts to a form of prior restraint on the ideas and beliefs of new Canadians by a government with limited respect for civil liberties crosses a perilous line.

The religious symbols law parallels the immigration law in its flouting of civil liberties, but diverges importantly in a number of ways. It applies to people who are already Canadian (for the most part, at least), which is a more grievous affront than putting up barriers for non-citizens.

In responding to criticism, Quebec Premier François Legault declared: “Someone once said, beware of those who say they like the people but do not listen to what the people want.”

This language reflects a populism we have seen in Europe as well as North America, but which has been thankfully rare in this country. The idea that governments should do whatever “the people” want invites a tyranny of the majority that is almost destined to trample on individual rights, especially the rights of members of minority communities. It bears stating that, in Quebec, in order to deliver the will of the people, the assembly had to clip the wings of democracy not once but twice, invoking closure on debate on both bills and, in the case of Bill 21, promising to use the Canadian Constitution’s Notwithstanding Clause to override what even the government of Quebec acknowledges is a unconstitutional infringement on individual rights.

We are seeing flare-ups elsewhere in Canada of how some of “the people” would like to see public policy progress. On the same busy weekend, a rally in downtown Vancouver against transgender rights and opposing the province’s progressive sexual education agenda turned nasty (if the mission of the event wasn’t nasty enough) when counter-protesters showed up to confront them. At the rally were the Soldiers of Odin, a far-right group, people wearing yellow vests, the symbol of an amorphous movement that began in France and has attracted extremists, and at least one leading member of the People’s Party of Canada, a new populist party that seems determined to stoke a range of fears and prejudices in the lead-up to the federal election this fall.

Violence also erupted last weekend at a pride parade in Hamilton, Ont., when protesters showed up at the celebration. A local politician laid blame for the violence, which included punching and choking, on “far-right evangelicals” who he said were “just there to sucker-punch people.”

All of this is to say that Canada is not immune to extremism or even politically motivated violence. There is, of course, an important line between the violence in Hamilton and the laws that were rammed through Quebec’s legislature. Violence deserves universal condemnation while passionate disagreements over politics – even laws we see as repressive and excessive – are justifiable and welcome. Still, these incidents all reflect different approaches to “othering” – the idea that “we” are under threat from “them.”

What is encouraging is hearing the voices of those forced to defend the values of inclusion and respect for diversity. There was eloquence on the opposition side of Quebec’s National Assembly last weekend and, in response to the altercations in Hamilton and Vancouver, admirable recommitment by many to the values that we genuinely hope will represent the Canada we hope to create. This is also a reminder to speak up, so that when politicians say they are doing what “the people” want, what they mean is the will of people who pursue inclusion, acceptance and diversity.

A word chosen with care

Words matter. In a period when traditional media compete with social media, where everyone on the planet can pretty much find a place to say whatever they want, the weight of words can seem lost in the deluge of opinions, aspersions and insults. So, it is encouraging, in some ways, to see a pitched battle over the use of a single word. It assures us that many people still understand the power that language can have.

After the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s 2015 final report, the federal government set up the National Inquiry into Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women and Girls. The MMIWG report, released last week, concluded that there are “serious reasons to believe that Canada’s past and current policies, omissions and actions towards first Nations peoples, Inuit and Métis amount to genocide….”

The use of the term genocide has sparked a debate. Top federal officials at first avoided using the word. At the ceremony marking the release of the report, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was interrupted by an audience member who yelled, “Genocide! Say it!” Trudeau opted against it on that day, but he would use the term later in the week. Justice Minister David Lametti deflected discussion, saying he would leave the determination around the use of the term genocide “to academics and experts.”

The 1948 Genocide Convention defines it as “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” Raphael Lemkin, the Polish Jew who coined the term, described genocide as an effort to destroy the foundations of a national group with the objective of annihilation. While genocide certainly includes state-led mass murder, the term can also incorporate a range of less aggressively lethal acts, such as Canada’s residential schools system, the core goal of which was to eradicate indigenous cultures and languages among native peoples in the country.

The report identifies “colonial structures,” including the Indian Act, the Sixties Scoop, residential schools and offences against human rights, as antecedents to current rates of traumatic violence, suicide and deaths among indigenous populations.

The MMIWG report makes a series of recommendations, including, for example, that police services investigate officers for discrimination and mistreatment against indigenous peoples and failures to investigate crimes, government funding to improve recruitment of indigenous peoples into policing, a national task force to review and potentially reinvestigate every unresolved case and a standardizing of protocols around treatment of the thousands of missing and murdered women.

The chief commissioner, Marion Buller, chose the term genocide determinedly and used it throughout the report.

“This report is about deliberate race, identity and gender-based genocide,” she wrote in the opening paragraph of the final report.

However, the report also acknowledged that there are “outstanding disagreements” over the definition of the term. Alongside the final report came a 43-page legal analysis of the term genocide and how it applies to the Canadian situation.

The lead author of the legal assessment, Fanny Lafontaine, a specialist on international criminal justice and human rights at Université Laval, said, “I think it has to be understood as a very distinct type of genocide from the Holocaust…. Genocide is composed of lethal and nonlethal acts. All of that together leads to the physical destruction of indigenous people, but also as a social unit. It’s the genocide taken as numerous acts spanning decades, basically, that is the root cause of the violence against [indigenous] women,” she told the National Post.

RCMP statistics indicate that 16% of female homicides in Canada between 1980 and 2012 were perpetrated against indigenous women, who make up just 4% of the population. This is triple the rate of nonindigenous women and double those of indigenous men. Testimony from individuals and families that were incorporated into the final report tell a harrowing story of violence and dehumanization.

Some might say that the debate over the term genocide detracts from the urgent, less theoretical components of the report and its recommendations. Maybe. But the considered choice by those who best understand the social impacts of systemic discrimination against indigenous Canadians, especially indigenous women, to use the term genocide should give us pause. Among Jewish observers, there may be an understandable sensitivity to anything that seems to shift the weight of the word, which was created specifically to articulate the Jewish experience in the Shoah. Yet, we should also take this opportunity to learn and understand why and how a community in our midst would articulate their own experiences as amounting to genocide.

Knee-jerk responses are not helpful on this front (or any, probably) and, while the arguments over the meaning and intent of the term reassure us that people still appreciate the power of words, we might also caution not to get stalled over this debate. What non-indigenous Canadians should do at this point – especially if we have an issue with the use of the term genocide – is to dive deeply into the tragic legacies of colonialism that have led to this moment and try to understand why this term was carefully chosen. Perhaps, we can each start with a commitment to read the report.

Defending a neo-Nazi

Kenton Klassen, left, and John Voth co-star in Pacific Theatre’s production of Cherry Docs. (photo by Dylan Hamm)

I often wonder, as a lawyer and the child of a Holocaust survivor, if I would be able to defend a skinhead charged with a racist crime. Can a person shut off their emotions and take on a case that is at odds with their moral compass?

This is the premise of Cherry Docs, a two-hander playing at the Pacific Theatre until April 28. Playwright David Gow penned the piece in 1998 as a response, in part, to the homophobic attack by a group of skinheads on his university friend and, in part, to his Jewish Belgian family’s Holocaust experiences.

“I wanted to explore and come to terms with my own anger at seeing young people dressed as Nazis and adopting Nazi thinking 50 years after the end of a war that killed so many millions,” Gow told the Jewish Independent. “Now, 70-odd years later, we seem to have more neo-Nazis than ever before. It looks far, far worse today than in 1998, when someone could (and did) say with a straight face, are you sure this is a problem? It was not good in 1998. Now, of course, it is a problem of epic, international proportions.”

Cherry Docs has been produced globally, including a long run in Germany, where, said Gow, “the critical reception … was extremely detailed, extremely well-written, unlike anything we see in North America, even from, say, the New York Times, in terms of depth and breadth of commentary and analysis. The play ran for something like seven years in rep in Berlin. Two distinct productions have been done in Tel Aviv over the years, and maybe two in Jerusalem.”

As well, he added, “productions in Poland ran for 13 years. One Polish production went to Beijing for an international theatre festival and, there, it played with Chinese subtitles, so, an English Canadian play in Polish and Chinese, in China.”

The success of the play and its international acclaim led Gow to adapt the story for the big screen. Its cinematic debut came in 2006, as Steel Toes. It won several awards on the film festival circuit.

In the two-actor play, which features John Voth as Danny Dunkelman and Kenton Klassen as Mike Downey in the Pacific Theatre production, Danny is a Jewish legal aid lawyer who has been assigned the task of defending Mike Downey, a 20ish, tattooed skinhead, who is charged with murder in the stomping death of a Pakistani fast food worker in a back alley in downtown Toronto. The play’s title represents Mike’s pride and joy, his steel-toed, cherry red Doc Marten combat boots, which he is wearing when he commits his hate-motivated crime. The rationale for Mike’s unprovoked, drunken attack is his perception of the decline and fall of white male supremacy as brought on by what he sees as unchecked immigration, reverse discrimination for employment opportunities and a ZOG (Zionist occupation government) conspiracy of the Jewish elite.

Mike has been indoctrinated into the white racist youth movement and recites antisemitic clichés with ease and conviction. He is a proud foot soldier for the Aryan resistance movement. He goads Danny on by saying, “In an ideal world, I would see you eliminated, but I need you. I know you will do a good job for me, as you are a Jewish liberal thinker, a humanist, who believes in checks and balances in the system.”

Mike insists that he be tried for his crime, which he admits – although he says he did not intend to kill the victim – as an individual. “Try me,” he says, “not the skinhead ideology.”

Danny aggressively challenges high school-dropout Mike to formulate a convincing defence strategy, taking him through “the eye of a needle” in an effort to make him stand up and be accountable for his actions.

photo - John Voth, left, and Kenton Klassen co-star in Pacific Theatre’s production of Cherry Docs
John Voth, left, and Kenton Klassen co-star in Pacific Theatre’s production of Cherry Docs. (photo by Dylan Hamm)

The two travel their own paths of discovery through the seven months of legal proceedings. Mike’s journey leads him to a path of redemption, while Danny struggles. Danny must confront not only his violent dislike for his client, but his own racism; in doing so, he explores his Judaism and its tenets of atonement and forgiveness.

The biblical names of the characters Daniel (in the lions’ den) and Michael (the archangel) suggest an allegory, “A battle from above played out here,” said Gow. As the story unfolds, we see the impact that two ideologically opposite humans can have on each other, and that Danny is no saint and Mike no devil.

All of the action takes place in the prison, where Mike is being held in administrative segregation. The style – alternating monologues from the protagonists followed by intense bouts of verbal sparring – and the sparse set (two chairs and a table) are appropriately stark for the subject matter and the intimate theatre space. The costumes also are uncomplicated – Mike’s prison jumpsuit and Danny’s business attire. Subtle lighting and sound cues complete the atmosphere.

Klassen is superb in his portrayal of Mike. At the opening night reception, he shared with the Independent that he had prepared for the role by talking to a reformed neo-Nazi skinhead, which gave him insight into his character. While Voth is solid as the defence attorney, he is not as engaging as Klassen.

Two particular scenes bear mention. In one, the two actors stand at opposite ends of the stage, just breathing and looking at each other with no words spoken – the silence is more powerful than any dialogue. In the second, Mike sits alone on the stage, repeatedly opening and closing a lighter, his face mirrored in the glow of the flame – again, the silence says it all. Kudos to director Richard Wolfe for bringing all the parts of this production together into a riveting whole.

As for another reason why audiences should come to see the play, Gow said, “It is highly entertaining, and that is why it has attracted tens of thousands of audience members. The best-known actor associated with the play has said, ‘It will recalibrate your soul.’ I am not sure about that, but certainly thought-provoking, I believe … not an average play, in any case.”

Cherry Docs is, indeed, a thought-provoking play, whose themes remain timely and relevant. It is difficult to perform and a brave choice for Cave Canem Productions and Pacific Theatre – it is both a visceral and intellectual experience, suitable for older teens and up, as it contains mature subject matter, violence and profanity. For tickets, call 604-731-5518 or visit pacifictheatre.org.

Tova Kornfeld is a Vancouver freelance writer and lawyer.

Trying to make access equal

Dr. Cheryl Rockman-Greenberg (photo from Rockman-Greenberg)

In the 1970s, when Dr. Cheryl Rockman-Greenberg was eyeing the budding field of genetics as a career, she had to become a pediatric doctor first. Now, Rockman-Greenberg counts her clinical background as a blessing, one that, today, geneticists no longer require.

“Having a strong background in clinical medicine certainly always helped me in my career, because the kind of genetics I was always interested in was in rare metabolic diseases,” said Rockman-Greenberg. “These are diseases often caused by enzyme deficiencies that go by very elaborate names. Having a good foundation in clinical medicine through pediatrics certainly helped me.”

Rockman-Greenberg, who lives in Winnipeg, was invited to speak at the city’s Congregation Shaarey Zedek Sisterhood Interfaith Luncheon on April 30.

“I learned that the luncheon was spearheaded through the sisterhood in many ways to promote information sharing between the faiths,” she said, noting that a purpose of the event is education and “to look at how we can build bridges between people of different faiths and not build walls.”

“From a global perspective,” she said, “I think it fits the themes of the interfaith luncheon. And, from a Jewish perspective, I’ve certainly been involved over the years, particularly with the National Council of Jewish Women, of increasing awareness of the importance of genes for health, and bringing together some of the advocacy groups in rare genetic disorders.

“I helped the National Council put out a brochure on carrier testing on new genetic disorders in the Ashkenazi Jewish population that has been extremely well-received worldwide. This information is always evolving.”

At the luncheon, Rockman-Greenberg was planning to discuss, among other things, Bill S-201, also known as the Genetic Non-Discrimination Act, which passed into law in Canada in 2017, though it is still being challenged by insurance companies in Quebec.

“This is a remarkable act in the sense that it does protect Canadians from the use of genetic test results outside of medical care and medical research,” Rockman-Greenberg told the Independent. “In other words, genetic test results do not have to be disclosed to insurance companies or employers. We’re one of many countries who have such legislation in place, and many people here have worked for years and years lobbying for similar legislation for Canada.”

Methods of genetic testing continue to advance, said Rockman-Greenberg. Tests that were nonexistent or very complicated to administer as recently as two decades ago can now be done quickly and inexpensively.

“The evolution has dramatically changed over the past 10 years, particularly in the sense that the techniques we use to diagnose genetic disease have dramatically changed – from studying one gene at a time, to being able to sequence the entire genome of an individual,” she explained.

When Rockman-Greenberg refers to “new genetics,” she is referring to the ability to offer state-of-the-art, revolutionary genetic testing that was not possible just 10 years ago. It is this access that Rockman-Greenberg is lobbying for now.

“Everybody doesn’t have the same access to the testing in Canada,” she said. “It’s certainly not uniform from province to province or within provinces. So, many people are very committed to ensuring there are strategies in place to promote fairness.

“Notwithstanding that, the legislation is going to protect people against disclosing information that is already in place. I think we are ahead of the game because we have this in place. But, we are not ahead of the game in making sure people are going to have access to new diagnostic testing and new therapeutics in a way that’s going to be equal across the board.”

Rockman-Greenberg’s focus on rare metabolic diseases means that she has witnessed firsthand the struggles to get specialty drugs approved through a system focused on the big diseases, such as diabetes and cancer.

“You may get a new drug for diabetes that will be approved and available for patients very quickly, whereas some of the new drugs for other diseases I treat can take years and years before they go through the approval process,” she said.

Rockman-Greenberg thought that the topic was an appropriate one for an interfaith gathering, “as everybody having the same chance to be successful is very important to me. I work with families and patient support groups to help remove barriers and help people feel empowered.”

She said, “There are many challenges in dealing with rare diseases and I try to work both sides: the patient side, as well as advocate for changes at the government level, to make sure there is fairness in access to new therapies.”

Rebeca Kuropatwa is a Winnipeg freelance writer.

How RGB got her start in law

Marty Ginsburg (Armie Hammer) and Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Felicity Jones) arrive at court in On the Basis of Sex. (photo from Focus Features)

A news flash for members of the tribe who’ve been kvelling over a Jewish woman on the U.S. Supreme Court for fully a quarter of a century: Ruth Bader Ginsburg long ago matriculated beyond a symbol of ethnic achievement.

Last year’s hit documentary, RBG, noted that Justice Ginsburg is an enormously popular role model for women in their teens and 20s, and she has achieved pop culture celebrity to boot. The latest film – released recently in Canada and, as of press time, still playing in Metro Vancouver – is On the Basis of Sex, which applies the Hollywood treatment to Ginsburg’s beginnings as a smart but struggling lawyer and situates her smack in the mainstream. To coin a Lincolnesque testimonial, now she belongs to the masses.

Director Mimi Leder and screenwriter Daniel Stiepleman (who happens to be Ruth and Marty Ginsburg’s nephew) frame On the Basis of Sex as an underdog saga. And, like a lot of underdogs in Hollywood movies, our heroine has a superpower that she only discovers – and masters – on her journey.

The movie is effective, and ultimately inspiring, in a way that doesn’t remotely challenge viewers other than to ask them to follow clever legal strategies.

The film opens with Ginsburg’s first days at Harvard Law School, where her husband Marty is in his second year. Immediately and repeatedly, she (and the viewer) is reminded of her second-class status as a woman in a man’s world.

It takes awhile to reconcile the confident Justice Ginsburg of public record with the somewhat skittish character that British actress Felicity Jones creates. On the one hand, as a wife and a mother who – like every other aspiring woman professional of the time – never wears pants, Ginsburg is plainly a grownup. But she’s patronized by everyone from the law school’s WASPy dean (a villainous Sam Waterston) to her husband (a stalwart Armie Hammer), and she risks being seen as a rabble-rouser (it’s the late 1950s) simply by standing up for herself.

Although the film does not conceal or finesse the Ginsburgs’ Jewishness, it presents casual misogyny and the entrenched old boys’ network, not antisemitism, as the obstacles Ruth needs to navigate. Consequently, she has to devise ways – both direct and elliptical – to raise the consciousness of every ally, including her devoted husband, before she can even challenge potential adversaries. While Marty certainly recognizes his wife’s brilliance, he’s a product of his upbringing and the times.

On the Basis of Sex or, as it’s referred to at your favourite corned beef dispensary, “RBG: The Early Years,” devotes considerable screen time to the couple’s relationship and, for many viewers, that will serve as the emotional heart of the film. Others will derive more pleasure from Ginsburg finding her footing and her voice as a scholarly attorney.

As Stiepleman noted in an interview during a recent visit to San Francisco, “Coming out of law school, [Ginsburg] had three strikes against her: she was a woman, she was a mother and she was a Jew. Any one of those things alone, law firms had taken the risk. It was the three together that made her unhire-able in their eyes.”

Unable to find a job practising law, she takes a teaching position. Through a combination of determination, persistence and luck, she comes across a unique case that addresses the inequities of gender discrimination. The complainant, who looked after his mother but was denied the tax deduction for caregivers, is a man.

Earlier in the film, there’s a crucial chain of events when her husband is diagnosed with cancer. Ginsburg not only took care of him (and their small daughter), but got them both through law school. That experience as a caregiver gives her both the empathy and the understanding to identify with and persuade her would-be client, as well as to research and argue the case.

The lengthy courtroom scene that comprises the film’s last 20 minutes or so is genuinely effective and even emotional, despite the formulaic staging and the fact that we know Ginsburg will prevail. At the pivotal moment, we witness a character coming into her own, grasping her abilities and realizing her destiny. And with that, the underdog becomes a superhero.

On the Basis of Sex is rated PG-13 for some language and suggestive content.

Michael Fox is a writer and film critic living in San Francisco.

קרן קיימת קנדה הפסיקה לתמוך בפרוייקטים צבאיים בישראל לאור חקירה של רשות המס הקנדי

(jnf.ca)

קרן הקיימת בקנדה הפסיקה להעביר תרומות לפרוייקטים צבאיים בישראל לאור חקירה מתמשכת של רשות המיסוי הקנדית (סי.אר.איי). זאת עלי פי תחקיר של רשת השידור הטלוויזיה של קנדה (הסי.בי.סי).

רשות המיסוי הקנדית בודקת מזה מספר שנים את פעילותה של קרן קיימת קנדה, לאור מידע שהתקבל לידיה כי הארגון עבר על כללי המס הקנדי למתן תרומות מצד קרנות צדקה. קרן קיימת קנדה כך התברר תרמה כספים לפרוייקטים הקשורים לצה”ל בניגוד לכללי המס בקנדה. במקרה כזה קרן קיימת קנדה לא זכאית לפטור במס, וכן גם התורמים שלה עצמם לא זכאים לפטורים במס.

יש לציין כי קרן קייימת קנדה לא העבירה תרומות לרכישת ציוד צבאי לצה”ל, אלה תמכה בעיקר פרוייקטים ותשתיות צבאיות, לשיפור הביטחון וחיי הקהילה של החיילים במדים ובני משפחותיהם, אך לפי חוקי המיסוי בקנדה גם זה אסור. מנכ”ל קרן קיימת קנדה לאנס דיוויס לא ענה על בקשתי באמצעות אימייל, לקבל את תגובתו בנושא המדובר.

דיוויס כן הודיע לכתב חדשות של רשת השידור הקנדית כי קרן קיימת קנדה הודיעה לתורמיה, כי היא הפסיקה לתמוך בפרוייקטים צבאיים בישראל כבר לפני כשנתיים. זאת, לאחר שהתברר לארגון כי הוא נמצא תחת ביקורת של רשות המיסוי הקנדית.

לפי מסמכים ופרסומים רבים של קרן קיימת קנדה, הארגון תמך לאורך השנים בפרוייקטים רבים הקשורים בצה”ל וחייליו. ובהם: פיתוח של בסיס הדרכה בנגב. פיתוח של כיתות לימוד, אולם אירועים וחדר הקרנות בסיס של חיל הים בבת גלים. שיפוץ והרחבת אולם אירועים ומועדון לחיילים בבסיסי חיל האוויר בפלמחים ונבטים. הקמת מגרש משחקים עבור ילדים (שמתגוררים עם בני משפחותיהם) בבסיס חצרים של חיל האוויר. שידרוג מרכז מבקרים, שיפוץ הכיכר המרכזית והמרכז ארצי לאימונים בבסיס צאלים. הקמת מתקני נוחות לחיילים בשדה תל נוף של חיל האוויר. עזרה בהקמת כביש ביטחוני בקדש ברנע (ליד הגבול המצרי) לשיפור הנגישות לכוחות הביטחון של ישראל. עבודות לשיפור כבישים ביטחוניים של כוחות הביטחון באזורי הגבול בנגב המערבי. בניית נקודות מפגש ירוקות בבסיסים צבאיים לאפשר לחיילים לראות את בני משפחתם בנוחות. וכן עזרה ותמיכה בצעירים בבתי הספר התיכוניים במסגרת הכשרתם הקדם צבאית (פרוייקט גדנ”ע).

עוד מתברר שקרן קיימת קנדה תמכה אף בפרוייקטים ששנמצאים מעבר לקו הירוק. ממשלת קנדה מתנגדת לבנייה ישראלית של התנחלויות כשטחים הכבושים לדבריה, שהן הפרה של אמנת ג’נבה הרביעית. עוד קובעת ממשלת קנדה כי: “ההתנחלויות הישראליות בשטחים הן המכשלון חמור להשגת שלום כולל, צודק ובר קיימא”. בית המשפט בקנדה קבע כי ארגוני צדקה קנדיים לא יכולים לפעול בניגוד למדיניות הציבור.

בין פרוייקטים בשטחים שמעבר לקו הירוק שקרן קיימת קנדה תמכה בהם: פיתוח החפירות הארכיאולוגיות של האולם המרכזי במנהרות הכותל בירושלים, העברה של תרומות לפני כארבע שנים לרכישת כלים להכנת הקרקע לבניית מאחז בגבעת עוז, שהוגדר אפילו על ידי ממשלת ישראל כבלתי חוקי. ופיתוח הפרוייקט הגדול ביותר של הארגון הקנדי בישראל – פארק קנדה ליד לטרון. רופא קנדי (בפנסיה) שנולד באחד הכפרים הפלסטינים עליו נבנה פארק קנדה, התלוננן פני רשות המיסים הקנדית על תרומות של קרן קיימת קנדה לפרוייקט.

יצויין כי במאי לפני כשנתיים ביקרה בישראל משלחת של קרן קיימת קנדה, ברשות דיוויס. חברי המשלחת ביקרו בין היתר בבסיס צה”ל בצהלים ובבסיס משמר הגבול במכמש, שאליהם הועברו תרומות מהארגון.

How to avoid tax trap

(photo from pxhere.com)

One of the last problems you’d expect in creating a power of attorney is to find your company losing a bunch of tax advantages because the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) decides you and the person you appointed in the power of attorney have related companies.

If your company is small and Canadian-controlled, it gets certain tax advantages; however, CRA doesn’t want you to break a large company into a bunch of small pieces to multiply those tax advantages. If you give each of those pieces to a different person, but maintain control through powers of attorney, CRA will still consider all those pieces to be one company.

Unfortunately, CRA doesn’t recognize the difference between a general power of attorney used to control a company and an enduring power of attorney used to help someone when they’re incapacitated. Here’s an example of the trap that can happen if you’re not careful with a power of attorney.

(Disclaimer: this is not tax advice; it is a simplified illustration of the small business tax rules and how they’re applied with respect to control and powers of attorney.)

I’ll give you two scenarios. The first one illustrates what CRA is trying to avoid, and the second one illustrates what it catches by accident.

First scenario: avoiding multiplication of the small business deduction

Patricia Hindenburg has three adult children: Roberta, Paulina and Bradley. She runs a clothing company, Whole Lotta Cashmere Fashions Inc., with stores in the Kitsilano, Yaletown, Commercial Drive and Marpole neighbourhoods.

Whole Lotta Cashmere Fashions is doing very well. Last year, it earned $2.4 million before tax. The company is a Canadian-controlled private corporation and is eligible for the small business deduction. The deduction means that, instead of paying about 35% income tax on $2.4 million, Whole Lotta Cashmere Fashions only pays that on $1.9 million. The first $500,000 is taxed at about 10%. (Again, these are not the real tax rates and I’m simplifying the calculations.)

Patricia realizes that, if she split the company into four companies, each owned by a different person, the companies would together pay 10% on $2 million and only $400,000 would be caught by the higher tax rate. So, she splits the company into four, giving one to each of her children and keeping one for herself. This way, each of the four companies will be eligible for the small business deduction – each will only pay 10% on its first $500,000 of earnings.

To make sure that the companies remain successful and operating just the way she likes, Patricia asks her kids each to grant her power of attorney over their voting shares in their companies.

She now has control over all four companies. Their combined income is still around $2.4 million, but she believes the collection of companies has a small business deduction of $2 million instead of $500,000. She expects to pay 10% on $2 million and 35% on $400,000.

CRA does not allow this, however. Because of the powers of attorney that give Patricia control over all of the companies, CRA taxes them as one big company the same way it did before the split.

This seems fair. If the companies are truly independent, they should each get the small business deduction but, if you split a big company into a bunch of smaller ones and you maintain control over them, you don’t get a bunch of small business deductions.

Second scenario: getting tax-trapped in incapacity planning

Stephanie Edwards has a metalworks shop, Icarus Metalworks Inc., that is doing very well. She has apprenticed each of her five children, Adriana, Murray, Nicole, Dickens and Jan, in the art and trade of blacksmithing.

A few years ago, Adriana and Dickens decided they prefer ceramics, and they opened their own company, Can I Play With Porcelain Ltd.

Last year, Icarus earned $700,000. Can I Play With Porcelain did pretty well too; it earned about $450,000.

Icarus should pay 10% on the first $500,000 and 35% on the remaining $200,000. Can I Play With Porcelain is under the limit for the small business deduction, and should only pay 10% on all $450,000 of its earnings.

Unfortunately, after all these years of literally bending iron and steel to her will, Stephanie has serious joint problems. She is finding it hard to write. This has her thinking about making sure her kids can take care of things for her if (and when) she’s unable.

Stephanie thinks carefully about her kids, and who would be in the best position to help her. She decides to grant an enduring power of attorney to her eldest, Adriana. The power of attorney is, as is the case with most enduring powers of attorney, unrestricted and it is effective from the moment it is signed. Stephanie wants to make sure that Adriana can help her even while she is still capable, because she doesn’t know for how much longer she’ll be able to sign cheques, etc., given her joint problems.

Here’s the trap: the CRA determines that the power of attorney allows Adriana to use Stephanie’s shares to control Icarus. This is true – Adriana can do anything on behalf of Stephanie that has to do with finances (including business, real estate and legal matters). Therefore, Icarus Metalworks Inc. and Can I Play With Porcelain Ltd. are now considered related companies. Can I Play With Porcelain Ltd. loses its small business deduction. Between the two companies, the first $500,000 is taxed at 10% and the remaining $650,000 is taxed at 35%.

Is there a way around this? Yes.

Two powers of attorney are prepared, both enduring, both restricted – in exactly opposite ways – and one is made “springing.”

In the first instance, Stephanie grants an enduring power of attorney to Adriana, effective immediately and without any limits or restrictions except that Adriana may not use it to vote or in any other way act on Stephanie’s shares of her company, Icarus Metalworks Inc.

This will probably cover about 95% of what Stephanie needs Adriana to do.

Eventually, Stephanie may lose capacity and need Adriana to take control of her company. At that point, the benefit of Adriana controlling Stephanie’s shares will outweigh the tax consequences. There’s also the slim hope that by then, the Income Tax Act will be amended so as not to catch enduring powers of attorney anymore.

Stephanie grants a second enduring power of attorney to Adriana, but this one has two limitations in it. It only applies to Stephanie’s shares of her company, to avoid any confusion regarding which power of attorney applies in any given situation. Also, it is not effective until Stephanie loses capacity – this is called a “springing” power of attorney. It springs into effect only when Stephanie is no longer capable of managing her affairs. This prevents CRA from considering the companies to be related until it’s absolutely necessary, and this is a recognized technique among lawyers who practise regularly in the areas of estate and incapacity planning.

Jeremy R. Costin, JD, is a business, estates and ecommerce lawyer at Costin Law. He can be reached at 604-742-0717 or [email protected].