Tag: politics

Do more than vote this fall

If you could give just a few hours to build relationships and build goodwill for the Jewish community, would you do it? Now – during an election – is the best possible time to get active and engaged so that you can make a real difference. Voting is a start, but it’s not enough.

Our community makes up less than 1.1% of the population and we’re continuing to shrink. We also tend to live in urban centres. That means we have an impact at the ballot box in just 10 (three percent) of Canada’s 338 ridings. But it doesn’t have to be that way. We need to get engaged so we can work beyond just our local ridings where we vote.

CJPAC, the Canadian Jewish Political Affairs Committee, is a multi-partisan, nonprofit organization. CJPAC’s mandate is to engage our community in the political process and foster active political participation. We work hard to build relationships, especially with candidates in the other 97% of ridings. If we had a repeat of last election, where there was a turnover of at least one-third new members of Parliament, that would be a lot of new relationships to build. We can start the process early by community members volunteering and getting to know the candidates and vice versa.

In the last federal election, 70 races – that’s 20% of all races in Canada – were won or lost by less than a five percent margin. Some races were lost by only 50 votes! A few more volunteers could have made the difference from being just a candidate to becoming an MP.

Hands down, the most effective way to make a difference this election is by volunteering for the candidate or campaign of your choice. Every campaign is hungry for volunteers, and just a small amount of time can be a big help.

You can expect to go door-knocking (possibly with your candidate!), make phone calls to constituents, hand out literature in the community, put up lawn signs or even work in a polling station.

“It’s a few hours of time committed, and it really does make a difference,” said Sharon Fitch, who volunteered on an NDP campaign in Victoria.

Volunteering can be done with the whole family and high school students can even get volunteer credit in some provinces, building their resumés along the way. Jonah Presser was just 15 when he first volunteered on a Conservative campaign in Montreal.

“It’s an excellent networking opportunity, builds confidence and you never know where volunteering could lead you,” he said.

CJPAC’s team makes volunteering easy by training you on the ins and outs of campaign volunteering, connecting you with the campaign of your choice and being there for you throughout the volunteering process. You can volunteer in your local riding or in one of the other 328 ridings where there is no strong Jewish presence. Maybe that means volunteering 20 minutes away from your home or, if you have a cottage, volunteering there. We need to cover a lot of ground to build goodwill and have the biggest impact.

“CJPAC supported connecting me to whatever party I wanted and helped me navigate who to contact,” said Maddy Cooper, who volunteered on a Liberal campaign in Toronto.

Even though Election Day is Shemini Atzeret (Oct. 21), campaigns need help every day of the week and every day of the election period.

You have the power to make a difference for the candidate you support and the opportunity to ensure that they have a connection to the Jewish community. So, take the first step by signing up to volunteer at cjpac.ca/volunteer, and CJPAC will connect you with the campaign or candidate of your choice.

Regardless of how one votes, it is incumbent upon all of us to build relationships with all parties. Our community is not monolithic and that is a great strength, especially when it comes to elections. Let’s put that strength into action.

Don’t wait to get engaged in this election. The outcome is in your hands.

Joseph Paperman is the chair and Mark Waldman is the executive director of the Canadian Jewish Political Affairs Committee. This article originally appeared in the CJN.

Self-image to be tested

It was all decorum and politeness at an election forum Sunday sponsored by the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs and SUCCESS, the United Chinese Community Enrichment Services Society.

The comparative decorousness of the event – although interrupted at one point by an impassioned outburst related to the mistreatment of indigenous peoples – will likely be an anomaly as the neck-and-neck campaign proceeds. Desperate measures will likely be employed as Liberals and Conservatives battle for a majority – and as New Democrats and Greens spar in what seems destined to be a down-ticket race of its own.

And all of this is playing out against the potentially upending news that the People’s Party of Canada’s Maxime Bernier has been admitted to the national debates on Oct. 7 and 10 organized by the official Leaders’ Debate Commission.

The new party – started by the breakaway former Conservative from Quebec – has attracted a range of malcontents, including extremists of various sorts being involved in or peripheral to his party. While the four “mainstream” parties have all tread relatively lightly around super-charged racial issues, Bernier – and perhaps less predictably, his fellow 337 candidates across the country – seems prone to exploit and exacerbate racial divisions.

On this and many other issues that will form the meat and potatoes of the rest of the campaign, Canadians will now hear the perspective of Canada’s answer to the populism that has taken root in the United States, Europe and elsewhere. The degree to which these ideas and Bernier’s rhetoric catches on will tell us much about our country and ourselves. Canadians have liked to imagine that we are immune to the phenomenon of xenophobia that seems to be gaining ground globally. But, then, we haven’t had, in recent history, a chance to vote for a party that represents such ideas.

One of the things that has been notable during the aftermath of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s recently revealed repeated donning of deeply problematic costumes, including blackface/brownface, is what seems like a divergence between the official voices and the unofficial voices.

Elected officials utter pieties about respect for diversity. Representatives of multicultural and anti-racism organizations speak of challenges and opportunities. Yet, in radio call-in programs and online comments – those voices of “ordinary” people – the responses seem quite different. Many complain that the blackface controversy is all a sideshow that diminishes focus on issues like the economy and the environment. Others suggest a tempest in a teapot or political correctness run amok.

In a few days, Canadians will get our first look at all the party leaders side by side, including Andrew Scheer and Jagmeet Singh, who remain somewhat unknown quantities, and Bernier, who will bring some genuinely outside-the-establishment perspectives to the debate. How far Bernier pushes the envelope – and how Canadians respond to his ideas – will tell us just how accurate our self-perception as an open, tolerant society really is.

Religion and politicians

In an interview with the CBC last week, federal Green party leader Elizabeth May was asked who her personal hero is. She responded, “Jesus Christ.” Almost immediately, she apologized, saying that she had responded while failing to “self-edit.”

Canadians, by and large, are not so open to publicly discussing matters like religion, politics or other things that could be perceived as controversial. But political leaders should be prepared to discuss things in their lives that have shaped them. In fact, religion seems likely to be more central in this election than it has been in decades.

New Democratic Party leader Jagmeet Singh felt compelled to address his religion in an ad (notably aimed at Quebec voters) about how his identity as a Sikh influences his worldview.

While Quebec’s Bill 21, which bans the display of religious symbolism in the public service, means Singh would not be permitted to teach in the province or hold certain roles in the civil service, he managed to finesse the issue quite neatly. He found a sort of common ground by acknowledging that Bill 21 is an effort by Quebecers to protect and preserve their identity, the importance of which he acknowledged paralleled his own pride in his identity and the importance it holds in his life.

Over the weekend, he also managed to continue discussing the topic while having a few laughs, which rarely hurts. Singh, who has struggled to connect with voters in the pre-election period, may come out of this round a winner by making Quebec voters and other Canadians take a good look at him for the first time.

Meanwhile, Liberals are trying to portray Conservative party leader Andrew Scheer as having a hidden agenda, based on his Catholic religious beliefs, on issues like reproductive freedom and equal marriage.

Scheer and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, both Catholics, have taken similar approaches, asserting that their religious views will not dictate party or government policies. However, there is probably a different calculation being made on each side. Trudeau’s policies are probably more liberal than the teachings of his church, so segmenting the two prevents an undesirable schism with his church. Scheer is probably calculating that his beliefs in the teachings of his church are not shared by the majority of voters; therefore, segregating his political and religious positions may have a hint of political expediency. In both cases, Trudeau and Scheer have been vague and both have attempted to move past the topic. (This is tougher for Scheer, whose grassroots supporters, in many cases, are more religiously conservative than the average voter. Working on not alienating them while courting middle-of-the-road voters places him in a bit of a bind.)

The reticence by Trudeau and Scheer to enthusiastically discuss their religious views, and May’s odd flip-flop on Jesus, may be a consequence of a root misunderstanding around the separation of church and state: the concept is that religious institutions should not unduly influence, or be influenced by, governments. It does not mean that individual elected officials should neuter their religious views as they cross the threshold into the legislature. If one’s deeply held religious beliefs and values are what make up a person’s identity, worldview and morality, these are things that should very much be on the table for people seeking the public’s trust. By example, there is plenty in biblical literature that May could have cited as motivators for her environmental priorities. That kind of openness would be refreshing. Singh tried it. We’ll see what happens.

If religious adherence is an important part of who a candidate is, it would be nice to think that they would not be embarrassed or shy to share these perspectives with us. Canadians would perhaps understand our leaders better – including when they say that they personally believe one thing but would not legislate it on the country, which is an entirely legitimate position.

What likely makes voters suspicious or skeptical is when a politician seems to be hiding something, is ambiguous about how their beliefs might guide policy positions, or is ashamed of who they are.

Still loyal if vote Democrat

The Aug. 29 Jerusalem Post had an article, “Pipko to Post: Jewish Democrats are walking away,” which argued that “The Democrats have changed and so should [Jewish] support for them.” It is part of an effort carried out by Republicans before every presidential election to make Israel a wedge issue, to convince Jews to switch to supporting Republicans.

Polls have found that most Israelis also believe that U.S. Jews should support President Donald Trump and other Republicans, largely because of what they perceive as their strong support for Israel. In his efforts to get U.S. Jews to change their political allegiance, Trump has stated about Jews that, “In my opinion, you vote for a Democrat, you’re being very disloyal to Jewish people, and you’re being very disloyal to Israel.”

Despite these opinions and statements, in the same Aug. 29 issue of the Post was the article “Trump vs. Gallup: Report shows Jews will vote Dem,” which indicated that a very strong majority of U.S. Jews (roughly 75%) are very likely to continue to vote for Democrats.

As an American who made aliyah about three years ago, after living in the United States for 82 years, I would like to discuss why U.S. Jews generally vote for Democrats and, in doing so, are, I believe, loyal to Jews, Israel and Jewish values.

A major reason is that Trump, along with virtually all U.S. Republican politicians, denies climate change, an existential threat to Israel, the United States and, indeed, the world. Trump and virtually all Republicans are doing everything possible to support the fossil fuel industry and weaken efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Research from Columbia Law School, Harvard Law School and other sources revealed more than 80 environmental rules and regulations on the way out under Trump.

Another important reason that most Jews vote for Democrats is that many of Trump’s policies are contrary to basic Jewish values of kindness, compassion and concern for the disadvantaged, the stranger and the poor. Rather than improving Obamacare, which provided health insurance to tens of millions of Americans, Trump supported legislation that would result in as many as 32 million Americans losing their health insurance and making others pay higher premiums.

Also, instead of rebuilding America’s crumbling infrastructure, rated a D+ by the American Society of Civil Engineers, Trump and Republican legislators pushed through a tax bill that overwhelmingly benefits the wealthiest Americans and highly profitable corporations. This will greatly increase the U.S. national debt, giving the Republicans an excuse to try to carry out their longtime desires to cut programs Americans depend on, including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Most Jews also disagree with the views and policies of Trump and other Republicans on many issues, including immigration, civil rights, gun control, church-state separation, judicial appointments, diplomacy and the Iran nuclear agreement.

While a significant majority of Israelis approve of the United States getting out of the Iran nuclear deal, the results of that action remain to be seen. A strong majority of military, nuclear and strategic experts believe that the pact is the best approach to curbing Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions. Among the negatives of Trump’s decision is that European and other nations have been alienated, America’s credibility in keeping agreements has been reduced and the potential for war and terrorism may have increased.

Then there is the issue of Trump’s character. As the New York Times’ conservative columnist Bret Stephens, a former chief editor of the Jerusalem Post, wrote in a recent article, Trump’s character involves “lying, narcissism, bullying, bigotry, crassness, name-calling, ignorance, paranoia, incompetence and pettiness.” Do we really want to honour such a person and make him a role model for our children and grandchildren?

Jews who vote Democrat generally support Israel, but they believe that, while it will be difficult to obtain, largely due to Palestinian positions and actions, Israel needs a resolution to its conflict with the Palestinians in order to avert continued and possibly increased violence, effectively respond to its economic, environmental and other domestic problems, and remain both a Jewish and a democratic state. They view Trump’s statements and actions with regard to Israel in terms of that belief.

American Jewish Democratic party supporters recognize that Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, his movement of the U.S. embassy there and his other supportive policies and actions with regard to Israel are good for Israel’s morale, but they do not believe it makes peace more likely or terrorism less likely.

Of course, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, always has been and always will be. But, almost all of the nations of the world will only acknowledge this if it is part of a comprehensive, sustainable resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Trump’s shift of the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem has totally alienated the leadership of the Palestinian Authority, which now rejects a U.S. role in forging peace with Israel. Trump’s decision would have made sense as the capstone of a final peace agreement with the Palestinians, but its timing seems counterproductive, alienating many nations, adding impetus toward anti-Israel violence and reducing prospects for a negotiated resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The price that Israel will have to pay for Trump’s support should also be considered. Most analysts believe that it was pressure from Trump that convinced Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to cancel the visit by the two U.S. congresswomen, a decision that received widespread criticism, even from strong supporters of Israel, including AIPAC.

It is very significant that, of the 36 Jewish Congress members, 34 are Democrats.

Israel may also suffer significantly by Trump and other Republicans making Israel a wedge issue, harming the important bipartisan support of Israel, in efforts to convince Jews to vote Republican.

Another factor is the major increase in antisemitic acts since Trump became president, which many people believe is due to his failure to sufficiently condemn white nationalists and other bigots.

In light of all these considerations, I believe that U.S. Jews are correct in supporting Democratic politicians and, in doing so, are being loyal to Jews, Jewish values and Israel.

Richard H. Schwartz, PhD, is professor emeritus, College of Staten Island, president emeritus of Jewish Veg and president of Society of Ethical and Religious Vegetarians. He is the author of several books, including Judaism and Vegetarianism and Who Stole My Religion? Revitalizing Judaism and Applying Jewish Values to Help Heal Our Imperiled Planet, and more than 250 articles at jewishveg.org/schwartz. He was associate producer of the documentary A Sacred Duty: Applying Jewish Values to Help Heal the World. A version of this article was originally published in the Jerusalem Post.

Canada is not “broken”

An opinion poll released last week indicates that 52% of Canadians agree with the statement that our society is “broken” – a spike of 15 points over three years ago – while just 19% of respondents disagreed with the statement.

The poll, conducted by Ipsos and provided exclusively to Global News, also suggests that two-thirds of respondents believe the economy is rigged to benefit the rich, while 61% agreed with the statement that “traditional parties and politicians don’t care about people like me.” Commentary provoked by the poll has focused on the portent these results have for a surge of populist parties or ideas in the coming federal election.

It should not be a surprise, perhaps, that people think the economy benefits the rich or that politicians have at heart the best interests of people other than little-old-us. We have been complaining about our politicians since the profession was invented and probably every one of us, no matter where we fall on the income scale, thinks we’d be doing better economically if it weren’t for some systemic force or policy that prevents us from getting ahead.

The really provocative result in this poll is the perception apparently held by more than half of Canadians that our society is broken. Admittedly, the question is ill-formed. What does “broken” even mean in this context? Regardless, the idea that we live in a broken society probably says more about the individual respondents than it does about our society as a whole. Canadians are among the most privileged, advantaged, wealthiest, healthiest and least oppressed people in the world. With some grievous historical and contemporary exceptions, Canada is one of the most egalitarian societies on earth.

We may dislike our politicians or have misgivings about this or that development, but for a poll to suggest that half of Canadians think this is a broken society makes us wonder if we are a country of naïve and entitled people. It would be instructive for Canadians who feel this way to take an eye-opening trip almost anywhere else in the world.

This is not to dismiss the very real cases of injustice, inequality or other systemic problems our country faces, but this poll indicates that half of Canadians don’t have the faintest idea how fortunate most of us have it here.

It also creates the potential for some very concerning political consequences. If Canadians march into the polling booth next month certain that this is a broken society, it is anyone’s guess what kind of ideas they might be willing to support to “fix” it.

Roll out welcome mat

Bill 21, Quebec’s law that forbids most public employees from displaying any religious symbols like a turban, a Magen David or a hijab, may become an issue in the federal election. On CBC Radio’s political program The House last weekend, MPs representing the Liberal, Conservative and New Democratic parties all took effectively the same position: the law is discriminatory but provinces have the right to proclaim their own laws and, what’s more, the Constitution’s notwithstanding clause means Quebec can pretty much do whatever it wants.

There is a political calculation in all this, of course. Many Quebeckers support this law and any federal party needs to appeal to a chunk of these voters in order to succeed in the province during next month’s vote. As a result, party leaders are mostly making the right noises about this discriminatory law, while hoping to move on to the next topic ASAP.

With federal leaders basically throwing up their hands on the issue, which calls into question the most fundamental rights of Canadians of all religions, what can be done?

One individual interviewed on the program is a teacher who is Sikh. Her choice was to move from Quebec to British Columbia, where she could continue her chosen profession without diminishing her religious beliefs, which include wearing a turban.

If federal leaders will not act forcefully, perhaps leaders in the provinces outside Quebec can do something. Throughout history, Canada has been enriched by refugees and immigrants who sought freedom and opportunity – our gains roughly equating the loss to their places of origin. Why not apply the same principle to inter-provincial relations?

Perhaps provinces like British Columbia should roll out the welcome mat for teachers, school administrators, wildlife officers, Crown prosecutors and other civil servants from Quebec who no longer feel welcome there. Actively recruiting these experienced professional people of different cultures and religions would strengthen our communities and send a message to Quebec that cultural difference is an asset, not a liability.

In the absence of forceful federal leadership on this front, it would be encouraging to see provincial governments stepping up where they can.

Speak in the new year

It is the season of new beginnings: new school year, newly turning leaves and a new Jewish year. On a leisurely drive on Labour Day Monday in suburban Vancouver, bright orange pumpkins that weren’t there last time we passed had suddenly exploded into full-sized squash seemingly overnight. Summer, of course, is officially with us until Sept. 23, but, especially if your household has kids (or teachers), summer unofficially ended when the first school bell rang on Tuesday.

This is the time of year for reflecting back and looking forward. The promise and excitement of the new mixes with nostalgia and other emotions about the passage of time and memories – good or bad – of what we leave behind.

This coming Monday, we will hear from four speakers at FEDtalks, the launch of the Jewish Federation of Greater Vancouver’s annual campaign. Among them is Isaac Herzog, head of the Jewish Agency for Israel who (in last week’s Independent) acknowledged that one of the challenges our global Jewish community faces is engaging and involving young Jewish people. As students return to post-secondary campuses in British Columbia, across Canada and around the world, we can anticipate the usual challenges – some years better or worse than others – of campaigns, referenda and assorted political shenanigans that have particular impacts on Jewish students.

Understandably, young people who have grown up with connections to Judaism, Jewish peoplehood and Israel will take exception to some of the things they will face. Some will rise admirably in these encounters, as we have seen year after year, when students at Hillel, Chabad and some ad hoc Jewish and Zionist organizations have spoken out against misleading and false expressions on their campuses. Others, also understandably, will avoid such unpleasant controversies and focus on less polarized topics and activities. Those who take up the frontlines in these battles deserve our community’s support.

There are broader issues than Zionism on campus. Free expression is top of mind for many professors, students, parents and other interested parties. A particular flare-up over the summer involved the Vancouver Pride Society (VPS), which puts on the city’s largest annual event, banning the University of British Columbia and the Vancouver Public Library from participating in the Pride parade because they both provided space for presentations by speakers who are virulently vocal against the rights of transgender people. It was a rock and a hard place for many. The Pride society certainly has the right to welcome or exclude anyone they choose (although the amount of public funding and in-kind support they receive should require a degree of public accountability). But, seeing the province’s largest university and largest library system excluded from any event, for whatever reason, is upsetting. If ideas, however odious, cannot be discussed on a university campus or at a library, they cannot be openly discussed anywhere. Driving ugly ideas underground is not a solution. The answer to hate speech is anti-hate speech. And if, as critics said, the messages of the speakers were so insidious that they could lead to violence, then that was a job for the RCMP to confront, not, perhaps, the VPS.

A 2017 poll indicated that 69% of American students say that conservatives can “freely and openly” express their views on campuses, while 92% say the same about liberals. What the poll indicates, probably, is that being a conservative on campus today is more unpopular than being a liberal. Likewise, it is probably easier on most campuses to speak against Israel rather than for Israel. But does this mean an individual’s rights are being infringed? Unless there is a systematic and official injunction against the ideas someone expresses, the issue is probably not the right to speak freely and openly, but the courage and, not inconsequently, the privilege to do so.

Pro-Israel students have demonstrated courage in defending Israel against bad-faith campaigns and insinuations. In a significant number of cases, it has resulted in young adults who have become masters of community organizing and experts in responding to attacks – and, if they were not natural leaders before, they have developed skills that will advance them throughout their lives. Our instincts, as their elders, may be to shield them from the sometimes hateful ideas they will encounter. Instead, we should be supporting and encouraging them in confronting and contesting these ideas.

To all who are embarking on new adventures – and, especially at this time of year, aren’t all of us in some way? – may we be strengthened by courage, determination and the support of one another.

Election date remains

Conservative candidate Chani Aryeh-Bain, left, and activist Ira Walfish at Federal Court in Toronto on July 16. (photo by Ron Csillag/CJN)

Last month, Elections Canada announced that it will not recommend that the date of the next federal election be changed, despite pressure to do so because it clashes with the Jewish holiday of Shemini Atzeret.

Moving the date “is not in the public interest,” Chief Electoral Officer Stéphane Perrault said in a statement on July 29. Only a few days earlier, the Federal Court of Canada ordered Perrault to reconsider his earlier refusal to move the date of the election – Oct. 21 – after it heard from observant Jews who pointed out that they cannot drive, campaign or vote on a holy day.

Lawyers for Chani Aryeh-Bain, the Conservative candidate in the Toronto riding of Eglinton-Lawrence, and Ira Walfish, an activist and voter who lives in the York Centre riding, had argued before the court that Perrault’s refusal to move the date to Oct. 28 was unreasonable and that they, along with 75,000 other Orthodox Jews in Canada, faced discrimination under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court gave Perrault a deadline of Aug. 1 to strike a balance between election laws and the rights of Orthodox Jews to vote and campaign. He was not empowered to move the date himself, but could recommend that cabinet do so.

However, “after having carefully considered the impact of holding the election on Oct. 21 on the ability of observant Jews to participate in the electoral process, and having balanced that with my mandate to ensure accessible voting opportunities for all Canadians, I conclude that it would not be advisable to change the date of the election at this late stage,” Perrault stated. It was “not a decision that I make lightly, but with a view to providing the broadest possible range of accessible voting services to the population at large.”

In a written statement to the CJN, Aryeh-Bain, who had argued that, as an observant candidate she was prevented from getting out the vote on election day, said she was “extremely disappointed” with Perrault’s decision.

“We do not believe he balanced the democratic and religious rights of Jewish voters and candidates,” she said. “He has 85 days to prepare for this election – almost triple the amount of time than he has to prepare for a snap election. Why Perrault has dug his heels in is mystifying to me.”

Perrault acknowledged that, in the case of Aryeh-Bain, the effect of not moving the election date “is very significant.” He conceded that “no arrangement can be made that would truly allow her to meet her religious obligations and compete on equal terms with non-observant candidates.”

At a press conference at B’nai Brith Canada’s offices on the day of the decision, Walfish said, “We are obviously very disappointed. We do not agree that the [chief electoral officer] balanced the relevant interests in his further decision to not move the election.”

Walfish said that Orthodox Jewish-Canadians “will not participate in this election on an equal footing with other Canadians, not by design or choice, but because their conscience prevents them from doing so.”

Aryeh-Bain and David Tordjman, an observant Conservative candidate in Montreal, “are both seriously disadvantaged with an election on Oct. 21,” said Walfish.

In an 11-page statement, Perrault referenced a detailed “action plan for observant Jewish community voting,” which was launched in April. The statement noted that the Orthodox Jewish population is primarily located in urban areas in 36 of the 338 federal ridings. It said that those ridings range from one to 13.4% Jewish, according to the 2016 census, “which makes it possible to design local solutions … to ensure that Elections Canada’s services are targeted and responsive to local needs.”

Perrault took note of the argument presented in court that the four days of advance polls, from Oct. 12-15, reduce the ability of religiously observant Jews to cast ballots because they coincide with Shabbat and Sukkot. However, Perrault pointed out that there are many days during the election period in which observant Jews can vote, including by mail-in ballot, at an Elections Canada kiosk, or at one of roughly 115 post-secondary campuses from Oct. 5-9.

Moving the election date “will not remove all of the barriers that Jewish electors face in voting this election cycle,” Perrault stated. And if the date were moved, “the new dates for the advanced polls will also overlap with Jewish holidays,” he said. “There is no such thing as a perfect election day, especially in a country as diverse as Canada.”

Michael Mostyn, B’nai Brith’s chief executive officer, said Perrault’s decision was “just as wrong” as his initial refusal to move the date. He said Perrault’s admission that observant candidates cannot compete equally with non-observant ones is “a red line” for B’nai Brith. But Elections Canada has “run out the clock” because of the Aug. 1 deadline for setting an election date, he noted.

Mostyn called on “every Canadian Jew who is capable of doing so [to] cast a ballot via advanced polls or special ballots” and on Jewish voters to ask candidates whether they support changes to elections laws, to ensure that voting does not fall on a Jewish holiday again.

The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA), on the other hand, said it “respects” Perrault’s decision.

“While mindful of the inconvenience that some will experience and the clear disadvantages faced by a religiously observant candidate, we trust that those challenges can and will be mitigated by the measures put into place by Elections Canada,” said CIJA chief executive officer Shimon Koffler Fogel in a statement.

CIJA said it, too, will focus on changing election dates, which have been fixed since 2007, so they no longer clash with Jewish holidays.

Perrault said he is “committed to continuing to work with the Jewish community to maximize voting options within the existing calendar in ways that are convenient and consistent with their religious beliefs.”

– For more national Jewish news, visit cjnews.com

We are one people, one heart

As a teenager in the United States, I was in a public high school marching band. My parents worked to make sure our family was together for an early Friday night Shabbat dinner, even when football games were on Friday night. We did a careful balancing act of observance and negotiation. I wanted to play in the jazz ensemble – and I did – but, in order to do that, I also had to commit to marching band. Sometimes, during the High Holidays, it was a precarious compromise.

One week, there was a Friday night without a football game. My parents planned to have a “normal” Shabbat dinner and attend services as a family. My band director had us all in a line formation on the field. He asked if we could substitute a practice during that time. He said, if you had a conflict, to step out of line and explain.

In front of the whole marching band, I had to step out of line. I spoke as loudly as I could (just short of shouting) so that the director and his assistants could hear me in the stands. I said my parents expected me at Friday night dinner at home, and to attend services. I needed to go. This was a religious obligation I’d been skipping for band. In true teenage bluntness, I noted that he wasn’t proposing an alternate rehearsal on Sunday morning instead, was he?

There was silence, and the band director nodded and said, “Right, no rehearsal Friday night.” While I recovered, shaking, I was set upon by other band members. A couple of non-Jewish friends supported me and mentioned how brave I’d been. To my surprise, the few other Jewish members – all slightly less observant than my family – weren’t so kind. They were angry at me for being “too Jewish” and drawing attention to them, too.

This experience came to mind when I read the news last month. The Canadian federal election is scheduled for Oct. 21 and this date conflicts with Shemini Atzeret. An Orthodox Jewish candidate in Ontario, Chani Aryeh-Bain, and another Orthodox activist, Ira Walfish, brought up this concern a year ago – in August 2018. It was ignored.

The advance polling dates are also problematic because they fall on Shabbat and Sukkot. Yes, there are ways for observant Jews to vote, despite these scheduling conflicts. However, this schedule interferes with the Orthodox candidate’s ability to campaign, as well as affecting her entire community in Toronto’s Eglinton-Lawrence riding.

Shemini Atzeret is not a big deal observance for many of us, and one news article demonstrates this by proclaiming it is the “Orthodox” Jewish community that has an issue. However, I was first struck by this candidate’s bravery in confronting this issue. That admiration was reinforced by the thousands of comments at the bottom of the article.

Some would say these comments are downright antisemitic, but I saw the majority of them as ignorant. There were many who derided religion, commented specifically on Judaism, and even one believing Christian who bemoaned how Canada had become a heathen country. (Say what?!)

In some ways, we are lucky in Canada. Our children can go to public or private schools in which they can experience Jewish community, culture and religious practices. We can relish the rich diversity of our particular community, as well as maintain our citizenship on equal footing with other Canadians. However, this opportunity to isolate ourselves comes at a cost.

When we separate ourselves, we lose the opportunity for everyday interactions with non-Jewish Canadians. The informal education that comes from attending school, sports, work and social activities with all kinds of people is invaluable. While I found it a burden to be the token Jew in my school classroom, it gave me a great chance to educate myself and explain our holidays and our traditions. Most of my classmates and bandmates knew about Judaism because they knew me.

Many get upset about ignorance or intolerance. That’s understandable, but I was taught that basic education makes a big difference. When a church or organization asked for someone to speak about Passover or Chanukah or Jewish practice, my family stepped up. I was the kid explaining the seder to the Methodists, or the sole Jewish teenager who invited all her friends to Shabbat dinner each week. My parents had an open door policy and a lot of extra dessert for whomever came over on a Friday night.

We’re lucky to live in a country that celebrates diversity. However, we should offer educational outreach whenever it’s helpful, so that we can live in peace with our neighbours. We can explain why there are obstacles to voting or campaigning in the middle of the fall holiday season, and why this is an issue. Also, instead of forcing some of us to feel uncomfortable and “too Jewish,” we can embrace each other as “Am Echad,” “One People.”

Even though the election date will not change, the situation is a learning moment for us as Jews and Canadians.

Reggae may not be everyone’s cup of tea, but I end this as I began it, with music. If we’re truly one people, with “one love, one heart,’” we should love all of our Jewish community. We stand up for what we need both to practise Judaism and our voting rights, as each of us sees fit. In Bob Marley’s religious (but not Jewish) words, “Let’s get together, and feel all right.”

Joanne Seiff has written regularly for CBC Manitoba 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. See more about her at joanneseiff.blogspot.com.

 

Israel is not a political toy

The U.S. president accused Representative Rashida Tlaib of a political stunt when the American politician of Palestinian descent rejected Israel’s offer of permission to visit the West Bank on humanitarian grounds.

Israel’s government had first announced that it would permit visits to Palestine by Tlaib and fellow congresswoman Ilhan Omar, another of the four members of the “squad” of progressive women of colour elected to Congress as Democrats in last November’s U.S. midterm elections. Then, apparently after Donald Trump intervened with his continued vendetta against the women, the government of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu changed their minds and declared that the congresswomen would not be permitted to go to Palestine. Then, in another twist, Israel decided to allow Tlaib admission based on “humanitarian” grounds to visit her grandmother and other relatives in the West Bank. Tlaib rejected the offer.

“Silencing me & treating me like a criminal is not what she wants for me,” Tlaib tweeted about her grandmother. “It would kill a piece of me. I have decided that visiting my grandmother under these oppressive conditions stands against everything I believe in – fighting against racism, oppression & injustice.”

Putting ideology over seeing a nonagenarian grandparent seems a tad distorted, but she’s probably correct that Israel’s actions were over-the-top.

The idea that Israel should ban members of the United States Congress from entering the country (en route to the West Bank, which is occupied by Israeli forces, which means Israel controls who can enter and move around there) is a highly dubious move. Given Tlaib’s and Omar’s unrelenting condemnation of Israel and its policies, including support for the BDS movement, some people argued that Israel should ban them. But almost every mainstream Jewish and Zionist organization in the United States that spoke up argued that they should be permitted to go.

In fact, it would have been smart to invite the two as guests of the Israeli government and give them the VIP tour of Israel. Then, they would have at least have heard the Israeli side of the story, take it or leave it. More to the point, had they refused the invitation to see the modern miracle that is the Jewish state, they might have looked closed-minded.

Instead, the two Democrats have come out of it looking righteous, while Netanyahu looks like Trump’s puppet and Trump looks like, well, like he usually does. Especially when he tweeted that the only winner in the scenario is Tlaib’s grandmother because “She doesn’t have to see her now!” One wonders about what goes through the minds Trump’s grandchildren when he blusters into the room.

On the one hand, the recent vote in Congress to criticize the BDS movement was massively lopsided and indicates that Israel’s special relationship with the United States remains steadfast. But among grassroots Democratic voters and some other Americans, the Netanyahu-Trump bromance is repellent and makes some people naturally less amenable to the bilateral relationship – specifically because it has been so spectacularly and cynically politicized by both leaders.

There are serious and legitimate fears that the solid bipartisanship that has defined this relationship for 71 years is fraying, possibly irrevocably.

It doesn’t matter what one thinks of Trump. It doesn’t matter if you agree with the board member of the Republican Jewish Coalition who told the New York Times, “When I look at what he’s done for Israel, I’m not going to take issue with anything he’s said or done.” The day-to-day cut-and-thrust of politics means we will agree and disagree with our leaders in Canada, or those in the United States or Israel or elsewhere. But the deterioration of the nonpartisanship around the foundational importance of the bilateral relationship between Israel and its most significant ally is a grave concern.

We have an election campaign about to launch here in Canada. There will be moments when Middle East policy comes up and we will disagree. What we should strive to ensure is that, regardless of our opinions about Israel’s leader – and what position he may hold after next month’s Israeli elections – or our thoughts about our own political leaders, one thing we should avoid at all cost is turning Israel into a partisan tool. Let’s just not. And let’s not reward politicians who try.