racism – Page 9

A swing and a hit play

Hasan (Nadeem Phillip) tells Haseena (Risha Nanda) about his dream of playing cricket in Canada. (photo by Emily Cooper)

I have to admit I’ve never seen a cricket match in all the years I’ve lived in Vancouver. I’ve seen games in other countries – but I never knew Stanley Park had a field for cricket going back to the 1890s and a clubhouse that just turned 100.

In fact, the pitch at Brockton Oval is considered rather hallowed ground by some and forms a focal point in The Men in White, the current production at the Arts Club Granville Island Stage.

Playwright Anosh Irani takes the audience from India, where dreamers see Canada as a land of refuge; to Canada, where dreams don’t always turn out the way people hope; to the world of cricket, where even a “duck” doesn’t hurt too badly as long as you don’t have to borrow a “box.”

Based partly on the author’s true experience at a chicken slaughterhouse, the play is set in two different locations – a chicken stand in Bombay and a cricket clubhouse in Vancouver.

In India, 18-year-old Hasan dreams of becoming a famous cricket player and playing in Vancouver with his brother. As he laments his lot in life, he admires a local girl from afar, trying to woo her, despite becoming tongue-tied and awkward whenever she comes by. His adoptive father, who owns the shop, looks after him, trying to impart wisdom about life, albeit in rather unorthodox ways.

In Vancouver, Hasan’s brother, Abdul, has been living and working in a restaurant illegally, after arriving on a tourist visa. He’s embarrassed to tell his brother of his circumstance, and the only thing that keeps his spirits up is to be able to play his favourite sport on a beautiful grass cricket field – a privilege for which he is immensely grateful. He’s particularly impressed because Don Bradman, a renowned cricket player, had said in 1948: “The Brockton Point ground is the prettiest upon which it has been my pleasure to play.”

In the clubhouse, Hasan and his teammates discuss the game, each other’s lives and the issues of the day, but come to blows when racist sentiment arises. A doctor who had emigrated from Bombay takes issue with Abdul. His angry outburst ends with him declaring, “I will not allow Muslims in this country!”

The scene is disturbing in its familiarity, given President Trump’s machinations, but also very touching, as the other team members rally around Abdul in support.

While thought-provoking, the play doesn’t offer up any answers. Its forte is in the writing and directing. The performance is jam-packed with witty repartee, sarcastic barbs and playful insults that are tossed at one another like verbal confetti.

Irani has a skill in wordplay and humour that leaves the audience feeling at once unsettled by some of what’s being said, while appreciating its delivery. With six of the cast members almost talking over one another at times, the outcome could have been rather messy, and the play needed the deft hand of Rachel Ditor at the helm to direct the characters in their split-second timing. The set design by Amir Ofek is minimalist, but in some ways reflects a cricket game. The two locations share one stage and action alternates between the two, as it would in a sporting match. Ofek’s design enables the sets to coexist, while still being visually separated by the few props and use of different lighting.

The Men in White runs at Granville Island Stage until March 11 (artsclub.com). Irani’s work – he is also an author – has gained national and international acclaim and honours. Take the opportunity to see it for yourself.

Baila Lazarus is a freelance writer and media strategist in Vancouver. Her consulting services are at phase2coaching.com.

Removing graffiti full-time

Corey Fleischer volunteers most of his time to removing hateful graffiti. (photo from Corey Fleischer)

When Montrealer Corey Fleischer finished university, he was unsure of what career path to take. In the interim, to pay the rent, so to speak, he started Provincial Power Washing.

Reflecting back on those days, Fleischer said, “I hated what I was doing – washing a lot of trucks, houses, decks, residential and commercial – zero substance. I’m a person who thrives off substance.”

One day, while heading to a job, Fleischer happened to spot antisemitic graffiti out of the corner of his eye.

“I was driving downtown here, in Montreal, and I saw a swastika on a cinderblock in a very busy part of town,” he said. “I had the equipment needed to remove it, so I got out of the truck and did just that. I got back in my truck, not thinking anything of it.”

From that day on, whenever Fleischer came across such graffiti, he would stop and remove it. As well, in the evening, after returning home from work, he would grab a bite to eat, shower and go out to look for racist, antisemitic and homophobic graffiti to remove.

“I would scour the city for hate crimes – back alleys, on walls, anywhere,” said Fleischer. “I found another one (swastika) and then another one. And then I started noticing, as the graffiti-removal side of my business began growing … I realized this was a real problem around town. It became my pastime. I quit hockey and softball and everything. It’s what I spent all my time doing. It fulfilled my life.”

For the first several years, it was only Fleischer’s parents and close friends who knew what he was doing. Then, he received a call from the local B’nai Brith Canada office to confirm his address, as they wanted to include him in a community newsletter mailing. While Fleischer refused to give out his address, he told the BBC that he had pictures of 40 swastikas that he had removed over the past five years, if that was of interest.

The BBC representative, said Fleischer, “literally couldn’t understand what was coming out of my mouth. She couldn’t believe that’s how I was spending my time. So, I sent her the pictures. They sent out a blogger to come and follow me, to do a story on what I was doing.

“Lo and behold, my life at that moment completely changed. People started seeing what I was doing and wanted to get involved. It went from removing 40 to 50 hate crimes in five years … [to] a couple hundred last year alone. The increase was pretty crazy.”

Fleischer now has thousands of followers wanting to get involved, so he has many more reports coming in, asking for free hate-graffiti removal. He said he has gone from spending about 10% of his company time removing hate graffiti to 95%. And, thanks to social media, the movement Fleischer started has gone global.

“People are calling me from all over the world, trying to figure out how to remove hate crimes in their area,” said Fleischer. “And, I basically put it together and have the removal done – wherever the people are calling from – with a local company.

“For most people dealing with hate crimes, it’s not a comfortable situation. People don’t know what to do with them or how to act when they see them. I happen to thrive in uncomfortable situations. I’ll go and organize. If I can’t find a local company to remove it, I’ll contact the local government, mayors, statesman, whoever, to get it done.

“For example, there was an attack on a Jewish cemetery in New York state. Their whole cemetery was defaced with swastikas and hate symbols. And somebody called me up from the town, saying they’d seen my videos and they’d been staring at these swastikas on their cemetery for two weeks – right around Yom Kippur. So, they called me to find out what could be done.”

After Fleischer hung up the phone, he began calling power washers. As it was a small town, it was hard to find someone, so Fleischer called the mayor and the local government. Within two days, all the graffiti was gone.

“When people figure out who I am and what I’m doing, they tend to spring into action quicker than if it was another situation,” said Fleischer. “Although I started the movement, it’s not just me getting it done. It’s people in the community, that I like to call ‘my army.’ I’m just a tool that was given to these people in order to remove these hate crimes. I’m just the instrument.”

While removing the hateful graffiti is, of course, good, Fleischer pointed out that it does not deal with the root of the problem. So, he decided to collaborate with Montreal-based Overture with the Arts, a not-for-profit that provides mainly after-school art classes to high school students. One of its programs is targeted at educating students about the Holocaust through a series of spoken word workshops about Anne Frank. OWTA opted to include a talk by Fleischer in the program.

“Instead of thinking about the actual guys who are putting on the hate crime, I had to find another way to make a difference in our society and in our communities,” said Fleischer of his speaking role. “I had to think of a way to make another difference by educating our youth, our future.

“When I was growing up and was going to high school, I was never taught about the Holocaust. I was never taught about the biggest massacre, the biggest tragedy, in human history.

“Before I started this whole movement, I didn’t even fully understand…. I knew what a swastika was, I knew it was bad, but I didn’t understand everything that was going behind it.”

The first two schools at which Fleischer spoke were classroom-sized talks, but this quickly expanded into full auditoriums. Schools now flood him with requests to come and speak.

“I had two calls this morning from schools calling me, out of the blue, trying to figure out how I can come to their schools,” said Fleischer in his interview with the Jewish Independent. “The school tour is called Erasing Hate.”

Fleischer received a peace medal last year from the YMCA (Young Men’s Christian Association) for his efforts with Erasing Hate, along with 30 Auschwitz survivors.

“To think I’m even in the same bubble with people like that, with something I started doing as a pastime, because I followed my heart, is mind-blowing. It’s really something else,” he said.

“Hopefully, we won’t, in the future, be ignoring hate crimes on the street and the future – our kids, the kids in schools – will understand that you don’t need to be silent. You can wake up, open your mouth and you can make a difference. That’s what this has turned into.”

For more information, Fleischer is on Instagram (@ErasingHate) and Facebook.

Rebeca Kuropatwa is a Winnipeg freelance writer.

The time to act is now

Temple Sholom Rabbi Dan Moskovitz addresses a Concerned Canadian Clergy for Refugees multi-faith clergy press conference at Jack Poole Plaza in Downtown Vancouver on Jan. 29. (screenshot)

The murders at a Quebec City-area mosque Sunday night shattered our sense of Canadian safety and multiculturalism. Six worshippers were killed and at least a score more injured in the shooting rampage inside a Ste.-Foy Islamic centre during evening prayers.

We are confident we reflect the intent of every reader and the broader community we serve when we offer condolences to and solidarity with the victims, their families and the entire Muslim community in Canada, each member of which must be feeling a sense of grief and fear.

We will not, however, state, as some inevitably do in such situations, that “We are all Muslims now.” After this tragedy, only members of the targeted group can fully appreciate the sense of isolation and anxiety such a tragic act instils. We cannot all understand the variety, depth and breadth of feelings of those affected, so, while we should acknowledge our common humanity and grief, we should offer special comforts to our Muslim friends and ensure that they know that Jewish Canadians and all Canadians sympathize with the uniqueness of a hate-motivated attack.

The grief that enveloped us late Sunday should not eclipse the light we witnessed on Sunday morning, when local clergy, led by Temple Sholom’s Rabbi Dan Moskovitz, other rabbis and clergy from different faith traditions, gathered to stand in solidarity against the executive orders signed by U.S. President Donald Trump last Friday.

The president decreed that all refugees would be immediately banned from entering the United States for at least 120 days. A parallel announcement declared that citizens of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen would be banned from entering the country for at least 90 days.

The presidential orders came as a stunning blow to those who didn’t take Trump at his word. Even many who count themselves as among his fiercest opponents seemed to believe Trump would stop short of his most extreme promises. But there he was: doing exactly what he said he would do – banning Muslims from entering the United States (as well as taking preliminary steps to construct a wall along the border with Mexico).

“To be clear, this is not a Muslim ban, as the media is falsely reporting,” the president obfuscated in a written statement Sunday. “This is not about religion – this is about terror and keeping our country safe.”

Despite this contention, one of the stomach-churning aspects of this seemingly random list of Muslim-majority countries is what they share in common: as the New York Times has reported, these are countries where the Trump organization has few business interests. If one subscribed to the idea that banning people based on nationality was a wise move, certainly Saudi Arabia, which produced almost all of the 9/11 terrorists, and Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, which have not insignificant records of radicalization, would logically (if that is the correct term) be on such a list. So might Turkey. But residents of those countries can, for now, continue to enter the United States.

Trump’s orders were additionally jarring for Jews and others who were solemnly marking International Holocaust Remembrance Day at the very time Trump was turning America’s back on refugees. The history of the United States – and Canada, and almost every other country – in turning their backs on Jewish refugees is the reason the Holocaust was able to occur in the magnitude that it did. The callousness Trump exhibited in taking actions against refugees on International Holocaust Remembrance Day is abominable, even worse than his intentional omission of Jews in his Holocaust statement that day.

Syrian refugees are not, at present, finding every door in the world closed to them, as Jews did in the 1930s. They are, however, having the door to the golden medina – the great land of liberty whose preeminent symbol openhandedly welcomes the homeless, tempest-tost, huddled masses yearning to breathe free to a place of permanent refuge – slammed in their faces. In Trump’s America, Lady Liberty lifts her lamp beside the golden door only so that refugees can read the sign: “Keep out.”

The move by Canadian clergy is admirable. They deserve our thanks and support as they provide a model for individuals to take a stand at an important time.

Likewise, we were proud to see the remarks of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and the thousands of Canadians who have shared his sentiments, that Canada will step up where America is faltering and take in some of those refused entry to the United States. We invite readers to contact members of Parliament to let them know that plenty of Canadians – including Canadian Jews – understand that Canada is in a unique position to act at a time when the United States is betraying our erstwhile shared values.

By press time, it remained unclear what specific animosities drove the perpetrator of the Ste.-Foy attack. And, while it is premature to blame the murderer’s actions on ambient anti-Muslim agitation stoked by a swath of demagogues leading all the way up to the president of the United States, the rhetoric in which Trump and many of his supporters are engaging is certain to have negative consequences.

Consequences, too, will be felt from the actions of well-intentioned people. The rabbis and other clergy who step forward and condemn bigotry are the best antidote to the negativity and hatred we see. They are whom we should emulate. We must step forward with them.

Taking the higher road

On President Donald Trump’s inauguration day last Friday, Richard Spencer, an up-and-coming voice of the extreme right-wing in America, was punched in the face by a protester.

Spencer is president of the National Policy Institute, a white supremacist organization, and calls for a whites-only homeland. He is sometimes credited with inventing the term “alt-right,” which is a catch-all for the extremism emerging in the United States at present. He was giving an interview to a reporter when someone stepped into the frame and punched him in the face.

Social media erupted, with plenty of people contending that punching Nazis is fair game. (For the record, Spencer had denied he is a Nazi just before the punch landed. He describes himself as an “identitarian,” which is a term associated with far-right, white supremacist ideology.)

Spencer is one among many on the far right who are emboldened

by Trump’s victory. His attacker, apparently, was emboldened by the belief that violence against people like Spencer is justifiable. This is the reality of the day in parts of the American body politic.

No one knows what the Trump administration portends. The new president contradicts himself and has no guiding ideological compass. He speaks (and tweets) without any evidence of self-control and reacts wildly to the mildest provocation. It is probably safe to venture, however, that the Trump administration will not advance the rights of women, religious or ethnic minorities, refugees and immigrants or LGBTQ people. While the Trump team includes numerous Jews, Zionists and philosemites, the campaign also attracted support from the most racist and antisemitic individuals and entities in the country. Journalists with Jewish names who reported unflatteringly on Trump have been subject to particularly brutal online harassment.

As Trump moves from rhetoric to action, we will have plenty of opportunity to analyze his record. What is likewise worthy of consideration is the manner in which the opposition to Trump manifests. The mass rallies in Washington and around the world last Saturday were inspiring. While billed as “women’s marches,” participants reflected a panoply of interests and identities. The events went off, largely, without a hitch – there were no arrests in the approximately 600 marches that took place around the world, including here in Vancouver. It remains to be seen, however, whether the outpouring of political engagement demonstrated by marchers will morph into a structured political movement. As an historian of social movements told the New York Times, after big rallies like Saturday’s “there is a lot of unfun, unglamorous work to do.”

The marchers were overwhelmingly civil, their handmade signs frequently illustrating superb wit and insight. But not all of the resistance to Trump has been as peaceful. The individual who punched Spencer represents a different sort of character.

There is a stream on the left – perhaps we should call it the “alt-left” – which exhibits its own totalitarian tendencies. So righteous are some “progressives” – we’ve seen this very clearly among some anti-Israel activists – that opposition to their target is justified by any means necessary. For some, this means punching an opponent in the face. For others, it can mean justifying such violence, or completely rejecting in other ways the right of dissenting voices to be heard.

As odious as Spencer’s ideas are, and however much we might contend that people who share such views only understand force, the introduction of violence – as well as ideological extremism in defence of liberty – is, to contradict Barry Goldwater, indeed a vice.

Most of us can probably agree that if anyone’s ideas are worthy of approbation, it is Spencer and his like. Yet if we extend this to argue that, as a result, a punch in the face is justifiable, then – does this really need to be explicitly expressed? – we accept that violence based on political disagreement is a legitimate part of our society’s foundations. If mere disagreement is enough to merit physical attack, then what will our political institutions eventually become and how will we ever be able to keep our leaders, or those with the financial and other means, from systematically abusing human rights or other oppression? With even more violence?

It is, of course, challenging to engage with supporters of a man who is belligerent and nasty, and who licenses this behaviour in his followers. The booing of Hillary Clinton during the inauguration was a symptom of the mentality of some Trump supporters.

But we side with Michelle Obama on this, suggesting that when those on the extreme right go low, those of the centre and of the reasonable left and right should go high. To employ the tactics we have seen from Trump and his supporters – lying, scapegoating, vicious personal attacks – would not only debase causes deserving of defending, it would represent a spiral from which the political system might never return.

In addition to the many differences of policy that will emerge between the Trump administration and its critics in the years to come, we hope there will also be a discernible difference of style; that, in the face of boorishness, “alternative facts” and insensitivity, the opposition will demonstrate dignity, truth and respect for humanity.

Do we seek solace or action?

Armon Hanatziv Promenade in Jerusalem on Jan. 8 following a terror attack. Four Israel Defence Forces soldiers were murdered – Yael Yekutiel, 20, Shir Hajaj, 22, Shira Tzur, 20, and Erez Orbach, 20 – and at least a dozen other people were injured when a truck driver, from the East Jerusalem neighbourhood of Jabel Mukaber, drove at speed at a group waiting at a bus stop. The terrorist was shot dead. (photo from Ashernet)

Israel is threatened by enemies who respect no rules of engagement, as we saw in the brutal vehicular attack that killed four and injured many others in Jerusalem Sunday.

Israel has faced the challenge of maintaining the moral code of a democratic, humanitarian society under the cloud of threatened annihilation and incessant terror. At the age of 18, young Israelis are often faced with the most impossible dilemmas as citizen-soldiers sworn to uphold national security while conducting themselves in a manner as ethical as the national ideals they are defending.

When Israeli soldiers go rogue, as they occasionally do, and contravene the moral code of the country and the Israel Defence Forces, the response is often polarizing. Worldwide, critics depict individual crimes as symptomatic of the culture of an illegal, apartheid state that is rotten at the core, while defenders cite the judicial processes that follow as evidence that Israel does indeed live up to its values. Sometimes, these cases open deep schisms, as we have seen recently in the case of Sgt. Elor Azaria.

Last year, Azaria, an IDF medic, shot dead a Palestinian terrorist in Hebron who had been disarmed and incapacitated. Azaria told a fellow soldier: “He stabbed my friend and he deserves to die.”

A panel of three Israeli judges unanimously convicted him of manslaughter with a possible sentence of 20 years.

“The fact that the man sprawled on the ground was a terrorist, who had just sought to take the lives of IDF soldiers at the scene, does not in itself justify disproportionate action,” the judges determined.

The trial and its aftermath have opened a debate – or reopened an endless one – about what is moral and immoral as Israel, depending on your perspective, struggles for its existential survival or perpetuates the occupation of Palestinian lands.

The case is being depicted as a fight for the moral soul of the country, although many issues have been portrayed in this dramatic fashion over the decades.

For other countries, addressing essential questions of national morality, of right and wrong, is not necessarily second nature. Yet much of the world is facing choices as stark or starker than Israel’s.

Donald Trump is about to be sworn in as president of the United States. While governments in European and other democracies have, at times, been led by unpredictable individuals, Trump’s ascension is unprecedented for a plethora of reasons that do not need itemizing.

In responding to Trump, and to myriad other current events, we have few precedents to guide us, yet how we respond will determine what our world will become.

Do we quietly accept the presidency of the bigoted, petulant, potentially dangerous Trump, recognizing that, for better or worse, he is the leader of the world’s ostensibly greatest democracy? Or do we stand as steadfast in every way possible against the regressive parts of his agenda (as scattershot and incoherent as that agenda may be)?

Do we try to empathize with, understand and transform the economic, social and racial outlooks that led 63 million Americans to vote for him, or do we dig in our heels and declare them, if not outright racists and women-haters, at least voters for whom xenophobia, race-baiting and misogyny were not deal-breakers, and seek to isolate them from mainstream discourse?

Further afield, do we oppose with every fibre the far-right movements that are growing in France, Hungary, Poland, Italy, the United Kingdom and elsewhere in Europe, or do we seek to ameliorate the conditions that are leading increasing numbers of Europeans to support these sorts of ideologies?

Do we choose to view Syrian refugees as potential terrorists or, at least, as products of a society where antisemitism is deliberately inculcated? Or do we see in them the same desperate humanity of our recent and long-past ancestors?

There are situations in the world that can reasonably cause us to seek solace in isolation, to retreat to the literal or figurative woods and cut ourselves off from the daily news that is so unsettling. However, we have a tradition that encourages discourse and action, one that tells us to repair the broken world, even if we are unable to complete the task.

There is danger in autocracy

Last week, an Israeli artist erected a life-sized golden statue of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in Tel Aviv’s Rabin Square. Reminiscent of the golden calf with its connection to forbidden idolatry, artist Itay Zalait said he was making a statement about freedom of speech in Israel and what he sees as a type of idolatry growing around the man sometimes called King Bibi.

Citizens gathered around the statue, arguing about its meaning and various interpretations. Because the installation was erected without a permit, city officials ordered it removed but, before the artist could do so, it was toppled by a bystander and left laying on its side like the figure of a deposed despot.

In addition to the prime minister’s office, Netanyahu occupies the portfolios of foreign minister, economy minister, minister of regional cooperation and communications minister.

In this latter role, Netanyahu has appointed figures to oversight positions that have allowed them to put a finger on the scale in support of media outlets that are sympathetic to the government. Similarly, American casino magnate Sheldon Adelson bankrolls the newspaper Israel HaYom, which is widely seen as a propaganda machine for Netanyahu.

The Netanyahu government is also seen as threatening the broadcast news sector, having undertaken an effort to replace the state-run broadcaster with a more complimentary version, only to reverse course when it appeared the new agency would also be insufficiently uncritical. Like other politicians in democratic countries, Netanyahu has found some popularity among his supporters by picking fights with the media, including individual reporters who report things unfavorable to the prime minister.

While discourse in Israel remains legendarily vibrant, evidence that the government may be attempting to influence or control aspects of journalistic freedom are rightly drawing deep concern. And this concern is exacerbated by evidence of other tendencies within Israeli society that seem to reflect authoritarian, anti-democratic and discriminatory inclinations.

Education Minister Naftali Bennett is having “ethical rules” drawn up for what university lecturers can and cannot say about politics. Culture Minister Miri Regev has promoted a bill to retroactively cut funding to cultural institutions that do not meet the government’s standard of “loyalty” to the state of Israel.

On a different, but similarly ham-fisted front, there is the attempt to legislate the public broadcast of the muezzin, the five-times-a-day call to Muslim prayer, which begins before dawn. Granted, not everyone is keen to have daily pre-dawn loudspeaker broadcasts, whatever the purpose, but such a move against a religious minority already experiencing myriad forms of discrimination calls into question fundamental issues of multiculturalism and respect for religious freedom and pluralism that need to be addressed.

The rabbinate has also weighed in on a few issues that have outraged progressive and feminist Israelis.

Crediting a 15th-century scholar, the Sephardi chief rabbi Yitzhak Yosef declared that women and yeshivah scholars are forbidden from serving in the Israel Defence Forces or performing national volunteer service. He claimed that women had been permitted to go to war at times in Jewish history, but only to cook and clean. The comments come at a time when Israel has seen a four-fold increase in the number of women combat soldiers and as some segments of the political spectrum and civil society are speaking up against what they see as the unsustainable tradition of military exemptions for the ultra-Orthodox.

Then there is Eyal Karim, who was recently sworn in as chief rabbi of the IDF. During his confirmation hearings, Karim was forced to explain earlier comments that seemed to justify the rape of non-Jewish women during wartime. He apologized, saying that his comments were a theoretical consideration of biblical permissions and prohibitions. Karim has also stated that women should not serve in the IDF, or sing at army events.

These and other developments have combined with the Netanyahu government’s warm reaction to Donald Trump’s election to raise alarm among some that Israel is on a path similar to the populist, authoritarian phenomenon seen in the United States and much of Europe. In so many ways, Israel’s body politic is sui generis, utterly unlike any other democracy on earth. Yet it should not surprise that what emerges among its closest allies should also find a place among Israelis.

Trump, tweeting from his gold-embossed chambers in Manhattan, is exhibiting plenty of monarchical characteristics. European political upstarts are glorifying strongmen of the past and, in some cases, of the present, in the form of the Russian leader Vladimir Putin. When these sorts of autocratic inclinations arise in Israel, they should be opposed there, just as they should be everywhere.

Illiberal world of Bannon

In considering the furor around President-elect Donald Trump’s decision to appoint Stephen Bannon, the chief executive officer of the hard-right news website Breitbart, as his chief strategist, let’s start with the perspective of those who have defended him.

On one important level, their anger over the Bannon spat is justified. It is galling to see the behemoths of the liberal left, from MoveOn.org to the New York Times, suddenly discover the threat of antisemitism after showing general indifference to its resurgence in public life during the last 16 years.

Simply put, their negative feelings towards Israel got in the way of acknowledging that larger reality. But, as Israel isn’t a factor in the case of Bannon, they can level the accusation of antisemitism safely, untainted by any association with the Jewish state or its “occupation” of Palestinian territories.

But, there is no meaningful record of statements or actions on Bannon’s part to convict him of the charge of being, on a personal level, antisemitic. And, since Americans tend to understand antisemitism as suggestive of a character defect, it is not surprising that many people also interpreted the attacks upon Bannon as a low blow against his boss, the incoming president.

It’s at precisely this juncture, however, that the Bannon quarrel has gone awry. The issue was never really about Bannon’s own sensibilities and, in fairness, that was never the focus of the much-discussed Anti-Defamation League (ADL) statement on Bannon released Nov. 13. What the ADL said is that Bannon “presides” over the “premier website” of the “alt-right,” which it then defined as “a loose-knit group of white nationalists and unabashed antisemites and racists.”

This raised the legitimate question of whether a man with such associations is suited to one of the country’s top political appointments – whether he can be one of the unifying figures the country needs. But that is not the discussion we have had these past days; it’s all been about the personalities, and not the politics.

David Hirsh, the British academic who has played a key intellectual role in confronting the academic boycott of Israel, put forward a better standard with which to make a judgment at the ADL’s Never is Now Summit on Antisemitism, held in New York Nov. 17. Bannon’s case reminds us, he said, that “antisemitism is about politics, not personal moral failure.”

Our bitterly sectarian politics compromise the discussion of antisemitism and, more broadly, racism and prejudice, in America today. In the debate about Bannon, there seems to be an assumption among his supporters that nobody as implacably opposed as he is to the progressive left – powerful elements of which have allied with Islamists, and enabled the spread of antisemitic discourse in the guise of anti-Zionism – could possibly share any of their flaws.

As a result, Bannon’s defenders adopt many of the same rhetorical tactics that left-wing anti-Zionists deploy when confronted with the charge of antisemitism; listing their Jewish political comrades or friends or relatives, decrying reputational smears without foundation, asserting their fondness for Jewish culture, and so on.

In rushing to Bannon’s aid, they overlook the deeper historical truth that antisemitism has always been promiscuous, finding favor on right and left. Yet, in their alternative imagining, antisemitism is solely a problem of the political left.

Let me offer a brief explanation of why some aspects of Bannon’s intellectual universe should be of concern to anyone who cares about the basic social empathies that are needed to sustain democracy – the same empathies, I would add, that have been badly damaged by the growth of identity politics on the left and right.

Small but important

There were fears that, if Donald Trump lost the election last week, his supporters would riot. Fewer people thought the opposite would happen – either that Trump would win or that those who opposed him would riot.

Nightly protest marches after the election were largely peaceful, but some were not, notably in Portland, Ore. It would be informative to learn if any participants in these street rallies were among the 45% of Americans of voting age who didn’t bother to cast a ballot. It would be galling in the extreme to find that people who couldn’t take a few minutes to vote on Nov. 8 were spending hours on the following days marching against the results of an election in which they didn’t think it necessary to vote.

But something more predictable has happened as well. Given the tenor of Trump’s campaign, and the glee with which his victory was met by such groups as the Ku Klux Klan, other white supremacists and those who go by the neologism alt-right, the Republican victory seems to have unleashed among some Americans a spurt of acting out. There have been countless recorded incidents of antisemitic, anti-black, anti-Muslim and anti-gay slurs, graffiti and even physical attacks. It was predictable that Trump’s hateful rhetoric would have an impact regardless of the election’s outcome, but the validation he received from more than 50 million Americans appears to have legitimized, or at the very least, inspired, some people to act out in antisocial, racist and violent ways.

In response, online articles, videos and infographics have been created demonstrating how to intervene and de-escalate a point of conflict. Also, a movement has emerged in which individuals demonstrate solidarity with individuals and groups who feel threatened.

A safety pin. A simple safety pin affixed to a garment is a new signal for people who may feel threatened in a situation – on a subway, in a classroom, at the mall, anywhere – that the person wearing a safety pin is a person who can be relied on for support.

It’s a small thing, but it isn’t. For an individual feeling threatened because they are identified as a target because of their ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation, a tiny signal of solidarity, support and refuge could be a lifeline.

We are in Canada, of course, not in the United States. But we would be naïve to think that what happens there doesn’t impact the social fabric here. There is racism, antisemitism, anti-Muslim bias, homophobia and other forms of bigotry under and at the surface here. The idea that we could provide a place of safety for individuals feeling threatened – or indeed that we could find ourselves looking for such a place – is as realistic for Canadians as it is for Americans.

Now that Remembrance Day has passed, we will remove our poppies, the symbol of respect for those who fought and died in the past for democratic and civil rights. Some of us, if we feel inclined, will replace it with a safety pin, evidence that we are committed to upholding these values today and in the future in whatever small but meaningful way we can.

Stories from Europe

Teaching Racism, which looks at discrimination against Roma in the Czech Republic, is one of nine videos currently comprising the Global Reporting Centre’s Strangers at Home project. (photo from strangers.globalreportingcentre.org)

Shayna Plaut has long been concerned with the plight of minorities in Europe. Her doctoral thesis focused on the Roma, and she has gone back and forth to Central and Eastern Europe to advocate for migrants, refugees and minorities since 2001. She speaks Romani fluently and, during her phone interview with the Independent, words from the Romani and other languages came out of her mouth with ease, pronounced perfectly. Plaut is clearly someone who deeply respects the details and uniqueness of different cultures.

In January 2014, Plaut began work as research and project manager on Strangers at Home, a Global Reporting Centre initiative featuring short films by a range of talented people in Europe – filmmakers, writers, cartoonists, musicians, scholars, as well as average citizens. The film project was aired at the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights in April 2016, and had its Canadian debut at Simon Fraser University Harbor Centre in September. It will screen at the main branch of the Vancouver Public Library on Nov. 19 during Media Democracy Days.

Most of the films are from the perspective of minorities – Jews, Roma, Muslims – but some are from the perspective of nativists who are acting out of fear of the increased presence of migrants and refugees. As the project website says, “Extremist voices are gaining political power, inspiring white Europeans to take to the streets to ‘claim back’ their place in Europe. As a result, millions of people in Europe are feeling like strangers at home.”

The nine videos, which can be viewed online, are rich and varied. Hate Poetry features Germans with “foreign sounding last names” reading hate mail, Queen of the Gypsies discusses how life has improved for Roma in Macedonia, Fascist Logic details the fear of immigrants felt by an Italian national, Teaching Racism looks at the discrimination against Roma in the schools of Czech Republic, Exceptionally Greek looks at the struggles of migrants in Greece, Hatschi Bratschi features a racist children’s book that continues to be a bestseller in Austria and Defending Russia presents the perspective of a paramilitary warrior in training to protect what he considers traditional Russian values.

Two videos deal specifically with Jews in Europe: Chasing Ghosts, by a non-Jewish cartoonist, examines the antisemitism present in Serbia despite the virtual absence of Jews, and Breaking the Silence looks at what the filmmaker sees as a conspiracy of silence about rampant antisemitism in Malmo, Sweden.

“We asked them, ‘What do you want people in North America to know about what’s happening in your country?” explained Plaut. “News coverage here can be sensationalistic, or overly simplistic. We wanted to hear from the people themselves, their stories. The way to do this is not to send another American journalist but rather to solicit the stories from the storytellers themselves.”

In Plaut’s view, the media jumps too quickly to simplistic narratives like “it’s 1938 again,” or lumps different countries with different problems together too quickly.

“Take Greece, for example,” she said. “The media is often quick to associate the rise of the right-wing with austerity, but we found Greek xenophobia to have more to do with deep cultural ideas about fears of impurity. When countries are portrayed in caricatures, that’s how they are engaged with. If diagnosis is incorrect, then the solution will be incorrect.”

Of the pieces that present the perspectives of nationalists themselves, Plaut said she was torn over whether to pay nationalists to present their views, but decided that, ultimately, it is important to hear their stories and understand where they are coming from as human beings as well.

“We can’t just write people off and say they are crazy,” she said. “People need to hear and understand that story, too. We can’t just shut off stories we don’t like.”

While the Strangers at Home project currently consists of nine pieces 60 to 90 seconds long, Plaut would like to see it expanded into 10-to-15-minute films comprising a feature-length documentary to go on the festival circuit, as well as being used online as an educational tool. Fundraising efforts are underway. For more information and to watch the videos, visit strangers.globalreportingcentre.org.

Matthew Gindin is a freelance journalist, writer and lecturer. He writes regularly for the Forward and All That Is Interesting, and has been published in Religion Dispatches, Situate Magazine, Tikkun and elsewhere. He can be found on Medium and Twitter.

The future of democracy

Israel’s President Reuven Rivlin spoke strong words at the opening of the Knesset’s winter session this week. The very survival of democracy, he suggested, is on the line.

“Against a background of political upheavals occurring in the West, the free world, it is no secret that democracy – or Western liberal democracy – is in a state of confusion,” said Rivlin. “Many citizens across the world feel that the existing democratic system is struggling to function and, moreover, is struggling to offer an answer to their needs in light of the current threat of terrorism, the current wave of migration and refugees, or the ongoing economic and employment crises.”

Rivlin was speaking broadly, apparently referencing the various movements springing up in recent years at the fringes of what was once the political mainstream. These include new nativist and often xenophobic movements in Europe. The vote by Britain to leave the European Union is a symptom of a strain of political ideology that rejects open borders – both for trade and for people. While the Brexit vote was supported by people across the political spectrum, its campaign was led by the United Kingdom Independence Party, a movement pushing its way into the mainstream from the far right.

While Europe struggles with the challenges of and reactions to economic meltdowns and waves of refugees and migrants, the presidential election in the United States has been rocked by events that also threaten foundational understandings of democracy.

Donald Trump, the Republican candidate for president, has suggested he may not abide by the results of the election, an outcome he is alleging to be “rigged.” There is no evidence, according to almost all commentators, of any rigging of the electoral system. Indeed, say most, the patchwork nature of the American electoral system makes comprehensive manipulation of a federal election essentially impossible. However, Trump’s assertions seem based less on the idea that the electoral infrastructure is rigged than on his perception that the media and the political establishment are nearly uniformly against him. As paranoid as this may seem, it is not altogether false. The political establishment, even in his own Republican party, is lukewarm at best toward their outsider nominee. And the media is merely reporting the attitudes of some of the public, many of whom are aghast and appalled at the successive emanations from Trump’s mouth.

However, if the establishment and commentators in the media are lined up against him, this should arguably be viewed as a statement about him, not them – which brings us back to the issue of Trump’s threatened refusal to admit defeat. Absolutely crucial to democracy is the legitimacy – and perception of legitimacy – of the electoral process. In the most contested election in modern history, in 2000, Al Gore accepted defeat even though he received more votes in the state of Florida than the declared victor George W. Bush and, therefore, should have been the winner. In the interest of national unity and the preservation of confidence in the system, Gore acceded to the determination of a Florida court.

Now, Trump suggests he may not accept the results even if he is conclusively defeated. Of course, anything is possible with this candidate, so it may be bluster. But the bigger picture in this scenario is the impact Trump’s words have on his followers. Some are already promising “revolution” if Trump is defeated.

Then, of course, there is the other possibility: Trump wins.

Where American democracy – and the country’s role as a model of responsible government – would go from there is an ominous mystery.