ICYMI: Muslim Association promises ‘Jew-free’ incident will not recur at future youth events

Demonstrates the need for moderation…:

In June 30 submission to National Post, Sharaf Sharafeldin, president of strategy at the Muslim Association of Canada, stated that during the three-day conference that attracted thousands of Muslim-Canadians, speakers and attendees examined “faith-rooted life” in Canada. The incident involving the “jew-free” phrase occurred during a youth session and was “a public, anonymous audience-participation exercise” that produced a word cloud image, when asked what kind of community they wanted. It has since been widely circulated.

There were 50 entries visible in the word cloud, wrote Sharafeldin. But the facilitator did not notice the “jew-free” entry.

The August 12 update follows an “internal investigation” into the incident.

“MAC regrets that this phrase appeared at our Convention, even briefly and even though it originated from an anonymous, bad-faith submission with no connection to the youth or the discussion taking place in the session.” The organization did not explain what it meant by bad faith….

Source: Muslim Association promises ‘Jew-free’ incident will not recur at future youth events

Jewish public servants face disproportionately high levels of discrimination at work, survey finds

Of note:

The federal public service is facing calls to combat antisemitism after Jewish civil servants reported experiencing disproportionately high levels of discrimination in the workplace.

In 2024, the annual federal employee survey tracked responses based on religion for the first time. A breakdown of the responses found that 18 per cent of Jewish civil servants reported experiencing discrimination and harassment in the workplace, including offensive remarks.

Some Jewish community leaders say the survey confirms anecdotal reports they’ve heard about rising antisemitism within the public service. 

Across the federal civil service, 9 per cent of employees who responded to the survey said they had experienced discrimination in the workplace in the preceding 12 months, with 11 per cent reporting they had faced harassment.

Thirteen per cent of Muslim public servants said they had experienced discrimination in the year preceding the survey, with 12 per cent reporting they had experienced harassment. 

Only half of civil servants responded to the survey, including approximately 67,820 Christians, 6,550 Muslims, 3,130 Hindus, 1,830 Sikhs and 1,500 Jews.

Fourteen per cent of Sikh public servants who responded said they had experienced harassment, with 13 per cent saying they had suffered discrimination, including on the basis of their race. …

Source: Jewish public servants face disproportionately high levels of discrimination at work, survey finds

Geist: TMU Picks Damage Control Over Fixing the Damage: Behind Its Shameful Response to the Devastating Benotto Report on Campus Antisemitism

The contrast is telling:

…A report like this should have sparked immediate action, and it is difficult to believe that findings of this kind involving any other group would have been met with anything less. For example, in November 2020, amid mounting pressure over Egerton Ryerson’s residential schools legacy, TMU established a task force that issued its report within a year (during which time the Ryerson statue was toppled), and the Board of Governors adopted all 22 recommendations immediately (including changing the name of the university to TMU). But when the issue involves Jewish students, TMU’s response is far different. It sat on the report for nearly two weeks, released it with disciplinary findings redacted, and announced a President’s Implementation Task Force that will report back on the report in 2027. That means students arriving on campus in the next few weeks will face another year of antisemitism with the university signalling that there is no urgency to address the issue.

In fact, the task force membership leaves little doubt that the university intends to reject many of the report’s recommendations. Nearly half of the committee’s members have signed public petitions opposing some of the recommendations, including the adoption of the IHRA definition, and rejecting the report’s findings on the links between anti-Zionism and antisemitism. Simply put, delaying the implementation of the Benotto report and stacking a new task force with opponents of its recommendations is precisely what you do when you don’t take the antisemitism report seriously and want to kill its recommendations. As a result, TMU is home to two problems: its antisemitism problem is now the most thoroughly documented in the country, and its leadership is more interested in damage control than fixing the damage. If the university is unable or unwilling to establish a safe environment for all of its students and faculty, it falls to the Ontario government, which already requires universities to implement policies to address and combat hate, including antisemitism, to ensure that it does.

Source: TMU Picks Damage Control Over Fixing the Damage: Behind Its Shameful Response to the Devastating Benotto Report on Campus Antisemitism

From the Globe editorial:

….As both reports show, Jews who don’t renounce Israel’s existence are treated as outcasts: “The redefinition of Zionism to incorporate genocide and the insistence that anyone who fails to actively support anti-Zionism is likewise culpable,” Ms. Benotto writes, “have contributed to an environment that has enabled antisemitism to flourish.” A Jewish lecturer says it’s “incredibly unsafe” to wear a Star of David, and even organizing a non-political Sabbath dinner requires a risk assessment, Ms. Benotto reported.

This is not about isolated episodes. It is about a poisoned environment. Our learning institutions should consistently stand up for the values they claim to represent. As Ms. Benotto documents, TMU already has policies against violence, threats of violence, and discriminatory, intimidating or harassing words and conduct. Every school should, as she urges for TMU, “establish clear behavioural expectations, protect the rights of all members of the community, and enforce its policies consistently, transparently, and predictably.”

It hardly seems too much to ask. Yet TMU has not responded to the eight recommendations of the Benotto report, instead announcing an “implementation committee” that has until next March to come up with a “blueprint.”

The report – again, commissioned by TMU – already lays out a course of action. No blueprint is needed, just a spine.

Source: The betrayal of Jewish students needs to end

Lowman: 5 countries, 5 approaches: How the Anglosphere is—and isn’t—fighting antisemitism on campus

Useful comparisons and reminder of the limits of government in terms of culture change:

….But policy may only go so far. A funding freeze can force a university to write a new complaints procedure. A report card can force administrators to define antisemitism on paper. Neither can write the syllabus of an antisemitic professor, or talk a 19-year-old student out of despising the Jewish student sitting next to him in the lecture hall. Governments can regulate what institutions do; they cannot legislate what students and faculty believe.

Whether Washington’s funding cudgel, Canberra’s grading system, London’s disclosure regime, Ottawa’s diffusion, or Wellington’s silence proves most effective will ultimately matter less than something none of these governments can directly control: whether campus culture itself changes at all.

Source: 5 countries, 5 approaches: How the Anglosphere is—and isn’t—fighting antisemitism on campus

The antisemitism report that erases a century of Jewish debate

From the minority Independent Jewish Voices perspective:

…But beneath the report’s stark figures and shocking examples of antisemitism lies a partisan move. The report treats opposition to Zionism as evidence of antisemitism, a move that provides institutions grounds for disciplining scholars for what they teach and for policing students over how they protest. 

We write as members of the Jewish Faculty Network, a group of Jewish Canadian academics who share a commitment to social justice. This includes criticism of, and opposition to, Zionism. 

The report defines “anti-Zionism” as a movement that calls for the “erasure” or “annihilation” of Israel. This is incorrect, and it attempts to turn a legitimate political position into a synonym for hatred before a single survey question is even asked.

Anti-Zionism is a 100-year-old, well-documented current of Jewish thought that has never called for erasing or annihilating anyone. Reform Judaism’s 19th-century founders argued that Jews were a religious community, not a nation awaiting a state. A few decades later, the Jewish Labour Bund, a mass socialist movement across Eastern Europe, built a political program based on doikayt, the idea that Jewish safety comes from equal rights where Jews already live, not from a state somewhere else. Some Hasidic communities have opposed Jewish sovereignty on religious grounds for over a century. …

Yves Winter is an associate professor of political science at McGill University. Noah Brender is a faculty member in the humanities department at Dawson College. Danielle Bobker is a professor of English at Concordia University. Michael Blum is a professor in the École des arts visuels et médiatiques at the Université du Québec à Montréal.

Source: The antisemitism report that erases a century of Jewish debate

Geist: Denial, Hate, and Silence: The Three Responses to Overwhelming Evidence of Canada’s Campus Antisemitism Crisis

Valid:

…The first response is denial, with some groups claiming the survey is unrepresentative, its methodology flawed, and that it conflates Jewish identity with Zionism. The objections do not withstand scrutiny. The survey’s community-recruited, non-probability approach is the standard methodology for researching discrimination against small, hard-to-reach populations. Indeed, it served as the methodology for surveys on 2SLGBTQ youth, urban Indigenous health studies, anti-Asian racism data, and trans communities. Governments have used the resulting data for policy development and few demanded probability samples before treating that research as a basis for action. Moreover, while relying on the IHRA definition is precisely what a study backed by a government that has itself adopted that definition should do, the findings do not depend on definitions. Set aside every Israel and Zionism-related item in the survey and the data still shows 56% of Jewish students witnessing discriminatory treatment of Jews as Jews, 54% witnessing intimidation or threats, 22% witnessing physical violence, and 45% regularly encountering Holocaust denial. No definition is required to classify “Hitler should have finished you off”, “the Holocaust did not really happen”, or “Jews, Jews, you cannot hide.” Critics themselves concede that the report documents “unmistakable antisemitism,” but are left to quibble at the edges by debating definitions rather than confronting what the data shows.

The second response is hate. Once again, my posts about the survey attracted replies on my social media that read like a live enactment of the report’s findings, validating a national dataset in real time. The survey found that 45% of Jewish students regularly encounter Holocaust denial or distortion; the replies included the claim that the Holocaust is “fake, just exaggerated slop to position yourselves as victims.” The survey found that more than 70% of Jewish students report harm to their mental health; the replies mocked that finding with comments about “mental illnesses suffered by Ashkenazi jews” lying “in the genes.” The survey documented students hiding their identity and considering leaving their universities; the replies suggested Jewish students “should transfer to Tel Aviv” and dismissed them as “professional victims.”

The most important response, however, was the non-response or silence from those who must act. One week after a government-backed report found that 70% of Jewish students believe their universities do not take antisemitism seriously, I could find no responses from university presidents, Universities Canada or other organizations. Political leaders have been little better: Culture Minister Marc Miller called the findings “alarming”, but a broader response or sense of urgency from governments has been missing. The Advisory Council on Rights, Equality and Inclusion, which serves as the government’s replacement for the Special Envoy on Preserving Holocaust Remembrance and Combatting Antisemitism (who commissioned the CASE report), continues to signal that it is not a serious effort to combat antisemitism. At the report’s release, Council member and former senator Marc Gold read the Minister’s statement, declined to respond to criticism of the government’s approach, and described the council’s progress as: “we’re getting to know each other and we are providing input into a work plan.” The house is on fire and they are getting to know each other.

Simply put, silence is not neutral, as it confirms students’ worst fears and risks making them even more skeptical about reporting their experiences. The NECA recommendations released alongside the report provide a ready-made starting point, beginning with enforcing the policies universities already have. With the fall term just weeks away, no university leader can claim to be unaware of what returning Jewish students face.

The report’s findings were overwhelming, and so is what the past week has revealed. The deniers cannot bring themselves to accept what the data shows, the haters keep demonstrating it, and the institutions with the power to act have said nothing at all. It is time for a fourth response: action.

Source: Denial, Hate, and Silence: The Three Responses to Overwhelming Evidence of Canada’s Campus Antisemitism Crisis

ICYMI: Une action collective accusant l’Université McGill d’avoir toléré de l’antisémitisme autorisée

When institutions fail, court challenges expected:

La Cour supérieure du Québec vient de donner le feu vert à une action collective intentée contre l’Université McGill. La poursuite allègue que, depuis l’attaque du Hamas en Israël le 7 octobre 2023, les étudiants juifs y ont subi du harcèlement de toutes sortes et qu’il régnait sur son campus montréalais un climat toxique et insécurisant.

Selon la demande en justice, l’Université a failli à ses obligations de protéger ses étudiants juifs et de leur assurer un environnement propice à leur éducation. Il est donc réclamé en leur nom une réduction de leurs droits de scolarité ainsi que cinq millions de dollars en dommages punitifs.

Selon la décision rendue cette semaine par la juge Dominique Poulin, cette action collective mérite d’être entendue.

Les faits allégués dans la procédure — plus particulièrement ceux concernant les discours antisémites et antisionistes tenus sur le campus universitaire — sont préoccupants et permettent de montrer que l’action a des chances de succès au terme d’un procès, écrit la magistrate.

La réplique musclée d’Israël aux événements d’octobre 2023 et ses bombardements sans relâche sur la bande de Gaza ont mené à de nombreuses manifestations en 2023 et en 2024 sur le campus de l’Université McGill, ainsi qu’à l’installation d’un campement propalestinien….

Source: Une action collective accusant l’Université McGill d’avoir toléré de l’antisémitisme autorisée

The Superior Court of Quebec has just given the green light to a class action brought against McGill University. The lawsuit alleges that, since the Hamas attack in Israel on October 7, 2023, Jewish students have suffered harassment of all kinds and that a toxic and insecure climate reigned on its Montreal campus.

According to the lawsuit, the University has failed in its obligations to protect its Jewish students and provide them with an environment conducive to their education. It is therefore claimed on their behalf a reduction in their tuition fees as well as five million dollars in punitive damages.

According to the decision rendered this week by Judge Dominique Poulin, this class action deserves to be heard.

The facts alleged in the proceedings – especially those concerning anti-Semitic and anti-Sionist speeches held on the university campus – are worrying and show that the action has a chance of success at the end of a trial, writes the magistrate.

Israel’s muscular response to the events of October 2023 and its relentless bombing of the Gaza Strip led to numerous demonstrations in 2023 and 2024 on the McGill University campus, as well as the installation of a pro-Palestinian camp….

ICYMI – Geist: Canada’s Campus Antisemitism Crisis: National Survey Finds Antisemitism Nearly Everywhere and University Responses Nowhere

Understandably, this report has received considerable coverage and commentary. One of the better commentaries IMO:

…The report itself stops short of formal recommendations, concluding instead that academic leadership must take greater responsibility and that the findings should be used immediately by leadership in higher education institutions to examine their policies and practices. The recommendations came separately from the Network of Engaged Canadian Academics (NECA), a non-partisan group of more than 400 Jewish and non-Jewish academics from 54 institutions of which I am a member, which released ten recommendations alongside the report. The list will sound familiar to anyone who has followed this issue: applying existing policies to protect students targeted for any aspect of their Jewish identity including Zionism, institutional neutrality policies that apply across the institution, adoption of the IHRA definition of antisemitism together with the Canadian Handbook, a centralized and transparent incident reporting system with annual campus climate assessments, and a special advisor on antisemitism on every campus.

What has been missing is not knowledge of what to do, but the will to do it. Indeed, the release carries its own illustration of the problem: the survey was commissioned by former Special Envoy Deborah Lyons before the government eliminated her role, leaving the government to release the most comprehensive evidence yet of a systemic antisemitism problem on campus just months after creating a leadership void that has yet to be filled and a new anti-hate council that has yet to act.

I have been an academic for nearly 30 years, working in an environment where inclusion and safe spaces for all students to be their best were unquestioned priorities. Backed by a supportive University president, dean, and advisor on antisemitism, I still believe that to be the case. But this survey confirms that the vast majority of Jewish students encounter antisemitism on campus. If this were any other group — 95% of Indigenous students reporting discrimination or 70% of BIPOC students reporting mental health harm — this would be viewed as a major crisis requiring immediate action. But when 95% of Jewish students report encountering antisemitism, 70% report harm to their mental health, a majority hide their identity, and students report threats of violence and Holocaust denial, the response from some quarters is to ignore or take issue with the survey data.

The bottom line is that hundreds of Jewish students from campuses across the country report antisemitic conduct on campus that is stunning in scope and harm. Every university president in Canada should be investigating how much of the data reflects their own campus experience and committing to change through the NECA recommendations. Every faculty member should be examining whether the discriminatory conduct occurs in their class. And every faculty and student union should be working to fully protect their Jewish members. Years of willingness to tolerate or excuse the antisemitic reality – a Jewish exception – suggests this is unlikely to happen. But now no one can say they didn’t know what was happening.

Source: Canada’s Campus Antisemitism Crisis: National Survey Finds Antisemitism Nearly Everywhere and University Responses Nowhere

Khan: We need solidarity in the face of Islamophobia

As we do in the face of antisemitism and other forms of hate:

…Local communities can play a key role in strengthening social cohesion. This was demonstrated by the good people of Clarington, who came together at a town hall to support the harassed Muslim family, and stand firmly against fear-mongering. 

Human connection is a powerful currency in this more isolated digital age, as we can learn we share much in common. Our hearts, like this land, are expansive enough to offer comfort and solidarity in the face of hatred. The Clarington approach can serve as a blueprint for strengthening communities across Canada against Islamophobia, antisemitism, and hate in general.

Source: We need solidarity in the face of Islamophobia

Globe editorial: Thoughts and prayers, Canadian style

Valid critique. Time to stop using “thoughts and prayers” language with any such incident, no matter the issue or group:

…So how to turn back this growing tide of hatred? As we have argued before, that effort has to begin with understanding, and speaking, the truth: Antizionism is fuelling the rise in antisemitism. The rejection of Israel, of its very right to exist, has become the growth medium for the contagion of antisemitism. The test of courage for any political leader is whether they are willing to speak this truth. Prime Minister Mark Carney failed that test in June, even as he tried to provide comfort to the Jewish-Canadian community.

Toronto Mayor Olivia Chow has failed even more spectacularly. In fairness, Ms. Chow has spoken out against anti-Israel protests being staged in the heart of the Jewish-Canadian neighbourhood near Bathurst and Sheppard in north Toronto. And, of course, she has offered her thoughts and prayers, Canadian style, in condemnation of incidents such as the attack on Kiva’s.

But Ms. Chow has, through her actions, shown where her sympathies lie. The mayor refused to attend a flag-raising ceremony for Israel’s national day in May, 2024, saying such an event was “divisive.” She also declined to take part in the annual Walk for Israel in June of this year.

Yet, the mayor had no problem with blurting out “Free Palestine” – the rallying slogan of those antizionist rallies – during the Pride Parade in late June. 

The mayor’s office did not respond when asked last week why the flag-raising event was divisive, but reciting the Free Palestine slogan is not a problem. Ms. Chow owes Torontonians, particularly Jewish Torontonians, an explanation.

Does she, for instance, support the right of Israel to exist? Or is she in line with the hate-infused catechism (recited most weeks near Bathurst and Sheppard) that deems Israel a pariah state?

Until she does clarify, her thoughts and prayers will ring hollow.

Source: Thoughts and prayers, Canadian style