Deborah Lipstadt slams progressive definition of antisemitism

2024/08/14 Leave a comment

Of note:

Deborah Lipstadt, the U.S. special envoy for monitoring antisemitism, defended a controversial definition of antisemitism Wednesday and slammed a progressive alternative as having been endorsed by “some renowned antisemites.”

In a conversation with reporters at the State Department, Lipstadt said that International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism, which describes anti-Zionism as a form of antisemitism, represented the best language for addressing antisemitism overseas because foreign governments are most familiar with it.

“You need a definition,” Lipstadt said.

How the federal government should define antisemitism in relation to Israel has been a contentious topic since the Trump administration, and even more so as President Joe Biden has sought to make combating antisemitism a cornerstone of his administration.

The release of the landmark national strategy to counter antisemitism last year was delayed for several weeks amid a frantic lobbying campaign between proponents of the IHRA definition, including most major American Jewish groups, and critics who say that it has a chilling effect on legitimate criticism of Israel.

The White House ultimately mentioned in the strategy both the IHRA definition and the Nexus Document, which is meant to complement the IHRA definition and soften some of its positions on Israel. But Lipstadt said on Wednesday that Nexus was not appropriate for international use.

“You say ‘Nexus’ to most Europeans, they have no idea what you’re talking about,” Lipstadt said. “It’s not applicable.”

Jonathan Jacoby, who founded the task force behind Nexus, said that he hoped the group could work with Lipstadt to raise its profile internationally. “Nexus has only been used in the U.S. context, but the principles apply whenever and wherever issues related to Israel and antisemitism intersect,” he said.

Endorsed by ‘renowned antisemites,’ Lipstadt claims

But Lipstadt, a Holocaust historian, reserved her harshest criticism for the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism, which was released in 2021 as an alternative to IHRAand alluded to, but not mentioned, in the White House strategy.

“A group of academics signed it, including some renowned antisemites like Richard Falk,” Lipstadt said. “So I don’t know that I’d want to go with that definition of antisemitism.”

Falk, a retired Princeton professor and longtime critic of Israel, has been embroiled in several controversies involving allegations of antisemitism and conspiracy theories, including posting a cartoon on his blog that featured a dog wearing a yarmulke while urinating on Lady Justice. 

Falk, who is Jewish, has consistently denied that he is antisemitic.

The Jerusalem Declaration was drafted by a group of mostly Jewish academics and has been signed by more than 300 other scholars.

Source: Deborah Lipstadt slams progressive definition of antisemitism

Filed under Antisemitism, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , , ,

‘What is it about the make-up of our society?’ Deborah Lyons on antisemitism in Canada

2024/08/10 Leave a comment

Of interest:

What have the last 10 months been like in your role?

It has been intense, extremely difficult, with the many challenges that, frankly, we hear about every day. It has been disappointing, in part because I don’t feel that the rise in antisemitism is getting the attention or response from leadership across the country, at all levels, that it should be getting, and that’s been very disappointing. And it’s been quite troubling, because as much as I’ve worked in conflict zones before and difficult environments, to be here, in my own country and to experience the horrific rise, unprecedented rise, of antisemitism in Canada and the lack of a real response to it, causes me to worry about the future of our country.

It’s been, on the one hand, a very meaningful period. But, on the other hand, it’s been, in some ways, very discouraging and concerning about where are we headed. But, frankly, I wouldn’t have wanted to have missed it, because it’s important.

What would you like to see done? 

A lot more. A lot more of leaders at all levels — federal, provincial and municipal, local level — speaking up, speaking out, condemning, clearly, antisemitism. This is not a hard thing to do when you see hatred happening on the streets, in schools, at universities, in the business environment. When you see protests that maybe intended to be peaceful, but truly do get out of hand, with hateful slogans and chants and actually threatening slogans and chants. You really need leaders, community leaders, political leaders, business leaders, faith leaders, academic leaders, standing up and clearly speaking out against this surge of ugliness that seems to have taken over our country.

I would like to see a situation where the fullness of the legal system is being applied, where we have police well-trained on hate crimes, which I think we’re seeing now in some of the major centres across the country, where we’re recording well and fully the incidents that are happening and ensuring that we’re getting a strong sense of this new level of intimidation and fear that has been created in the last year. And that we are making sure that we have our educators, our teachers and our security, our police, well trained to recognize antisemitism and to respond to it.

Do you fear that there is any risk of allegations of antisemitism stifling legitimate political speech?

I’m less worried about that, and more worried about the level of hatred that is growing and where that could take us. Now, having said that, I am a huge supporter of freedom of expression, of academic freedom, freedom of speech.

One of the things we’re working on right now is the fulsome definition of antisemitism that has been developed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, that Canada has endorsed. And we’re going to be coming out with a guidebook, a handbook on explaining that definition and trying to demonstrate to people, criticize whatever you want to criticize, criticize Israel, criticize any government in the world. You want to criticize them? That’s what we want, in terms of democracy. We want freedom of expression. We want the boundaries of knowledge to be pushed. But there has to be an understanding of where that is treading into, either hateful speech or a demonstration of a particularly threatening bias.

I want to emphasize my concern about protecting freedom of expression, and, particularly, academic freedom, but, at the same time, we have to have a clear moral clarity about what we consider to be hateful speech or hateful incidents.

What does a day in your job look like?

It probably starts off around seven in the morning with a review of the latest crises or catastrophe or incidents, either from the mainstream media or from social media. It then goes through many, many meetings or calls with people across the country, because this is not an Ottawa-centric job, even though I am based out of Ottawa. So I’m travelling across the country a lot. We meet with provincial government people on a regular basis. We meet with federal ministers. So the whole (equity, diversity and inclusion) program is one that we’re looking at. We work with law enforcement on training on antisemitism for police officers across the country. We’re looking at the fullness of the legislation to make sure that it is adequate in addressing hate crimes. We’re looking at the data-collection process, so I’m often engaged with StatCan and others on, are we collecting the right data? Are we getting a good, comprehensive picture so we can have honest conversations about what is really happening there, and provide that to the political leaders?

We’re doing work on social media. (On Tuesday) we were spending some time with social media research companies to identify what is happening in terms of hate crimes throughout that platform. We’re doing work with the universities, of course, so we’re preparing right now for the return to campus in September. So I’m spending time with Universities Canada and specific universities on how they’re going to be working to ensure that the year ahead in the university environment is a more constructive and calmer one.

It does appear that Canada is one of the countries that is actually actively tackling antisemitism, openly, overtly, dramatically, intensely. We’ve seen a huge increase in antisemitism in many parts of the world. I think that we’re seen as a country that is really trying to address it; we’re not having the success I’d like to see us have, but we are at least pushing and actively struggling to try to get to a much healthier place.

Do you see any different textures to antisemitism in your travels and conversations across the country?

I guess I would say that what we’re seeing is a mix of motivations that seem to be driving antisemitism. Some of it comes from the far right, maybe, some of it, maybe, from the far left. Some of it from people who are confusing Canada’s foreign policy, and what they are expressing here in the country is an anti-Jewish hatred, which is completely, I think, all mixed up together.

One of the things, again, as somebody who’s travelled a lot internationally, is, why is Canada having this unprecedented surge in antisemitism right now? What is it about the make-up of our society? What is it about our push for diversity and inclusivity? And what is it about our demographics? What is it about our country that is seeing such a level that has actually caused other countries, to say ‘What’s going on in Canada? We wouldn’t have expected this from Canada.’

I don’t think the faith community has stepped up. I don’t think we’ve seen the non-Jewish, non-Muslim faith communities step up to say, ‘Wait a minute. This is unacceptable in Canada. We don’t endorse this level of hatred and  animosity toward one another. This is unacceptable. This is not who we are as children of God.’

Anthony Housefather, the Liberal MP, was appointed early last month as special adviser on Jewish community relations and antisemitism. Are you stepping on each other’s toes?

I’d say we’re dancing together rather than treading on each other’s toes. Anthony has a very particular role and it’s very important and it’s complementary to my role. We work very closely together, I know him very well. I work very closely, though, with all members of Parliament. Frankly, I can do with more people working actively on this file and I know how committed Anthony is. We’re in touch somewhere between daily and weekly.

Does it make your job easier or more challenging when there are different offices? There’s you, there’s Housefather, there’s Amira Elghawaby on the Islamophobia file. Under former prime minister Stephen Harper, it was the one office of religious freedom.

We talk about that from time to time. I think it was actually prescient, really forward thinking on the part of the present government to have put in place the special envoys and special representatives such as my counterpart, Amira (Elghawaby). No one knew that things were going to get this bad in Canada. It turned out to be prescient, because there is just so much specific work that we have to do, and hopefully we can get that done in spite of the fraught environment that everyone is working in right now and since October 7.

I think the configuration we have right now is actually one that we need for the time right now, because I think there’s very specific work that needs to be done to deal with Islamophobia, to deal with anti-Muslim hate. And there’s no question that there is a huge amount of work that we have to do to combat antisemitism here in Canada. And I don’t know if you would get that done with the same intensity if you were part of a larger, more general approach.

Is there anything specific you’d like to see that might lower the temperature when class returns at universities?

We want to try to see the administrations provide the students, and particularly working with the faculty, who could be playing a much larger role here, in creating safe spaces for debate, for argument, for learning from one another. For exchanging of views, that type of thing, so that the students have the opportunity to challenge the boundaries and come up with new knowledge and come up with new ways of understanding one another and communication.

And then, certainly, I would say that one of the big concerns that we’re seeing, not just at universities, but frankly in work environments generally, the whole EDI (Equity, Diversity and Inclusion) philosophy and approach often does not include antisemitism at all. In fact, it dismisses it almost. And what we found was that many students who were having issues on the campuses after October were going to and we’re told to ‘go to student services, the EDI counsellors are so good,’ and we’re not getting any real responses. And we’ve spoken to university administrations about that, and we’re hoping that we’re going to see some improvements there, where the EDI and student services offices will actually take more seriously the concerns of Jewish students who went to them to seek recourse or support or solace or whatever.

How optimistic are you about the future of your work?

We’re still in the middle of a very challenging time. I think we thought that we would have been in a better place by now. We’re not. So that’s concerning. But I think that you can feel the momentum building, more people coming on stream to be supportive, to be engaged, members of the non-Jewish population who are stepping up.

I don’t even know if I’d use the word optimist or pessimist. I would just say, I think we’re all very determined to come out of this. I’m hoping in a better place than we’ve been, not even the same as we were before, because I think this experience has taught us so much that we have no choice but to find a way to have a better Canada out of this. Because, if we don’t, that alternative is unacceptable.

Source: ‘What is it about the make-up of our society?’ Deborah Lyons on antisemitism in Canada

Filed under Antisemitism, Multiculturalism Tagged with

ICYMI – Israel Palestine: Australian multiculturalism was never a licence for ‘anything goes’

2024/08/09 Leave a comment

As in Canada:

Australians have been rightly proud of our largely harmonious and tolerant society, rooted in our unique model of multiculturalism.

This model is centred on celebrating cultural diversity, maintaining shared core values – such as the rule of law, mutual respect and tolerance – and a framework of laws aimed at ensuring good intercommunal relations and deterring and marginalising racial vilification, hate speech and incitement to violence.

Yet, in the past year, the notion that the different peoples and faiths that comprise modern Australia can co-exist in mutual harmony has been repeatedly challenged.

There is no denying we are experiencing an extended period of intercommunal tension, hatred, incitement and violence, which represents a direct challenge to ongoing Australian multiculturalism and our stable, cohesive democratic society.

Since Hamas’ barbaric attack against Israel on October 7 and the subsequent war, a day has seldom passed without examples of hate speech and incitement to violence and worse against Jews and non-Jews who dare express support for Israel or fail to condemn Israel for defending itself against Hamas.

These appalling incidents have included defacing war memorials and tagging Jewish day schools, synagogues and communal buildings with offensive graffiti and banners. The wider community has not been immune from these attacks either.

Protesters have glorified Hamas – a banned terrorist group – and chanted hateful slogans including: “There is only one solution, intifada revolution”.

Some Muslim leaders have seemingly supported Hamas’ massacre as legitimate resistance against Israel. One Australian Islamic scholar said there were no “innocent victims” on October 7; another Muslim cleric sermonised recently that Jews are “descendants of pigs and monkeys”; another sermonised on December 22 in Sydney that, “The most important characteristic of the Jews is that they are bloodthirsty … another is betrayal and treachery,” adding Jews are “monsters” who “love to shed blood”.

Antisemitic tropes – such as allegations that “Jewish power” works to undermine our institutions and national interests – have migrated from the fringes into the mainstream with claims from members of parliament about the supposed tentacles of the Jewish lobby and the alleged veto of Jewish politicians over the government’s Middle East policies.

Unfortunately, a vocal minority have seized on these incidents as proof that multiculturalism is not only a failed experiment but the catalyst for many of our problems.

Yes, we should be concerned, but we need to focus on the right targets.

Australian multiculturalism was never a licence for “anything goes”, that whatever your background or values – be they embedded in extremism, violence, terrorism, racism or whatever – they’ll fit into diverse Australia.

Rather, our multicultural, democratic model has succeeded only by emphasising the need to accept and practise one’s responsibilities and not just exercise one’s rights. It relies on a non-negotiable commitment to certain shared core values and responsibilities, including parliamentary democracy and the rule of law; freedom of speech and religion; the equality of the sexes; and mutual respect and tolerance.

If the values and principles embedded in your ethnicity, religious or national background violate those core multicultural, democratic values, they are unacceptable in multicultural, democratic Australia.

These are the principles underpinning the fabric of Australian multiculturalism, which so much of the current discord, hatred and antisemitism profoundly challenges and undermines.

The fundamental issue is the failure of our leaders to emphatically stress these core values and forcefully condemn behaviour breaching them, and the relative inaction of legal authorities in enforcing the law.

During the infamous October 9 anti-Israel demonstration at the Sydney Opera House, which included chants of “f— the Jews” and “Where’s the Jews?”, NSW Police failed to act against protesters.

Instead, Jews and pro-Israel supporters were told to avoid Sydney’s CBD. Law enforcement’s practice of managing conflict by shifting responsibility from would-be perpetrators to the targets of hate has been on repeat since October 7.

On November 10, when anti-Israel demonstrators descended on Melbourne’s Jewish community, the police evacuated congregants from a nearby synagogue service.

Continuing the pattern, visiting families of Israeli hostages kidnapped by Hamas were further traumatised when anti-Israel agitators took over their hotel lobby. Instead of dispersing those disturbing the peace, the police moved the Israeli guests to a nearby police station for their protection.

Police investigations into some of the sermons cited above concluded that none appeared to “meet the threshold of any criminal offence” covered by our laws against racial vilification and incitement.

Something is clearly amiss. At a time of escalating tensions, it’s crucial our leaders and law enforcement take a strong stand against hateful and threatening behaviour.

No one would argue that from time to time policies and legislation don’t need tweaking to meet today’s challenges and circumstances, and indeed reviews are under way, including on ways “for government and the community to work together to support a cohesive multicultural society” with the federal government just releasing the report of the multicultural framework review and its response.

Yet, we need more rigour and vigour in enunciating and implementing both our policy and legal frameworks to prevent further damage to Australian democracy and our multiculturalism upon which the harmony and security of our society crucially depend.

Colin Rubenstein is the executive director of the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council and was a member of the initial Council for Multicultural Australia (2000-06).

Source: Israel Palestine: Australian multiculturalism was never a licence for ‘anything goes’

Filed under Antisemitism, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Trump’s Massive Deportation Plan Echoes Concentration Camp History

2024/08/07 Leave a comment

Good reminder:

The Republican National Convention hit rock bottom on its third day in Milwaukee, Wis., on July 17, with a sea of signs calling for “Mass Deportation Now.” If former president Donald Trump is elected for a second term, he and his advisers promise to remove from the U.S., via forced expulsions and deportation camps, as many as 20 million people—a number larger than the country’s current estimated population of undocumented residents. Put into effect, this scheme would devolve quickly into a vast 21st-century version of concentration camps, with predictably brutal results.

Concentration camps are built for the mass detention of civilians based on group identity, excluding protections normally afforded by a country’s legal system. I wrote a history of these camps that traced an arc from their 19th-century origins in Spanish-occupied Cuba through the development of death camps in Germany and their modern-day descendants around the world.

Trump’s plan to launch a massive deportation project nationwide—the first plank in the platform approved at his party’s convention—draws on the same flawed historical rationales and pseudoscience that built support for concentration camps worldwide in the 20th century. Early architects of these camps veiled their efforts in scientific terms while using terror and punishment to seize more power.

For example, Trump has claimed repeatedly that undocumented immigrants are “poisoning the blood” of the U.S. “Blood poisoning” is a medical condition; saying that foreigners are poisoning a nation’s blood is simply a slur. But perverting scientific or medical language to violate human rights and permit atrocities comes from a familiar playbook.

Justifications for brutal immigration policies have often distorted scientific goals of public health programs. Trump and his advisers have long been prone to panic-mongering over the threat of disease from immigrants. They’ve likewise twisted sociology to stoke anxiety about assimilation to justify a Muslim ban or to try to make racist comments seem less objectionable. Even simple principles of statistics get skewered as Trump lies about crime committed by immigrants.

Trump’s incendiary language echoes dangerous historical precedents. He has called his political opponents “vermin,” referred to immigrants as depraved“animals” and “rapists,” and described the U.S.–Mexico border as an “open wound.” Examples abound of similar rhetoric in Nazi propaganda about Jews.

Less well known is the fact that before World War II, the Nazis framed German Jews as aliens who needed to be forced into emigration or expelled. This was the original logic for stripping Jews of citizenship: to officially render them foreigners. (It should be noted that Trump aims to end birthright citizenship in the U.S.)

Prejudice has always been a part of concentration camps. At the dawn of the 20th century, mortality surged in British camps in southern Africa during the South African War, with children’s deaths blamed on “uncivilized” Boer mothers. Embracing pseudoscientific biology, camp administrators spent about half the money per day for food for a Black African civilian as was spent on white detainees (who themselves received insufficient rations). Bureaucracy and unforeseen crises added immeasurably to the harm. In poorly sited and badly run camps, tens of thousands of noncombatants died.

Other early camp systems included massive networks established on an emergency basis to detain immigrants or expel targeted minority groups. During the Spanish Civil War, when 475,000 refugees poured across France’s southern border in less than three weeks, many were forced into unlivable conditions in remote areas to isolate them from French society. Illness and disease followed on a massive scale.

After the start of World War II, the French government used those same camps to intern foreign Jews who had escaped Hitler’s Germany, detaining them as enemy aliens. And after France fell to the Nazis, French policemen went door-to-door in Paris in May 1941 in the service of the Vichy government to round up foreign Jews who remained at liberty. Some deported Jews were sent to barracks still holding Spanish detainees and “enemy aliens.” Camps often begin as one thing and become something else.

The relocation and detention involved in the deportation project that Trump is proposing are at least an order of magnitude greater than these debacles. The argument that a second Trump administration wouldn’t be able to launch such an operation because of a lack of personnel or legal authority should be understood as largely irrelevant because it presupposes the intention of running a precise, legal project at all.

A professional effort on this scale would be impossible. The mass deportations planned to begin in January 2025 if Trump is reelected are meant to unleash deliberate and collateral mayhem. And if history is any guide, a system of camps built to punish millions represents a threat to every American.

As for what they say they intend, Trump and his allies openly admire the results of the Eisenhower-era “Operation Wetback,” whose very name offers a slur revealing the endemic prejudice that made it possible. This limited deportation blitz led to the deaths of 88 workers in 112-degree-Fahrenheit heat. A new Trump administration would be looking to replicate that operation on a scale heretofore untried, using the largest deportation force ever seen in the U.S., according to both Trump and former director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Tom Homan.

Trump adviser Stephen Miller has described a plan to create “vast holding facilities that would function as staging centers,” and Trump has promised to remove four percent of the current U.S. population in a deliberate plan to spur a massive disruption of the labor market. If Americans took notice of border policy during Trump’s first administration, said Homan earlier this month, “They ain’t seen shit yet.”

The “Mass Deportation Now” signs filling the audience at the Republican National Convention are a grim warning of how much worse the situation could get. Trump, his advisers, the Heritage Foundation (the extreme-right platform that has put forth Project 2025) and countless members of Congress are not only winking and nodding toward detention horrors of the past but also clearly willing to repeat history if it will let them consolidate power.

The U.S. has previously embraced concentration camps during the detention of Japanese Americans during World War II and under the family-separation policy imposed during Trump’s presidency. The broader legacy of camps on six continents offers a panoramic assortment of even more ways in which mass deportations and forced relocation can go wrong. Unleashed on anything close to the scale under discussion, the project Trump and his henchmen are proposing will be lethal to the targeted groups, catastrophic to the stability of the country and extremely difficult to undo. These camps are in no way scientific or even serious policy; they’re the equivalent of dropping a hydrogen bomb to put out a forest fire.

This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

ANDREA PITZER is author of the books One Long Night: A Global History of Concentration Camps, The Secret History of Vladimir Nabokov and, most recently, Icebound: Shipwrecked at the Edge of the World. Follow her on X (formerly Twitter) @andreapitzer.

Source: Trump’s Massive Deportation Plan Echoes Concentration Camp History

Filed under Antisemitism, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Will Canada apply its immigration policy fairly in the face of the Gaza conflict?

2024/08/07 Leave a comment

I find these arguments somewhat tiresome, not because they are not valid but rather because they need to also acknowledge the war crimes, genocidal aims, etc by Hamas. Equally tiresome are arguments by hardline supporters of the Israeli government not acknowledging their war crimes and tolerance of extremist settler groups:

One of the most sacrosanct foundations of democracies is that they are based on the rule of law, which mandates one set of laws enforceable on all individuals—including the government itself. The notion that the law simply does not apply to an individual, or groups of individuals, is more commonly associated with corrupt dictatorships than democracies. 

Yet, in 2024 in Canada, whether the rule of law is supreme is an open question. Canada has specific laws governing who is considered admissible to the country, proscribing Canadians from joining foreign militaries, and preventing illegal support for armed forces of another country by Canadian charities. Each one of those laws has been applied in regard to some groups, and consistently violated and disregarded with others. 

The American State Department recently issued an unexpected decision regarding Elor Azaria, a former sergeant in the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) convicted of extrajudicially killing a Palestinian in the West Bank. The decision bars Azaria, as well as his immediate family members, from entering the United States. The statement declared, “We are designating Elor Azaria … pursuant to Section 7031(c) for his involvement in a gross violation of human rights … .” 

This decision marks a significant turning point for those implicated in war crimes in Gaza under U.S. jurisdiction, and it also raises a crucial question about the repercussions of the Gaza conflict on the enforcement of Canada’s laws. 

How will the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) handle the Income Tax Act implications for charities that fund the IDF? The CRA recently revoked the Jewish National Fund’s charitable status for directing donations towards IDF infrastructure. This raises questions about other charities that have publicly raised funds for the IDF and illegal settlements. Similarly, how will the Royal Canadian Mounted Police address provisions of the Criminal Code and Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act regarding Canadians who have joined the IDF?

Additionally, Section 34(1) of Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) bars entry to individuals involved in violence, terrorism, or membership in related organizations. Sections 35(1) and 35.1(1) further prohibit entry to anyone implicated in human or international rights violations, including war crimes, crimes against humanity, senior officials in governments guilty of gross human rights violations, and those under international sanctions. These provisions—mirroring the American laws that barred Azaria—were broadly designed by Parliament to safeguard national security. They granted discretionary power to Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) officers and immigration officials, but also acknowledged the potential to inadvertently affect innocent and non-threatening individuals who are meant to be treated as exceptions. 

If applied universally, these principles could restrict figures in the vein of Nelson Mandela, or even historical members of the U.S. Democratic Party due to their support of slavery. However, in practice, the CBSA has often used these provisions selectively, particularly to unjustly target and deport refugees from Muslim countries, with decisions frequently influenced by the personal biases of individual officers. This same bias has also led to the oversight of individuals who should rightfully be captured by the law.

Despite well-documented instances of systemic violence against Muslims and other minorities by members of India’s Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Canada has not taken a similar stance against them. The RSS, a right-wing Hindu nationalist group, and the BJP, India’s ruling party, have been linked to numerous violent acts, including riots and targeted attacks on religious minorities. From 2013 to 2023, Indian immigration to Canada increased by 326 per cent, with 18.6 per cent of recent immigrants coming from India. Yet, Canada has not pursued cases of inadmissibility against individuals from these groups, raising questions about the consistency and fairness of its immigration policies.

The ongoing Gaza conflict has led to investigations by the International Criminal Court into alleged war crimes by Israel, including the targeted killing of civilians, willful suffering, and the use of starvation as a warfare tactic—all human rights violations. Additionally, the International Court of Justice has declared that Israel’s occupation and settlement expansions in the Occupied Palestinian Territory are illegal, and that there is an imminent risk of genocide. Under Canada’s Immigration Act, involvement with groups linked to these illegal settlements or with the IDF, amidst allegations of war crimes or possible genocide, could make individuals inadmissible to Canada—a measure affecting a significant portion of Israel’s population.

Our laws must be consistently applied, holding individuals accountable for human rights violations, war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity, irrespective of their nationality, the geopolitical context of their actions, or the political stance of the government of the day. To ensure the proper application of the law and to enable the CBSA to effectively perform its duties, a suspension of visa exemptions for travellers from Israel is necessary.

As the U.S. has taken a step towards a consistent application of its immigration laws concerning human rights violations against Palestinians, it is crucial for Canada to critically examine its own legal enforcement, and ensure that it upholds fairness and impartiality in every instance. Our nation faces a difficult test with the Gaza crisis, challenging us to confront the systemic biases embedded within our governmental institutions. Our standing as a democratic nation founded on the rule of law demands nothing less.

Washim Ahmed is a refugee and human rights lawyer, and a co-founder of OWS Law. Taha Ghayyur is the executive director of Justice for All Canada, a non-profit human rights and advocacy organization dedicated to preventing genocide.

Source: Will Canada apply its immigration policy fairly in the face of the Gaza conflict?

Filed under Antisemitism, Immigration, Islamophobia, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Not Everything is about Anti-Semitism: Bella Hadid and Adidas Shoes

2024/07/27 Leave a comment

Of note:

Nostalgia is lamenting over the job you never got, missing the girl you never dated, and holding memories for the trip you never took – or at least never completed. In marketing, it usually leads to inferior products that are sold for skyrocketing prices. I am probably the last candidate to purchase the retro sneakers that Adidas have recently issued for the upcoming Olympics in Parism which are an exact replica of the shoes they have issued in 1972 for the Olympic games in Munich. In am not a sprinter, but even if I were one  – I would have probably preferred modern shoes that come with airbag cushions which boost the performance and add to the comfort at a cheaper price (the nostalgic pair is sold for over 100 Euro!).

However, the story is not about me, not about running shoes consumption, and not even about nostalgia – but about the ongoing attempt to mark even the most indirect criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism. According to the very loud Israeli propaganda, the retro Adidas shoes are a disgrace not because they are outdated or too expensive, but since they brutally manifest anti-Semitism. Why? Because they are promoted by Bella Hadid. Let’s examine the proposed connection: The shoes were first introduced for the 1972 Olympic Games, where 11 Israeli athletes were murdered by a Palestinian terrorist organization, Black September. This organization no longer exists for over 40 years. Most of its commanders were killed by Israel. The remaining, like Amin al-Hindi, surprisingly or not, became collaborators during the golden age of the Oslo Accords.

What does it say about our perception of terrorists? Let’s leave it for another article and go back to the anti-Semitic shoes legend. None of the Israeli athletes who were murdered in the 1972 Olympics wore these shoes. None of them was a sprinter. Nothing connects Adidas to the massacre. As for Bella Hadid – while the famous model is the daughter of an even more famous objectionable real estate mogul and reality TV star Mohammed Hadid, who is a 1948 Palestinian refugee, has always maintained (just like her dad) a critical tone toward Israel – nothing in the family’s history relates to Black September or to any other terror organization. In fact, a cold blooded analysis would determine that the Hadids are in fact victims of Israel because they lost their house in Safed, lost their citizenship, and lost their chances to live in the country where the family has been residing for centuries. No matter how much you slice it and dice it – at the age of two weeks, baby Mohammed Hadid when expelled in 1948 was not a terrorist. It is true that he and his daughter never praise Israel, but do you really expect them to sing hymns to the country that expelled them and confiscated their property?

It is easy to find models with a better fit to Adidas retro running shoes. The world is full of athletes and former athletes who model, but anti-Semitism is the last ground to disqualify Bella Hadid.

Amir Hetsroni was a faculty member at Ariel University in the West Bank. He is emigrating from Israel in order to miss the next war, earn higher wages, enjoy cooler summers, and obtain a living package that is cost-effective. He has three passports and does not feel particularly worried about anti-Semitism.

Source: Not Everything is about Anti-Semitism: Bella Hadid and Adidas Shoes

Filed under Antisemitism, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Deborah Lyons: Courageous leadership is needed to combat antisemitism in Canada

2024/07/27 Leave a comment

Reasonable recommendations, highlighting the benefits of appointing a former public servant compared to a former activist as is the case with the representative on combatting Islamophobia:

…Lean into a proactive rather than reactive approach:

Leaders often wait for antisemitic incidents to take place before responding. To shift from a reactive to a proactive approach, leaders can establish a relationship underpinned by trust with Jewish individuals in their organizations. This could be a network, an adviser position, or a recurring meeting with a group representing the Jewish community. Combatting antisemitism works best when it is continuous, and not only when a problem arises. Nurturing relationships built in trust with Jewish individuals, actively listening to them and proactively engaging on issues is helpful in preventing antisemitism.

Encourage interfaith and inter-community dialogue:

I have seen a lot of pain in the eyes of Jewish Canadians, particularly after October 7. Much of this pain has come from the loss of friends and allies, and the silence and lack of support they’ve received from other Canadians, including from other faith communities. Community and faith leaders should understand that empathy and understanding for one group should not preclude empathy and understanding for others. Faith and community groups should extend their hands in support, as the Jewish community has so often done for others in past crises. Leaders should remember that we can be pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian at the same time. Leaders should encourage interfaith and inter-community dialogue, by creating spaces for these difficult but important conversations to happen. If done with mutual respect, compassion, and rooted in our shared values as Canadians, these spaces can help bring us back together rather than continuing the divisive dialogue and binary thinking that is destroying our civility.

Advocate for Jewish Canadians through allyship:

As a non-Jewish person, what I have learned most clearly is that antisemitism cannot be solved by the Jewish community alone. Jews did not create antisemitism and as with any other marginalized group, it is not on them to fight it alone. Being an ally means being present, an active listener, and a support system. Most importantly, it means believing Jewish Canadians when they speak. And taking action. A simple way for leaders to demonstrate their allyship is to ask Jewish neighbours, friends or individuals in their organizations: “What does support look like for you” and “How can I help?”

Discover modern day manifestations of antisemitism:

To address antisemitism, we must first define and understand it. In 2019, the Government of Canada formally adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition of antisemitism as part of Canada’s Anti-Racism Strategy. The IHRA Definition is the product of a 16-year-long democratic, iterative process, and as of the date of publication, has been adopted by 42 other countries and multiple international organizations. It is a tool for recognizing antisemitic expression, behaviour, intention and impact. The IHRA working definition — particularly through its 11 examples — serves as a helpful tool for leaders to understand the many forms of antisemitism and how to meaningfully address them.

Much work remains to be done. If this vacuum from faith, political and business leaders continues it may become too difficult to find our way back. It is our role as Canadians to stand now with our Canadian Jewish family across our country. It is what our Jewish family deserves. It is what Canada needs, now.

Deborah Lyons is Canada’s Special Envoy on Preserving Holocaust Remembrance and Combatting Antisemitism. She previously served as Ambassador of Canada to Israel, Ambassador of Canada to Afghanistan, and the UN Secretary-General’s Special Representative for Afghanistan and Head of the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan.

Source: Deborah Lyons: Courageous leadership is needed to combat antisemitism in Canada

Filed under Antisemitism, Multiculturalism Tagged with

Le bureau du ministre Marc Miller vandalisé, symptôme des problèmes de sécurité des élus

2024/07/20 Leave a comment

Hate crime:

Les gestes de vandalisme revendiqués par des militants pro-Palestine jeudi au bureau du ministre fédéral de l’Immigration témoignent de l’urgence de renforcer les mesures de sécurité autour des politiciens, selon un expert consulté par Le Devoir.

Le ministre Marc Miller a confié qu’il ne s’agissait pas d’un événement isolé. Son équipe et lui, ainsi que leur bureau montréalais, sont presque chaque jour la cible d’insultes ou de saccage. « Depuis des mois, mon bureau de comté est quotidiennement menacé. Nous avons fait de notre mieux pour prendre des mesures de précaution adéquates, afin de servir nos concitoyens qui ont besoin de nos services », a écrit M. Miller sur le réseau X. Il n’a pas voulu accorder d’entrevue jeudi.

Plusieurs graffitis propalestiniens ont été écrits sur le trottoir devant son bureau de la rue Saint-Jacques, face à la station de métro Lionel-Groulx. Les vitres ont été fracassées et de la peinture rose a été lancée sur l’immeuble. « Marc Miller child killer » (Marc Miller, tueur d’enfant), « No justice no peace » (Pas de paix sans justice), « Genocide is not ok » (Le génocide n’est pas acceptable), pouvait-on lire sur les trottoirs en face du bureau.

« Habituellement, [les activistes propalestiniens] viennent manifester en avant du bureau, sur le trottoir. Ils ont déjà mis des collants sur les vitrines. Mais des méfaits graves comme ça, c’est la première fois », a confirmé l’agent du Service de police de la Ville de Montréal (SPVM) Nicolas Girard. Aucune arrestation n’avait encore été faite au moment où ces lignes étaient écrites.

Une vidéo montrant le saccage a rapidement fait le tour des réseaux sociaux. « Cette nuit, des militant.e.s sont venues rendre visite à cette institution coloniale qu’est le bureau de Marc Miller. Ceci est un rappel que les mobilisations ne finiront pas et que nous ne plierons pas face à l’État génocidaire », peut-on lire sur la page Instagram clash.mtl. La vidéo leur aurait été soumise anonymement.

« Le climat politique se dégrade »

Les gestes et comportements menaçants envers des élus sont préoccupants, selon Michel Juneau-Katsuya, expert en sécurité nationale. Pour lui, « le climat politique se dégrade au Québec. Il faut vraiment qu’il y ait une prise de conscience des risques, sinon plus personne ne voudra aller en politique ».

D’autres députés ont été la cible d’actes violents dans les derniers mois, rappelle l’ex-agent fédéral. Il donne l’exemple de la ministre des Affaires étrangères, Mélanie Joly, qui a été interpellée par un militant et s’est défendue elle-même. La multiplication de ces événements fait en sorte qu’une plus grande protection pour les élus est requise, estime-t-il. « Il n’y a pas au fédéral un équivalent à la loi 57 du Québec, mais il devrait y en avoir un », dit-il.

Au Québec, depuis le mois de juin, la loi protège les élus provinciaux contre les gens qui les intimident, les harcèlent ou entravent leurs travaux.

Marco Mendicino, ex-ministre canadien de la Sécurité publique, a réitéré jeudi la nécessité de renforcer aussi la protection des élus fédéraux. « La démocratie ne peut pas fonctionner tant que les parlementaires, leur famille et leur personnel ne sont pas en sécurité », a-t-il déclaré sur la plateforme X.

Urgence d’agir pour les visas temporaires

Les militants propalestiniens demandent depuis plusieurs mois au ministre Miller de « donner rapidement des visas pour les Palestiniens à Gaza » et « d’améliorer les politiques d’immigration pour les Palestiniens », selon le compte X OlinePalEng, qui documente les actions d’activisme pro-Palestine partout dans le monde. Ils lui reprochent aussi « de donner son support aux atrocités israéliennes à Gaza ».

Pour Thomas Woodley, président de Canadiens pour la justice et la paix au Moyen-Orient (CJPMO), le vandalisme commis montre « l’échec » du programme de visas temporaires pour les Palestiniens ayant des liens avec le Canada, lancé par Ottawa en janvier dernier. L’obtention de ce visa est « une question de vie ou de mort pour des milliers [de Palestiniens] » qui sont encore pris à Gaza.

Le ministre Miller a de son côté souligné qu’il ne tolérera pas de comportements violents. « Nous vivons dans un pays démocratique. Tout individu a pleinement le droit de manifester, d’exprimer ses opinions, et de faire entendre son mécontentement. Cependant, peu importe le point de vue, rien ne peut excuser le vandalisme et la mise en danger d’autrui », a déclaré le député sur X.

Même si le CJPMO n’est pas à l’origine du vandalisme, M. Woodley considère que « les Canadiens ont raison d’être frustrés au plus haut point », dit-il au Devoir. « Bien que certaines personnes puissent contester les méthodes utilisées par les manifestants, il ne fait aucun doute que le programme du ministre Miller visant à aider les Palestiniens de Gaza ayant des liens avec le Canada a été un échec lamentable. »

Source: Le bureau du ministre Marc Miller vandalisé, symptôme des problèmes de sécurité des élus

Filed under Antisemitism, Hate crimes, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

Chris Selley: Putting activists on the federal government payroll won’t fix intolerance

2024/07/16 Leave a comment

Tend to agree. More virtue signalling to individual communities rather than fostering integration and reducing intolerance:

…All of this is pretty much beside the point, however, as far as Housefather’s new position is concerned. You can’t fight antisemitism in Canada without engaging the most passionate Palestinian supporters, a good few of whom clearly do mean “Jew” when they say “Zionist,” at least to my and many other Canadians’ eyes and ears. If Palestinian supporters can’t stand the sight of Housefather, surely he’s just wasting his time, preaching to a choir that’s already perfectly cognizant of the problem.

It’s precisely the situation that Amira Elghawaby has faced since her appointment in 2022 as our first “special representative on combatting Islamophobia.”

You can’t fight Islamophobia in Canada without engaging Quebec nationalists, many of whom make no bones about being fearful of Islam and what pious Muslims might do to Quebec society. You can’t fight Islamophobia without talking to the only province that bans teachers and Crown attorneys and police officers from wearing a hijab.

But Elghawaby can’t talk to Quebec, and never will be able to talk to Quebec, because in the past she had disrespected Quebec’s all-consuming victimhood complex. “I want to puke,” she wrote on Twitter in response to a historian’s proposition that French Canadians were “the largest group of people in this country … victimized by British colonialism.”…

Source: Chris Selley: Putting activists on the federal government payroll won’t fix intolerance

Filed under Antisemitism, Islamophobia, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

It’s Time for Corporate Canada to Take Action on Antisemitism

2024/07/15 Leave a comment

Of note with similar need for anti-Muslim bias:

…Geist’s poignant entreaty that “Canadians simply believe us” underscores that Canada needs a new forum for Jews and non-Jews to come together to combat this ancient hatred. This is an issue for non-Jews to address, as Comper wisely noted some twenty years ago, and business leadership can be crucial to progress. With the scourge of antisemitism on the rise, it’s time for today’s generation of CEOs to step up and show real leadership and allyship – not just in their own workplaces, but in the broader community – to ensure that the Jewish community feels not just believed, but supported.

Hon. Kevin Lynch was Clerk of the Privy Council and vice chair of BMO Financial Group. Paul Deegan is CEO of Deegan Public Strategies and was a public affairs executive at BMO and CN.  

Source: It’s Time for Corporate Canada to Take Action on Antisemitism

Filed under Antisemitism, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →