 |
|||
Harold Davis |
Frank Dimant |
Allan Adel |
Ruth Klein |
|
|||
Harold Davis |
Frank Dimant |
Allan Adel |
Ruth Klein |
The year 2004 was characterized by a surge - for the fourth year running - in the number of antisemitic incidents reported to B’nai Brith’s League for Human Rights. Against a backdrop of rising antisemitism in many countries of the world, the Canadian experience still stands out as an apparent indictment of the inability of multiculturalism to meet the challenges of today’s changing world.
It is no longer possible to avoid the glaring question of why, in spite of the condemnations of public figures and the diligence of police services, this situation continues to escalate. This report will contend that the Canadian public is getting mixed messages. On one hand, public outrage is expressed against high profile incidents, such as the bombing of the United Talmud Torah (UTT) Elementary School on the eve of Passover in April 2004. This is in stark contrast to the muted condemnations that were evoked by the firebombing of synagogues just two years previously. Clearly, some segments of the Canadian leadership are beginning to wake up and speak out.
On the other hand, antisemitic propaganda, whether disseminated in free circulation community papers, the ethnic press, Internet sites, street flyers, or in statements by religious and community leaders, rarely attract any sustained, credible response. Even when token condemnations follow and complaints are laid, investigations are often protracted, inconclusive and lack the type of closure that would send a strong message to Canadians that antisemitism is not acceptable in this country.
The year 2004 saw an increase in the number of individuals acting out on their feelings of prejudice and bigotry in a progressively less restrained way. This suggests the existence of some ugly ripples underlying the seemingly placid face of Canadian society. These were aptly characterized by comments made in early 2005 by Quebec Premier Jean Charest who deplored the “demagogy and prejudice” that he saw evolving in public discourse in the province over the Jewish school funding issue. This report will contend that the prejudice and intolerance that were manifested in that very vociferous debate can be attributed at least in part to the license given during the previous year to tolerating the semantics of antisemitism.
One of the emerging themes of 2004, which was reflected in the Quebec debate, was the oft-recurring contention that antisemitism is caused by the Jews themselves, because it is alleged that they have too much power and are too outspoken, and thus deserve any unwelcome attention they attract. This classic “blame the victim” approach is one of the particularly ugly underpinnings of “traditional” antisemitism. And it underlines a paradox in the Canadian multicultural model: when the virtues of multiculturalism are extolled, this is commonly understood to mean endorsement of full participation in public and political life for all ethnic and religious minorities in Canada, accompanied by free expression of distinct cultural and community characteristics. However, it appears that the idea of the Jews as a visible and vocal minority is still not accepted as a matter of course in some sectors, and attracts negative comment and censure.
These types of activity have fed into a notion – becoming more and more prevalent within the Jewish community – that it is safer to merge into society and not draw too much attention to oneself, in terms of either distinctive religious dress, admission of religion affiliation in places of education or employment, or the type of advocacy initiatives that the community decides to undertake. There are reports that careful consideration is being given by some individuals to the option of reducing visible signs of their Jewishness, such as wearing a yarmulke in public, affixing a mezuzah to the front door of their homes, or sending their children to a Jewish school. In this way, antisemitic activity, by intimidating a community, becomes a way to muzzle its spontaneous self-expression and constrain its will to speak out strongly on the issues of the day.
The League has traditionally undertaken this Audit not just to study the phenomenon of antisemitism per se, but also to provide a barometer of the level of prejudice in this country. The information contained in this study is thus of interest to all sectors of the population, and has specific relevance to other minority groups who could be targeted for prejudice and discrimination, their experiences largely marginalized as they navigate the uncertain waters of Canadian multiculturalism.
Both inside Canada and beyond its borders, the unique role of the League in reporting on antisemitism in this country has been widely recognized. The Audit data is used in the International Religious Freedom Report issued annually by the U.S. State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, as well as in its Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. In addition, this year the League's data has been cited in the first Report on Global Anti-Semitism submitted by the State Department to the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on International Relations, in accordance with the Global Anti-Semitism Awareness Act. This legislation established an office in the State Department to monitor and combat antisemitism worldwide.
The League works closely with other entities as well, such as an initiative of the Israeli Government, the Global Co-ordination Forum for Antisemitism, which is led by human rights champion Natan Sharansky, a former Soviet refusnik [a Jew who was not allowed to leave the country and was imprisoned for his beliefs]. This entity has enhanced coordination with Jewish community organizations worldwide that monitor antisemitism and participate in the discussions of Forum. The Audit also forms the basis for the chapter on Canada in the annual survey Antisemitism Worldwide, which is published by Tel Aviv University’s Stephen Roth Centre for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism and Racism.
In addition, the League cooperates with the Warsaw-based Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), the human rights arm of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). The ODIHR serves as a collection point for information from participating states on manifestations of racism, xenophobia, discrimination, and antisemitism. Pursuant to the OSCE's 2nd Conference on Antisemitism, held in Berlin on April 28-29, 2004, the organization's members - including Canada - undertook to assemble reliable information and statistics about antisemitism. The Berlin Declaration also called for a review of legal systems to ensure that they foster a safe environment free of antisemitism, and recommended educational programs to combat antisemitism and promote remembrance of the Holocaust.
The League operates in association with the US-based Anti-Defamation League (ADL), with which it maintains a collaborative relationship.
Here in Canada, the League cooperates with police forces across the country to share information and enhance the collection of accurate data on hate crimes and hate-related activity in this country.
The reason that the League is called upon for this type of collaboration is that it is well known, as described by Statistics Canada in its Overview of Issues and Data Sources Relating to Hate Crimes, for its “constancy in definitions and [the] criteria used in determining how incidents are classified and recorded…As a result, these data provide a unique historical record of a particular form of hate activity in Canada ...”