 |
|||
Gerry Weinstein |
Frank Dimant |
Allan Adel |
Ruth Klein |
|
|||
Gerry Weinstein |
Frank Dimant |
Allan Adel |
Ruth Klein |
“Anti-Semitism is on the increase … and enlightened people are not immune to it.”
These words, written by George Orwell in the closing months of World War II, are unfortunately as true now as they were then. This is illustrated in the similarities between the 2005 conspiracy theories with which this Audit begins, and a 1942 blood libel that caught Orwell’s attention.
Writing at a time when millions of Jews had been slaughtered by the Nazis, and Britain itself was still at war with Germany, Orwell noted:
| “One could see a good example of this in the strange accident that occurred in London in 1942, when a crowd, frightened by a bomb-burst nearby, fled into the mouth of an Underground station, with the result that something over a hundred people were crushed to death. The very same day it was repeated all over London that ‘the Jews were responsible’.”1 |
We presume that average people will not give any level of credence to such blatant antisemitic hate-mongering, but at some subliminal level, those who dismiss such myths are nonetheless affected by them, even as they protest that “some of my best friends are Jewish”.
Canada rightly prides itself on its quality of life and yet its support for multiculturalism does not preclude the existence of prejudice and bias being played out in everyday situations. To say that antisemitism does not exist in Canada in any significant way is like claiming that no one goes hungry in this country, even as food banks are facing increased demand. Antisemitism is indeed a feature of life in this country.
As in previous years, perpetrators of antisemitic incidents were largely indiscriminate in their choice of victims. The elderly were just as likely to be targeted as school children, both groups singled out precisely because of their vulnerability. Orthodox Jews, easily identifiable by their attire, were prime targets, but Jews who blend in with society also experienced antisemitism in both subtle and less than subtle ways. There were incidents targeting Jewish houses of worship, schools and community buildings, but expressions of anti-Jewish hatred were also prominently displayed on public sites. Both urban and rural centres experienced antisemitic activity, including areas where few Jews reside. Every sector of society was, in fact, affected, including the work place, the NGO arena, both public and private schools, and the campus. The very pervasiveness of antisemitism is illustrated both in the scope and breadth of its reach, and in the many guises in which it manifests itself.
Both France and the UK joined Canada in recording major increases in antisemitic incidents in the past few years. However, while the data points to substantial decreases in these two European countries in 2005, a drop of close to 50% in France and a decrease of 14.5% in Britain, this was not the case in Canada. The 2005 decline in incidents in this country, at 3.1%, is unremarkable; a minimal decrease that merely offers a hiatus in what has been a continuum of rising hate-related activity against the Jewish community in recent years. There is no room here for complacency. Our target should be a much more substantial decrease.
As the Audit has noted, it was thought that the absence of major Middle East trigger events during 2005 might have translated into a more substantial decrease in the overall number of incidents in Canada, more along the lines of the French or British experience. It has been suggested that these more promising European findings are due, in part, to the fact that these countries implement anti-hate legislation in a much more consistent fashion. It has also been suggested that Canada’s own legal system has become largely symbolic in addressing all but the most egregious cases. There is still much that you can say and do in Canada to target or threaten Jews, invoking prejudice and inciting hatred, without facing any consequences.
The explosion of hate on the Internet illustrates that hatemongers have recognized the potential of the web as an effective vehicle for their messaging. This is proving even harder to contain than other more traditional manifestations of racism. However, as we move to confront the challenges of 2006, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision in the Kulbashian case offers some encouragement, rejecting among other things the spurious notion that it is legitimate to use anti-Zionism as a cover for hate messaging against Jews. This ruling shows that Canada does not have to be passive in meeting the provocations of hatemongers.
What is of concern is that the legal system appears in some cases to have abdicated responsibility for fighting Internet hate to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which has become the lead arena for fighting this type of activity. Furthermore, the significant difference between how the criminal justice and the human rights sectors respond to hate activity in general has raised some serious questions. A Criminal Code offence, as illustrated in the Ahenakew sentencing for example, can merely lead to a $1,000 fine, while the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal sent a much stronger message in the Kulbashian ruling, with a total of $13,000 in fines. This discrepancy gives the unfortunate impression that the criminal justice system takes a far more lenient view of hate-related activity than the human rights sector.
While Canadian society has sometimes taken a somewhat laisser faire attitude towards expressions of racism, the public has demonstrated its outrage in several high profile incidents, such as the Ahenakew case. Shortly after David Ahenakew’s hate crime conviction, his Order of Canada was removed, albeit after sustained efforts by community groups and some fellow Order recipients. In that example, the message from the courts was strengthened by the parallel anti-hate messaging from civil society, something that has to be mobilized in every case of hate-related activity. Canadians need to signal to those in positions of authority that they will not tolerate any form of racism.
Corporate responsibility is also a necessary part of society’s response to hate. One positive example is the reaction by Paramount Canada’s Wonderland to neo-Nazi style jewelry being offered for sale in its theme park in Vaughan, Ontario. When contacted by the League for Human Rights and alerted to the insidious nature of this type of material, especially in a setting designed to be family and youth-friendly, Wonderland removed the offending articles. It is hoped that more companies will take this type of responsible corporate approach when dealing with the posting or sale of material associated with groups or gangs promoting a radicalized agenda of hate.
Of course, society looks to government to take a lead role in countering all forms of racism, by providing an effective deterrent against hate crime, and also by implementing a proactive approach to promoting human rights values and discrediting racist ideologies. An ambitious five-year Anti-Racism Plan was unveiled by the previous government, though how this would translate into tangible assistance for community partners working on the frontlines of hate was never clarified. It is to be hoped that the new Government will review the plan and ensure that funding is made available for human rights education and anti-racism programming at the community level, especially for youth and other vulnerable populations.
The year ahead will no doubt see an abundance of hate material reaching these shores, primarily disseminated over the Internet. This could well be generated by the 700 reported entries so far, many of them apparently emanating from North America and Europe, in a high profile Iranian cartoon contest designed to invite denigration of the Holocaust and its victims. It could take the form of rhetoric from the Hamas website depicting Jews as the epitome of evil. Or it might stem from the homegrown purveyors of hate operating on Canadian soil. Whatever its provenance, Canada must act to stem the tide of hatred, for all minorities will benefit from a strong proactive approach to this problem. The following recommendations are made with a view to formulating such a strategy.
1. Clear guidelines need to be established in terms of laying hate crime charges, setting bail conditions and decisions on sentencing, to ensure consistency across Canada.
2. Dedicated hate crime units should be established in all jurisdictions, supported by sufficient personnel and resources.
3. Membership in racist groups and the display of racist symbols should be criminalized, as is the case in several European countries, in accordance with Canada’s international obligations.
4. The Criminal Code should be amended to include Holocaust denial as a hate crime.
5. Canadian legislation should be strengthened to increase effectiveness in countering hate on the Internet and to close potential loopholes that could jeopardize successful prosecution.
6. Funding should be directed to tracking Internet hate and developing blocking software.
7. Dialogue between law enforcement officials, the government, NGOs, educators and ISPs should be encouraged to ensure a coordinated approach to fighting Internet hate.
8. The link between hate and terrorism, identified in the Zundel case, should be recognized through new legislation criminalizing the glorification of terrorism.
9. Funding should be directed to initiatives designed to fight hatred and promote Canadian values of tolerance and respect throughout the educational system.
10. The working definition of antisemitism adopted by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia - which recognizes both traditional and modern day manifestations of anti-Jewish activity - should be used as a universal frame of reference for evaluating antisemitic incidents.