 |
|||
Gerry Weinstein |
Frank Dimant |
Allan Adel |
Ruth Klein |
|
|||
Gerry Weinstein |
Frank Dimant |
Allan Adel |
Ruth Klein |
Across the globe, from Australia to South Africa to Europe to Canada, antisemitism against Jewish communities intensified during 2006. Synagogues have been firebombed, Jewish religious items and symbols have been desecrated, and Jews of all ages have been harassed, threatened, and attacked. In France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Norway and Ukraine, as well as in this country, ugly incidents have erupted during or after anti-Israel marches that were replete with anti-Jewish heckling. In Canada, for example, a Jewish bystander was physically assaulted and a tallit (Jewish prayer shawl) desecrated during an anti-Israel street rally attended by public dignitaries.
There are those who will undoubtedly try to downplay the 12% increase in antisemitic incidents in Canada during 2006 when compared to the 24% rise in France and the 31% increase in Great Britain. They might try to use these figures to somehow prove that Canadians can be complacent about their record on antisemitism. They might even suggest that the differential in statistics says something positive about Canadian multiculturalism, rather than taking these figures from Europe as an ominous warning of what can happen when hatred is left unchecked.
There will be attempts to marginalize or even dismiss the implications of this significant rise in antisemitic incidents in Canada, which brings the number of incidents to an all-time high of 935, a huge rise over the 63 incidents the League documented in its first Audit in 1982, and a four-fold increase in the past ten years alone. After all, it is always easier to recognize bigotry in one's neighbours than in oneself, and heaping condemnation upon perpetrators in distant lands can be a convenient diversion from problems at home. However, the Audit should be considered a serious indicator that all is not well in this country as far as fighting racism and bigotry is concerned.
It is becoming increasingly obvious that hatred of the Jewish people can no longer be attributed solely to the extreme-right fringe, based on traditional prejudices. In addition to the denial of the Holocaust and age-old, almost reflexive anti-Jewish bigotry, a strong correlation continues to exist between political crises in the Middle East and a rise in antisemitic incidents against the Jews in the Diaspora. The war in Lebanon last summer only underscored this reality.
It is often argued that traditional antisemitism is largely defunct and that contemporary anti-Jewish prejudice is fuelled mainly by anti-Israel sentiment. There is much discussion of whether anti-Zionism merely intensifies and sanctions existing bigotry against Jews, or whether it actually creates it. A recent study entitled "Anti-Israel Sentiment Predicts Anti-Semitism in Europe", which was published last year in the Journal of Conflict Resolution, takes a different look at this controversial issue. In a meticulous pan-European study, Yale University scholars, Edward H. Kaplan and Charles A. Small, polled the citizens of 10 European countries in order to investigate whether individuals with radical anti-Israel views are more likely to be antisemitic. They found that extreme anti-Israel sentiment consistently predicts the probability that an individual is antisemitic.
The question Canadians have to ask themselves in light of the above study is where one hatred really ends and the other begins, and whether the blurring of the lines in the way anti-Israel antagonism is being expressed does not reflect an incestuous interconnectedness between these two hatreds.
If one looks at the Working Definition of Antisemitism set out by the European Union's Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, this line of philosophical enquiry becomes more of a functional question. The definition, reprinted in its entirety in Appendix B, defines antisemitism as, inter alia, denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, calling the State of Israel a "racist endeavor", or applying to it double standards not required of any other democratic nation. It is a useful addition to the study of antisemitism since it includes contemporary as well as historical manifestations.
This question of understanding the provenance and underlying motivation of anti-Zionism inevitably arose during 2006 when elements at the Ontario branch of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), an influential union in Canada, pushed through a vote to align the union with an international boycott campaign against Israel. The United Church of Canada also voted to support a "divestment" campaign, though it later retracted part of its anti-Israel stance. Prominent Canadian politicians attended a provocative anti-Israel street rally during the war in the Middle East, in which support for the terrorist group Hezbollah and anti-Jewish outbursts went hand-in-hand in a very public fashion. The Mayor of Huntingdon, Quebec, weighed in with his comparison of the Jewish State to the Nazis. Those with existing anti-Jewish bigotry certainly take heart when public figures, unions and churches, whatever their motivation, use their power and influence in this fashion. We see the result in the sharp rise in anti-Jewish incidents in Canada.
Antisemitism is just part of a far broader problem in Canadian society. In a year which saw overseas tensions translate into blatant attacks against the Canadian Jewish community, other domestic tensions were evident too, affecting other minority communities as well. These stresses and strains speak to a lack of a universal understanding of the defining values that should unite Canadians of different backgrounds. Canada will have to decide how to deal in a meaningful way with this underlying malaise.
A case in point is the current controversy in this country over 'reasonable accommodation', a right enshrined in the Canadian Human Rights Act. It was in this spirit that the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in 2006 in the case of Gurbaj Singh Multani, that he should be allowed to wear his kirpan (ceremonial Sikh dagger) to public high school. This decision was not universally welcomed.
In fact, recent public reaction to reports of the special needs of religious minorities has become increasingly vocal and, at times, openly hostile. Incidents pertaining to this issue have become hot media stories, whether these cases actually fall within the framework of 'reasonable accommodation', or are merely perceived and labeled as such. This hostility towards minority issues has been especially noticeable in Quebec, where there was a staggering 69.9% surge in antisemitic incidents in 2006, way above the national increase of 12.8%.
Societal tensions around the issue of 'reasonable accommodation' are not merely a reaction to the latest news story, but reflect a growing upsurge in the level of prejudice that lies just below the surface of society, waiting to erupt. As well, we need to be cognizant of a rising level of impatience within the 'dominant culture', towards the religious and cultural communities that wish to retain their uniqueness.
Serious challenges lie ahead as the impact of crises abroad and tensions at home make themselves felt in ways that are completely contrary to Canadian values. Attempts to inject antisemitism into the Canadian political process have only served to accentuate the religious and ethnic divide in society.
This manipulation of the ethnic card is especially detrimental to the successful integration of immigrant populations into Canada, since such a strategy only serves to perpetuate old hatreds and import so-called "homeland conflicts" to Canadian shores.
None of this is good news for communities that are consistently victimized.
What the League has heard from victims and the community at large indicates a lack of confidence in the system's ability to deal with these tensions and their manifestations, and a weakening of the collective will to address hatred. Yet, a way forward is crucial. With this in mind the League has prepared a Victim's Bill of Rights which focuses our attention where it is most needed: on the victims, who are entitled to the full protection of the government, to the full enforcement of the law, and to the full support of Canadian society.