Based on the oral submission to the Rapporteur in
Toronto on September 25, 2003
by Ruth Klein, National Director, League for Human
Rights
The League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada was established in order to monitor and respond to antisemitism, racism, bias and discrimination and to help build the institutional and community mechanisms that are necessary for a racism-free society.
In the days of the global village, we recognize that the increase in antisemitism that is being experienced worldwide, which includes acts of violence against both individuals and property, cannot be separated out in the sense that we can distinguish a purely Canadian form of antisemitism. This type of hatred knows no boundaries. However, it has been our role to monitor and document the patterns of prejudice that have manifested themselves here in Canada in recent years.
Post 9/11, our community has been faced with new challenges, as have many minority groups. Regrettably, however, we find that our experiences are hardly acknowledged, whether by government, mainstream society or even the anti-racism coalitions in this country. There has been no prime ministerial visit to a synagogue to show solidarity with the community in the face of the many incidents and threats against the Jewish community, including bombings of synagogues. It took the murder of a visibly orthodox Jew last summer before the Prime Minister was finally moved to speak out.
Tomorrow evening we begin our celebrations of Rosh Hashana, the Jewish New Year, and the beginning of the High Holiday period that sees thousands of Jews congregate for prayer and reflection. As has become all too common in recent years, there will be heavy security at each and every synagogue, and this scene is being played out at Jewish community institutions throughout the world as the focus of the threat has moved from fringe right wing groups and lone agitators to entities linked to international terrorism. This scene is repeated out every Sabbath and at every community event or celebration. Furthermore, many Jewish schools now have security guards.
This illustrates more than anything that concerns about antisemitism have become intertwined with some very real concerns about security. The Jewish community remembers only too well when the Mayor and the Chief of Police for Ottawa issued a security advisory for the Jewish community for the entire month of last June. B’nai Brith received many calls from individuals worried about whether it was safe to send their children to synagogue. Warnings have also been also issued to Canadian Jews to walk home together in groups from synagogue, and it has been suggested that in certain parts of town, Jews should not wear identifying clothing or symbols of their religion such as kipas or jewellery displaying a Magen David (Star of David).
The Jewish community is the only religious minority in this country that has to post guards at its houses of worship or schools. It is the only community in Canada that now has to pay for its own security. And yet this passes without much comment or concern. We suggest that this would be considered an untenable situation if churches, mosques, or Hindu or Sikh temples were in the same situation. A different standard of what is acceptable is being applied to the Jewish community, which is racism in itself.
For the past twenty years the League for Human Rights has been monitoring antisemitism in Canada and documenting and analyzing the data it receives in an annual Audit of Antisemitic Incidents. It set up an Anti-Hate Hotline - 1 800 892 BNAI (2624), which provides victims of antisemitism with assistance and, where necessary, referral to the police, legal assistance, or human rights commissions. Data is obtained from victims contacting either the Hotline or B’nai Brith Canada regional offices. This flow of information enables the Audit to function as a barometer of racial intolerance in general, and a primary tool in monitoring, documenting and analyzing trends and developments that affect not only the Jewish community, but also the wider Canadian public. Recently the hours of operation of the Hotline were increased to provide 24/7 coverage in response to the increase in the number of incidents and the resultant heightened level of concern in the community.
In total, 459 incidents were reported to the League for Human Rights in 2002, which represents an overall increase of 60.48⁒ over the previous year. In the twenty-year history of the Audit, 459 is the highest number of incidents that has ever been reported to the League. In the past five years alone, the number of incidents has more than doubled.
In 2002, 282 (61.44⁒) of these incidents were classed as harassment, 148 (32.24⁒) as vandalism and 29 (6.32⁒) as violence (see figure 4). This compares to 203 cases of harassment (71⁒) and 83 cases of vandalism (29⁒) in 2001. Prior to the 2002 Audit, violence was included in the harassment category, since it was not considered a sufficiently common phenomenon at the time to warrant a separate category. As physical assault became more common following 9/11, the League added the third category of violence in order to be able to track the increasing use of violence in the incidents reported during 2002.
Police and sociologists agree that only about 10⁒ of victims ever report their own victimization, as noted, for example by the Vancouver Police Hate Crimes Department. It is evident, therefore, that the incidents reported to the League represent only the tip of the iceberg. In terms of quantitative analysis, the Audit thus offers a glimpse of the bigger picture, while in a qualitative sense it gives us a snapshot of what antisemitism looks like in Canada today.
In the Jewish community there is also a mindset that it is better to remain silent or else things could get worse. This is especially prevalent in the generation that has had personal or familial experience of far worse abuse in Europe before and during the Holocaust. In such cases there is a resignation that being Jewish, especially visibly Jewish, will at times provoke unpleasantness and that, while distressing, this is inevitable and thus unavoidable.
For the “visible Jew”, frequently the prime target in the current climate, this mindset is often ingrained and even the young are quite philosophical about any harassment they might experience, for example, on public transit to school. There is also a deep reluctance to involve outsiders – even the police – in affairs of the community, as well as a fear of the unwelcome publicity that might ensue. Of the 459 incidents reported to us last year, only 72 were also reported to the police. Thus we find that the segment of the community that is the most likely to be the victim of an antisemitic attack is also the segment that will be most unwilling and unlikely to report it.
The Jewish community is no stranger to bearing the brunt of incidents linked to political, economic, social or ideological upheaval. As our annual Audit of Antisemitic Incidents has repeatedly shown, both national and international events can trigger these reactions. For example, whenever tensions flare in the Middle East, incidents increase dramatically in response. During the separatist debate in Quebec, our community was similarly targeted.
In point of fact, out of the total of 459 incidents in 2002, 154 (33.6⁒ of the total) occurred in April (86) and May (68) of 2002 alone, which is more than three times the number of incidents that occurred during those two months in 2001. Of these incidents, 96 were classified as harassment, 52 as vandalism and 6 as violence.
This period coincided with Israel’s operation Defensive Shield following the Passover Seder terrorist bombing in Netanya last spring that killed 28 Israelis and one Jewish tourist, and injured 140. The wild and unfounded massacre charges that accompanied Israel’s action against the infrastructure of terror in the West Bank, and the wide media coverage that ensued until these allegations were disproved, led to a climate that proved a fertile ground for antisemitic outbursts. The overwhelming condemnation of Israel appeared to be taken as validation of attacks against individual Jews and Jewish organizations in this country and was used as an opportunity to express apparently latent antagonism and bias.
In 2001, 35⁒ of all antisemitic incidents were reported in the fall-out of September 11, 20⁒ in the immediate aftermath and close to an additional 15⁒ in October.
In terms of examining how 9/11 affected the Jewish community, we have to examine the conspiracy theories, emanating from the Middle East and still spreading like wildfire on the Internet, that accuse the Jews of being either directly responsible, or at least complicit in the 9/11 atrocities, in that they had foreknowledge of the attacks but chose only to warn their own co-religionists. The canard that “no Jews died in the World Trade Centre” has even been heard in a Church sermon in Canada.
When looking at the effects of September 11, a real cause for concern is that while overt incidents against other minority groups decreased after the initial 9/11 backlash, incidents against the Jewish community have remained at the same elevated levels and have even increased.
Police statistics confirm these trends. In Toronto alone, the statistics of the Toronto Police Force Hate Crimes unit indicate that out of 219 hate crimes identified in 2002, there were 50 (23⁒) against Jews. The overall number of incidents reported to the police decreased by 35⁒, with crimes against Arabs/Muslims, for example, dropping from 57 in 2001 to 10 in 2002. The decrease in crimes against Jews was not nearly so marked, and though the total slipped from 58 in 2001 to 50 in 2002, the proportion of crimes against Jews relative to the total was up from 17⁒ in 2001 to 23⁒ in 2002. The police statistics only include incidents that are classified as criminal offences and do not even claim to touch the systemic and societal bias they reflect.
Antisemitic incidents occur in diverse sectors and settings. B’nai Brith Canada’s national office, along with several other Jewish organizational targets - some housing schools or day care centers - received hate mail that included specific threats of violence. Some of these letters included white powder in an apparent intimidation campaign reminiscent of the rash of such hoaxes in the Fall of 2001. One of the targeted locales was the Anshei Minsk Synagogue in the downtown area, the target of “suspected arson” in April 2002. The letter threatened: “We reserve a singular hatred for the Jew… we will soon be in a position to crush you not just in Israel but worldwide… We outnumber you in every place in which you once felt safe…Islam is coming. Your days are numbered.”
In our Audit we categorize incidents as harassment, vandalism or violence and the incidents reported run the whole gamut, including places of employment, commercial and government settings, schools, universities and on the street. In one recent case, a young Jewish girl had to be escorted to and from high school classes due to the threats of physical violence against her.
Harassment refers to verbal or written actions that do not include the use of physical force against a person or property. It includes:
· verbal slurs, statements of hate and bias, or harassment
· stereotyping of Jews, such as the airing on radio talk shows of comments on “Jewish characteristics”
· systemic discrimination in the workplace, schools or campuses
· hate propaganda and hate mail via the internet, telephone, or printed material
· verbal threats of violence, where application of force does not appear imminent, or no weapon or bomb is involved
Vandalism refers to physical damage to property. It includes:
· posting of graffiti, swastikas and similar racist emblems and slogans, at times accompanied by other criminal acts including thefts and break-ins
· damage to religious objects such as mezuzahs on the door posts of private homes and hospitals
· desecration of cemeteries and synagogues
· fire bombing, arson
Violence refers to physical use of force against a person or group of persons. It includes:
· bodily assault
· assault with a weapon or accompanied by threat of imminent use of weapon
· threats of violence directed against a particular person or group where there is reasonable cause to believe that bodily harm is imminent.
Apart from these overt antisemitic incidents, we are seeing the return of stereotypes relating to Jews, stereotypes that are so ingrained into societal discourse that few stop to question the objective truth of the most common misconceptions. These can range from an off-colour joke or snide remark to accusations that Jews are demanding, cliquey or have too much power.
As other human rights organizations can attest, the use of stereotypes that denigrate minorities can have a profound affect on the psyche of the individual; the negativity generated can be internalized to such an extent that the victim will not report harassment or even assault.
The old complaint about Jewish control of the media is rearing its head once again here in Canada, as seen most notably in the comments of Raymond Baaklini, the Lebanese Ambassador, late last December. While Foreign Minister Bill Graham summoned the Ambassador to tell him that such comments are not acceptable in Canada, there was no general outrage in the limited public debate that followed, which indicates that his contention is perceived as a serious debating position in this country.
Similarly, allegations about the alleged “power” of the Jews are again being heard, this time in the comments of Carolyn Parrish, a Liberal MP, to the Egyptian newspaper Al Ahram last year, decrying the “influence of the Jewish lobby”. Comments about “Zionist” control of the media and the “Zionist” lobby are still considered “politically correct” by some, even when they clearly are being used as code words to refer to Jews,. As well, the more open use of the epithet “Jewish” to refer in a derogatory sense to “influence” and “control” is becoming more common.
The Rapporteur noted in his report on the Situation of Muslim and Arab people in various parts of the world in the aftermath of the events of 11 September 2001 the “development of an ideology to legitimize and justify this violence and discrimination”. In the case of the Jewish community, anti-Zionist rhetoric is being used as the cloak with which to justify anti-Jewish excesses. This type of rationale allows racism against the community to escalate unchecked.
There is enough cause for concern to request the Special Rapporteur to prepare a comprehensive report on the “Situation of Jewish people in various parts of the world” in order to address the gravity of the current situation. Events in Canada reflect the very real deterioration in the condition of Jewish communities around the world, especially in Western Europe, and provide a barometer of the level of racism in Canada in general.
Based on recommendations by David Matas, Senior Legal Counsel, B’nai Brith Canada
There are several protections available in Canada to victims of racism and discrimination.
Under the Criminal Code of Canada, hate crimes involve one of two specific types of acts:
1) “Hate propaganda” (s. 318), i.e., advocating genocide - acts committed with
intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group (distinguished by
colour, race, religion or ethnic origin.) Sexual orientation has just been
added as one of the protected groups.
2) “Public incitement of hatred” (s. 319 subsection 1 and 2) i.e., promotion of
hatred - inciting hatred against any identifiable group that is likely to lead
to a breach of the peace.
The Criminal Code (s.718.2) provides that “evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor” is an aggravating factor which can lead to a greater term of imprisonment. In 2002, this provision was used on appeal to increase the sentence of an individual convicted of fire-bombing a synagogue in Alberta.
The Canadian Human Rights Act is also relevant, specifically Part I which deals with proscribed discriminatory practices. Under section 13(1) of the Act, it is a discriminatory practice (proscribed discrimination) “to communicate telephonically or by telecommunication undertaking any matter likely to expose a person(s) to hatred or contempt by reason of being identifiable on a prohibited ground of discrimination” (race, religion, origin etc.).
Section 1 of Ontario Human Rights Code provides for freedom from discrimination, that is, equal treatment without discrimination based on race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status or handicap, record of offences (in employment) and receipt of public assistance (in accommodation). The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms also provides for such rights.
Under the new Anti-Terrorism legislation, (formerly Bill C36) introduced by the federal government late last year, the Criminal Code was amended to provide for enhanced search and seizure provisions of materials relating to hate propaganda offences. A new offence under section 430 (4.1) of the Criminal Code was also added regarding mischief against places of religious worship or religious property motivated by “bias, prejudice or hate based on religion, race, colour or national or ethnic origin.”
The Canadian Human Rights Act was also amended by this to extend the prohibition against hate messages beyond telephone messages to include all telecommunications technologies.
If applied vigorously, these provisions should provide redress for a significant number of hate-related incidents, including those motivated by antisemitism, but they must be applied vigorously.
Discrimination undermines fundamental human rights and constitutes a permanent threat to the integration of minorities. Problems of this kind cannot be handled with isolated measures, but need simultaneous implementation of measures in a variety of sectors. The constitutional and legal protections exist, but the political will must exist also. Legislation has to be enforced, but clear validation of human rights codes, tangible support for anti-racism education and ongoing encouragement of community outreach initiatives must supplement legal measures. Some specific recommendations are as follows:
1 Recent rulings by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal have clarified its mandate to deal with hate on the internet. The responsibility for dealing with hate on broadcast television or radio when the signal does not originate in Canada is less clear. If for instance, Al Jazeera is broadcast in Canada, and if it at times broadcasts antisemitic material (as it has in the past) in breach of Canadian law, what recourse will there be for Canadian citizens? For this reason, we need a common framework for understanding the mechanisms of hate and the criteria we use to assess what to do about it. These criteria should be part of our broadcasting code, as well as the codes used by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, as in the end, they may be judging the same content.
2 The CRTC should be empowered to expand its oversight of foreign TV stations like Al Jazeera. Much of the concern about this issue centres on the fact that there is little scrutiny of foreign television for hate content, nor is there a requirement that these stations monitor and keep tapes in order that such scrutiny can take place.
3 Civil federal hate speech jurisdictions need to be consolidated. Hate by telephone and the internet comes under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. TV and Radio comes under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. Hate by post comes under the authority of the Canada Post Corporation. Imported hate comes under the jurisdiction of Revenue Canada.
"Equality Now: The Report of the Special Committee on Visible Minorities in Canadian Society" House of Commons (March 1994) recommended, in recommendation 39, that Justice Canada prepare amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act to give the Canadian Human Rights Commission jurisdiction to hear complaints dealing with the import and export of hate propaganda and its dissemination through the mails and on radio television and cable services. The report stated:
"Canadians will be better served if there is one institution that has responsibility for investigating the dissemination of hate propaganda. The most appropriate place for such authority is in the Canadian Human Rights Commission which is already sensitive to and experienced with the issues of racism and racial discrimination."
4 No one definition of hate crimes exist in Canada, although a number of major metropolitan police forces have moved towards the setting up of hate crime units and the collection of hate crime statistics. Sometimes, the criteria are over-broad and the statistics provided do not specify details within the categories of ethnicity, nationality, race or religion. In some places there is at present no official classification process for delineating hate crimes when reporting harassment, vandalism, assault or threats against specific minority groups. In one jurisdiction, for example, the reason given for the absence of a classification system for such hate crimes is the surprising claim that they have no such problems in their area.
The collection of official hate crime statistics would not only help determine resource requirements, but would also help to understand which groups are being targeted most often, and how best to deal with them in our communities. In addition, better information would help in evaluating the efficacy of both justice system and community-based responses. That is why the federal government needs to create a national hate crime data collection strategy.
5 All the major police forces in Canada need dedicated hate crimes units. Prosecution for the Criminal Code offence requires the consent of the Attorney General. Private prosecutions are impossible. Unless police forces have dedicated units, they are unlikely either to acquire the evidence or to be sensitive to the nature of the problem.
6 Two of the four Criminal Code defenses to the offence of wilful promotion of hatred are unnecessary and should be removed. These relate to truth. An accused can be acquitted under Canadian law if either the person "establishes that the statements communicated were true" or "if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he [the accused] believed them to be true".
The Supreme Court of Canada held that the offence of hate propaganda in the Criminal Code was constitutional and that the defence of truth was not necessary for the offence to remain constitutional. Mr. Justice Dickson said:
"I find it difficult to accept that circumstances exist where factually accurate statements can be used for no other purpose than to stir up hatred against a social or religious group. It would seem to follow that there is no reason why the individual who intentionally employs such statements to achieve harmful ends must, under the Charter, be protected from criminal censure." [R. v. Keegstra (1991) 61 C.C.C.(3d) 1]
7 The Criminal Code offence needs an amendment to make clear that the offence encompasses Holocaust denial. The majority in the Zundel case at the Supreme Court of Canada, in the course of striking down the provision under which Ernst Zundel was convicted for wilfully and knowingly spreading false news causing public injury, referred to the German offence of Holocaust denial and said that it was "a much more finely tailored provision [than the Canadian Code false news provision] to which different considerations might well apply." [R. v. Zundel (1992) 2 S.C.R. 731]
8 Sentencing for hate crimes is overly light and does not provide an effective deterrent to the crime. Ernst Zundel was sentenced to a fifteen month jail term after his first conviction and to a nine month jail term after a new trial and his second conviction. However, he served neither term, because of his successes on appeal.
Jim Keegstra was sentenced to a fine of $5,000 after his first conviction and to a fine of $3000 after a new trial and his second conviction. The prosecution appealed the sentence after the second trial because they considered the punishment derisory.
The Alberta Court of Appeal, in its fourth judgment on the side of Keegstra, rejected the prosecution appeal and upheld the sentence. The only modification was the addition of a one year suspended sentence plus two hundred hours of community service.
Donald Clarke Andrews and Robert Wayne Smith, both convicted of willful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group [i.e. under s. 319(2)], were sentenced to one year and seven months in prison, respectively. On appeal, the sentences were reduced to three months for Andrews and one month for Smith. John Ross Taylor was sentenced to one year in jail, served his jail term, and repeated his behaviour. He was sentenced to a second one-year jail term.
In 1995, the Canadian Parliament passed legislation that provides sentencing guidelines for judges [1995 Statutes of Canada, chapter 22 adding section 718.2 to the Criminal Code]. One of those guidelines is that racial hatred as a motivation to a crime is to be considered an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes. So, a crime of violence motivated by racial hatred is more likely to receive a substantial sentence now that the law has passed. However, the problem remains of imposing substantial sentences for hate speech offenses alone.
9 Racist organizations are not prohibited in Canada. That failure puts Canada in plain violation of Article 4(b) of the relevant UN Convention. The Supreme Court of Canada, in the case of Suresh, held that the provision in the Immigration Act, which allows for deportation based on membership in a terrorist organization, is constitutional. The implication of the judgment is that a prohibition against racist groups would also be constitutional. [Suresh v. M.C.I., Neutral citation 2002 SCC 1]
10 Most provincial human rights codes do not prohibit the publication of hate speech. Saskatchewan is a notable exception. The Saskatchewan Human Rights Code provides [section 14(1)]:
No person shall publish or display, or cause or permit to be published or displayed, on any lands or premises or in a newspaper, through a television or radio broadcasting station or any other broadcasting device, or in any printed matter or publication or by means of any other medium that the person owns, controls, distributes or sells, any representation, including any notice, sign, symbol, emblem, article, statement or other representation:
(b) that exposes or tends to expose to hatred, ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of any person or class of persons on the basis of a prohibited ground. All the provincial human rights codes should have provision prohibiting the publication of hate material.
The federal law on the scope of hate speech legislation needs expansion. The Saskatchewan prohibition on publication of incitement to hatred covers these prohibited grounds: religion, creed, marital status, family status, sex, sexual orientation, disability, age, colour, ancestry, nationality, place of origin, race or perceived race, and receipt of public assistance. [Section 2(1)(m.01)]. Federal law should have a similar scope, either through expansion of its lists or through a generic categorization like that found in the equality guarantee in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms [section 15].
Based on the oral presentation to the Rapporteur in Montreal on September 17, 2003 by Yoni Petel, Commmunity Outreach Coordinator, B’nai Brith Quebec Region
Since the outbreak of renewed violence in Israel in the fall of 2000, hostilities relating to the conflict have spilled over into Canada and nowhere have the effects of this been more pronounced than on our university campuses. Jewish students on campuses across the country have found themselves increasingly under attack by those who identify them – sometimes simply on the basis of their religion - with Israel and, therefore, Israeli policy. This has had the effect of creating a tense, often hostile atmosphere on campus and has poisoned the working environment there. Instead of a place with “safe space” for academic and professional pursuits, our universities have become pockets of repression and self-censorship for Jewish members of the academic community. This has been the result of both blatant, explicitly antisemitic events and actions, as well as anti-Zionist campaigns which are carried out in such a way as to infringe on the boundaries which are normally set for such activities, creating an environment hostile to anyone who holds a dissenting opinion.
The dissemination of anti-Israel views through inappropriate channels has had a profound effect on the campus climate. When anti-Israel views are presented in the context of legitimate activism or legitimate criticism of Israeli policies, such expressions are acceptable. However, when agencies, publications and/or individuals that officially represent a university, and are supposed to foster an open environment for the exchange of ideas, espouse an anti-Israel viewpoint, they do so to the detriment of such open dialogue. The result is that the students, and other members of the academic community, get the impression that these views somehow represent the views of the university and therefore that their own dissenting views must be hidden in the interest of succeeding in their academic careers. Examples of inappropriate anti-Israel expressions include:
All these factors combine to deny many Jewish students on campus the “safe space” which is necessary in order for them to be able to participate fully and equally in their academic and other activities, leading them to self-censor their written work and oral interventions, for fear of being penalized for their views.
There have been many incidents of graffiti on campuses, particularly in public washrooms, where swastikas have been equated to the Star of David, a symbol of the Jewish people and religion. Some of these incidents include:
The websites of student clubs and articles in magazines have all been problem areas:
This latter example is telling since it illustrates current thinking that impacts on how racism is expressed in Canada today. It would never be suggested that any Muslim student who did not explicitly go out of his way to publicly condemn the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre was somehow complicit in them. Why then has it become acceptable in the academic community to air these types of opinions? More importantly, this type of statement by a professor at a university has the potential to profoundly and negatively affect his Jewish students, instilling in them a fear to openly express their political or other beliefs. It puts pressure on them to publicly assume a position on an external conflict which they may not agree with and which has nothing to do with the course in which they are enrolled.
This same professor, in an email conversation which ensued in light of this incident, wrote that his sole concern was to “help the Palestinians” and he went on: “I am not interested in the truth, or justice, or understanding, or anything else, except so far as it serves that purpose…. If an effective strategy means that some truths about the Jews don’t come to light, I don’t care. If an effective strategy means encouraging reasonable anti-Semitism, or reasonable hostility to Jews, I also don’t care. If it means encouraging vicious racist anti-Semitism, or the destruction of the State of Israel, I still don’t care.”
At McGill University in Montreal, the Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights organization (SPHR) invited a lecturer by the name of Israel Shamir, known to have made antisemitic comments in the past. For example:
(www.freedomsite.org/pipermail/fs_discussion/2001_January/001364.html). He
also referred to “Shoah businessmen, pumping the cash out of Germany”; discussed the “Elders of Zion” as if they really existed; and argued that “the word ‘Jew’ has no meaning.”
Other antisemitic canards have been expressed or given prominence by faculty members. For example:
Those professors who do not engage in such activity, or who espouse a more even-handed approach to the Middle-East conflict are pressured to do so. For example:
This sort of legitimization of antisemitism as an acceptable response to Israeli policy, or to other world events, has poisoned the environment on our campuses and has led to a resurgence of antisemitic incidents within that environment. There are many examples to illustrate this point:
It is clear that these incidents were the result, at least in part, of the growing acceptance of antisemitism within the campus environment as a response to frustrations over the situation in the Middle East. Even Unions operating on campus have entered the fray in terms of anti-Israel activity. In order to prevent continued incidents of antisemitic harassment, vandalism and violence, often in the guise of anti-Zionism, the underlying trend towards the resurgence and legitimization of antisemitic views must be stemmed. For this to take place, there has to be recognition that antisemitism is being incubated on campus today and that its expression is a form of racism that falls under the Rapporteur’s mandate and requires his attention.
Based on the oral presentation to the Rapporteur in Ottawa on September 16, 2003 by Rubin Friedman, Lead Trainer in the League’s Taking Action Against Hate program
Hatred has been with us for a very long time. Hatred is a process whereby our negative feelings of fear, resentment and anger are transformed into a rationale for harassing, threatening and targeting others. It is a process that can overwhelm us precisely at the moment we feel most victimized. As Adolf Hitler noted in 1922, while violent revolutions come about because of social injustice, they are fueled by hatred of a specific group or class.
The potential strength of hatred can be seen in each of us. Most of us have inside us a grievance against someone or something, which we do not wish to let go of. When we hear moral strictures, such as “Thou Shalt Not Kill”, we say to ourselves, “Yes obviously, most of the time, but maybe not in this particular case.” Most of us feel we know of an exception to the rule of “loving our neighbours.” Because almost every human keeps their own pet grievance and nurtures it, perhaps like a wild dog on a chain in the backyard, we are open to the appeal of hatred.
We have often underestimated the appeal of hatred and misjudged its seriousness. We have dismissed hate propaganda as so outlandish that no one could possibly believe it. And after all, hate propaganda is just words and can always be countered by rational discourse in a free society, so the usual response goes.
Since September 11, 2001, it should have become obvious that we are today confronted with an extreme hatred that seeks to eliminate its enemies from the world. Yet instead of dealing with the nature of this hatred, many have tried to rationalize it. Their minds refuse to recognize that some in the world wish their complete destruction on purely ideological grounds, just because of who they are.
We have seen this reluctance to recognize hatred before. Many in the world, Jews included, could not believe that Hitler and the Nazis meant what they said when they spoke of their intentions to exterminate the Jewish people.
What did Stalin mean when he encouraged his followers to “root out” the Kulaks as well as the decadent bourgeoisie and rootless cosmopolitans? How did the world understand him when he claimed to be in a fight to the death with these forces? Did those with communist ideals understand this to mean the murder of countless millions?
Is it not clear now that many of those shouting “Death to America” in the streets of the Middle East were not being metaphorical, were not just momentarily upset but really meant what they said?
In the days leading up to the Second World War, people here in North America could at least pretend to themselves that hatred was something happening in far off places and did not affect them. Isolationism was still possible as an idea.
As recently as the 1970’s and 1980’s, we could feel we were well out of the killing fields in Cambodia, the religious strife in Northern Ireland, the Arab-Israeli conflict, the ethnic battles in countries ranging from Spain to Cyprus to Africa. Millions have died in these conflicts and the world has stood by, paralyzed by the Cold War or by simple fear.
Yet those days are truly gone. Marshall McLuhan’s Global Village is here with a vengeance. We should now understand that this phrase does not mean we get to watch exotic people on television doing strange dances in far-off lands. It means that we exist partly in Afghanistan and Afghanistan is partly here. Americans are in Kabul, but terrorist assassins and their political influence are here too. The internet and satellite television reach directly into our homes and every conflict has the potential of spilling over into our streets.
Remember the bombing of Air India flight 182 off the coast of Ireland on June 24, 1985? This was an act of terrorism planned and initiated on Canadian soil and killing 329 people, most Canadian citizens. Proportionately, as many people died in this terrorist act as in the September 11, 2001, attack on the United States. Yet, it has never had a similar impact on other Canadians because it was seen as part of a “foreign” struggle and the actual deaths did not occur in Canada. Indeed, the government of the day first expressed its condolences to the government of India before it realized most of the dead were Canadians.
In the early 1980’s, terrorist attacks on Turkish targets in Canada had a serious impact on Canadians. One RCMP officer was killed and hundreds of thousands of commuters were inconvenienced in these attacks. Potentially, many Canadian lives were placed at risk. Such terrorist acts have a tendency to spread their effects. Yet most Canadians seemed to view these incidents like traffic accidents: terrible things but not likely to happen to them.
Compare our actions in these cases with how we reacted when the FLQ carried out its terrorist kidnappings in 1970, or during the various stand-offs with Aboriginals at Oka and Gustaffson Lake. In these cases we made full use of police and military fire power. In the others, we too easily believed that we are unaffected by attacks on people based on “overseas” events. In Canada over the last few years, mosques, Hindu temples and synagogues have been vandalized and fire bombed. Again, some Canadians seem to take comfort in the notion that such attacks are not directed at them, rather than seeing these acts as attacks against all of us.
While Canadians and their governments have dealt with these attacks as if they were isolated and disconnected, they are in fact part of a truly global phenomenon. The alleged Fenian assassination of Thomas D’arcy McGee in Ottawa in 1868 shows that this type of situation is not new. What has changed is the variety of conflicts represented in Canada and the conscious attempt by some to use modern technology to foster violence here. This is the world we are in. We cannot retreat to our northern wilderness and, in our usual self-deprecating way, assume no one would think of doing such things in Canada. At the same time, suspicion is also spreading affecting the attitudes of citizens toward each other, based on religion and national origin.
Nor is this type of threat or suspicion likely to disappear. Disparities between rich and poor have also widened, not only here in North America but everywhere. The motives for anger, envy, resentment and fear have multiplied. Around the world, there are very real grievances and threats that have not been addressed. Indeed, one may wonder why Canada has not yet suffered a terrorist attack by angered and embittered Aboriginals. Even so, there are people in Canada who come from most places in the world where there is grievance and anger and often bring their unresolved conflicts with them. With the internet and world wide media, they are constantly exposed to a reopening of their emotional and psychological wounds.
What is even more disturbing is that the capacity of any individual to wreak harm has grown exponentially. Anyone can learn to make chemical and biological weapons, even nuclear bombs. Certainly pipe bombs and car bombs are within everyone’s reach, and just one individual can blow up buildings and people, as is seen on an ongoing basis in the terrorist attacks directed against Israel. It took a very small group of dedicated terrorists to blow up the Federal building in Oklahoma City. People may recall a number of subsequent copycat incidents in Canada where pipe bombs were used to target public buildings. Terrorist attacks on Tokyo’s subways using Sarin gas have already taken place. The fear and panic caused by the Anthrax threat campaign following September 11, 2001 shows how even a small number of individuals can have a country-wide impact. These are not just possibilities anymore. They are real threats.
Yet to give in to fear and to react by expressing hatred against whole groups in our society just to relieve our tension, will erode our own values. In World War II, our fear and anxiety about a Japanese invasion led to the unjust and forced internment of thousands of Japanese Canadians. We are facing serious moral challenges and will need our ethical standards and barometers to be precise and reliable. In these circumstances, it is crucial for all of us to understand hatred and how it works, to listen for its insidious drumbeat even in ourselves, and to be ready to stop it before it divides our society from the inside or destroys it from the outside. If we believe in peace, we have no choice but to fight this threat to us as human beings in a civil society.
One of the most dangerous forms of hatred is antipathy to Jews, or as we call ourselves, “am Yisroel”, the people Israel. The fear and loathing of the people Israel has existed in various forms over the centuries and continues to evolve. The term “anti-Semitism” was not invented until 1879 by the German ideologue, Wilhelm Marr. It was part of what he thought of as a new “more modern” form of opposition to Jews, based on the then new sciences of race and anthropology. It sounded less harsh and antiquated than the then current terms, “Judenhasse” and “Judenfeint”, respectively “Jew hatred” and “opposition to Jews”.
Since the end of WWII, “anti-Semite” is no longer a term to be borne with pride and most people are careful to avoid identifying themselves with it. Now it is too much connected to the Holocaust, to genocide and to death camps. Yet the attitude of antipathy to Jews has persisted and received wide support by simply finding other more polite and acceptable terms under which to disguise itself, including Holocaust denial, “revisionism”, anti-Zionism, etc.
The Soviet tactic of using the term “Zionist” to mean Jew has been highly successful as reflected in the anti-Zionist purges in the former Soviet empire, which basically targeted Jews. The Soviet ambassador’s interventions in the 1975 UN debate on Zionism clearly shows the deliberate confusion of Zionism with Judaism when he refers to its “chosen people” ideology, obviously a tenet of Judaism, not Zionism.
The left wing, internationally, has continued to use the term anti-Zionism in this way. Communist and left-wing antipathy to Jews can be found in Karl Marx’s “On the Jewish Question”, where his wording seems to anticipate the Nazis. Arab and Muslim nationalists have found it to be a handy label under which to hide the promotion of hatred against Jews as well, as seen in the widespread dissemination of anti-Jewish propaganda that is scarcely indistinguishable from the anti-Israel variety. Canada is, of course, affected by this shift in terminology so that a defender of Nazi war criminals was able to say that suspected war criminals in Canada were being persecuted for killing a few “Zionists”.
Why does the fear and loathing of Jews continue to have such power and influence even today? First, Jews are stereotyped figures in the traditions of two other major religions, Christianity and Islam. While Jewish prophets and other biblical figures are revered, the people themselves are often described as having rejected the truth, having killed Jesus, having tried to destroy Muhammad, etc. The negative attitudes toward Jews have spread wherever these two religions have spread. It is true that some positive attitudes towards Jews have also spread, but over time, these have not prevailed, while the negative attitudes have led to exclusion, discrimination, violence, pogroms and eventually, genocide. There are today over one and one half billion Muslims in the World, over one and three quarter billion Christians and between 12 and 14 million Jews.
The United Nations has also lent itself to the spread of anti-Jewish attitudes through its high profile biased treatment of Israel. This affects the way Jews are seen around the world, even where there are no Muslims or Christians. In Canada, several antisemitic incidents followed directly the preliminary - and unfounded - UN claims of a massacre at Jenin in April 2002. These preliminary comments of UN spokespersons, along with those of Canadian MP’s such as Svend Robinson, were reported as accusing Israel of mass murder. In the weeks that followed, Holocaust survivors and children reported being accused of murder by passersby who became aware they were Jewish.
Extremist racist and white supremacist groups are also reorganizing in British Columbia and Southern Ontario. Hatred of Jews is one of their primary themes, as well as bias against blacks and other peoples of colour. Donna Upson, a candidate for mayor in Ottawa, has made no secret of her antisemitic and racist views, and hopes to attract more people to her beliefs.
In Canada, today, subtle prejudice against Jews also continues. Many Canadians, Jewish Canadians included, assume Jews are wealthy and educated. In fact, latest studies show that exactly the same proportion of Jews live under the poverty line as in the general population. Where Jews have achieved success, their Jewishness sometimes becomes problematic to others. Even distinguished journalists used Izzy Asper’s Jewishness to raise questions about his capacity for objective judgment when he became owner of a newspaper chain and a television network. Concerns were expressed about Victor Rabinovitch, President of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, when he suggested that a Canadian Arab art display be delayed to give it more context. At least one reporter did not fully report blatantly antisemitic comments against Mr. Rabinovitch because, “they distracted from the issue” and, in any case, Arab anger and jealousy over “Jewish power and influence” were “natural”.
It is indisputable that Canadians as a whole live in an enviable society where minority communities are enhanced by protections built into the Criminal Code and human rights legislation. The Saskatchewan Crown Prosecutor started criminal proceedings against David Ahenakew, former Chief of the Assembly of First Nations for his hateful diatribe against the Jews. After a profanity-laced speech, Ahenakew had given an interview to a Saskatoon Star Phoenix reporter in which he said Adolf Hitler "fried six million Jews" to ensure they did not take over Europe and other such obscenities. The Canadian public and media reacted with shock and outrage to the incident. This showed that Canadians as a whole do not lightly tolerate excesses of this kind.
The considerable encouragement given to fostering multiculturalism by the government has certainly contributed to strengthening society to the extent that such egregious incidents do not pass unanswered, but the challenges facing a multicultural society are still formidable. The 2001 census indicates that Canada is becoming increasingly diverse, with immigrants making up almost one fifth (18.4⁒) of the population. In Toronto alone, 44⁒ of the population was born abroad, indicating a broad ethnic mix that brings a vast pool of talent and potential to our shores.
However, some newcomers may import ingrained stereotypes of other ethnic or religious groups, or tensions relating to homeland conflicts. These negative feelings may be expressed in ways that are incompatible with Canadian values. The League’s 2002 Audit has documented cases where such factors have come into play.
Institutionalized acceptance of resentment against Jews is much more difficult to deal with. It often occurs around causes, which may have some justification in and of themselves, but it reveals the underlying prejudices, stereotypes and assumptions that any hate propagandist can appeal to. Such attempts to bring hatred of Jews into other causes includes attempts to link Jews negatively to international banking, abortion, “multinationals”, aboriginal rights, alternative health and a host of other causes, including ‘anti-Americanism”.
This latter is a particularly potent threat. When Carolyn Parrish, a Canadian Member of Parliament said, “I hate those bastards” about the Americans, there was an immediate danger signal for Canadian Jews that that hatred could easily spread to them. Some form of opposition to Americans is a central part of the historical traditions in Canada and has a potentially wide appeal.
Those who hate usually have an advantage because they have very specific targets to attack and very specific objectives to achieve. Many people of good will simply have a vague wish to live in peace and to let others do the same. We need a new approach if we wish to make this latter desire a reality. Good people of the world must unite and take back the world from those who would destroy it. To do this, we have first to learn to recognize the workings of hatred around us and its connections to fears, biases and prejudices not only in ourselves, but also in others. We must recognize it in order to resist it and to combat it.
In this effort, every individual Canadian can lend a hand by learning how to hear and see bias, prejudice and hatred and how to react to them. Apart from the recommendations made above of specific legal, legislative and human rights code amendments, and the government action that is needed, we all bear a responsibility not to let racist and hate promoting statements simply pass unchallenged.
We need to explore other ways of dealing with individual senses of injustice, anger, outrage, fear and resentment. For this purpose, there needs to be integrated into every institution a forum or channel through which such issues can be discussed and where the right kinds of skills can be learned. In Canada, this means the development of materials and resources for use in community, in educational institutions, in policing and other security services, as well as in the workplace.
As part of that effort, B’nai Brith League for Human Rights with support from Trillium Foundation, the Department of Canadian Heritage and other local partners, has developed a manual and workshop that have now been delivered across Canada. Ongoing partnerships have been formed with the University of Winnipeg and other organizations such as the Ottawa Police Services, to continue to offer basic training on hatred and how to deal with it. We need provincial governments, business and individual funders to get more involved. So far, over 3,000 individuals have been trained in the Taking Action Against Hate program, including educators, police, high school students, government workers and many, many vulnerable minority groups. The League has combined this type of training with intercultural outreach and dialogue, such as its Black Jewish Dialogue and Women’s Interfaith Dialogue, to present a model for fighting racism in this country and increasing inter-group understanding and respect.
Index to Briefs | B’nai Brith Canada