Institute Logo

From Immigration To Integration

The Canadian Jewish Experience:
A Millennium Edition

Endnotes

Fighting for Rights

5. Ensuring Equality: The Role of the Community
  1. The author would like to thank Florence Weinstock, Robert Blitt, and Louise James for research support on this project.
  2. For Canadian analysis, see the essays collected in Alan Davies, ed., Antisemitism in Canada: History and Interpretation (Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1992); Michael Brown, Jew or Juif? Jews, French Canadians and Anglo-Canadians, 1759-1914 (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1986); and Robert J. Brym, William Shaffir, and Morton Weinfeld, eds., The Jews In Canada (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1993), Part 2. For analysis of the treatment of Jews under British law, see Jonathan A. Bush, “You’re gonna miss me when I’m gone: Early modern common law discourse and the case of the Jews,” Wisconsin Law Review 1225 (1993), Davina Cooper and Didi Herman, “Jews and other uncertainties: Race, faith and English law” Legal Studies 19 (1999): 339; and Israel Abrahans and S. Levy, eds., Essay and Speech on Jewish Disabilities by Lord Macaulay (Edinburgh: Ballantyne, Hanson, 1910). More general studies include Bryan Cheyette, Constructions of “The Jew” in English Literature and Society: Racial Representations, 1875-1945 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992) and G.K. Anderson, The Legend of the Wandering Jew (Providence: Brown University Press, 1965).
  3. Irving Abella and Harold Troper, None is Too Many (Toronto: Lester & Orpen Dennys, 1982).
  4. Bruce P. Elman, “The constitutionalization of multiculturalism in Canada: The Jewish legal role,” in Howard Adelman and John H. Simpson, eds., Multiculturalism, Jews, and Identities in Canada (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1996), chapter 3.
  5. Proceedings of the Special Committee of the Senate of Canada on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 1950. Henceforth: Senate Committee, 1950.
  6. The participation by the Canadian Jewish community leadership in this Senate committee’s hearings to this extent was unusual at the time. The only other ethnic group represented before the committee was the National Japanese Canadian Citizens’ Association. While this organization made reference to the general themes of human rights, equal citizenship, and the need for constitutional protections in Canada, its primary concern was to denounce the discriminatory action taken against the Japanese by the Canadian government during World War II. The reaction of the Senators was defensive. Senate Committee, 1950, supra, note 4, No. 8, 269. In later parliamentary hearings on the question of rights protection, many ethnic groups have participated.
  7. Senate Committee, 1950, supra, note 4, No. 3., 69ff.
  8. Senate Committee, 1950, supra, note 4, No. 3., 74. The question was posed by Senator Kinley.
  9. Senate Committee, 1950, supra, note 4, No. 3., 76.
  10. Senate Committee, 1950, supra, note 4, No. 2, 58.
  11. Senate Committee, 1950, supra, note 4, No. 7, 219.
  12. For a detailed study of this litigation, see James W. St. G. Walker, “Race,” Rights and the Law in the Supreme Court of Canada: Historical Case Studies (Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1997), chapter 4.
  13. [1951] S.C.R. 64.
  14. See, for example, Irving Abella, A Coat of Many Colours (Toronto: Lester & Orpen Dennys, 1990), 213ff and Stuart E. Rosenberg, The Jewish Community in Canada, A History, volume I, (Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, 1970), 193 ff.
  15. Report to the Minister of Justice of the Special Committee on Hate Propaganda in Canada, M. Cohen, chair (Ottawa: Queen’s Printer, 1966). See also, Lorraine E. Weinrib, “Hate promotion in a free and democratic society: R. v. Keegstra,” McGill Law Journal 36 (1991): 1416 and Franklin Bialystok, Delayed Impact: The Holocaust and the Canadian Jewish Community (Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2000), 109-19.
  16. B’nai Brith Canada, “The use of ‘get’ as a bargaining tool in Jewish divorce proceedings,” Toronto, March 1987.
  17. John Syrtash, Religion and Culture in Canadian Family Law (Toronto: Butterworths, 1992), chapter 3.
  18. R. v. Finta, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 701.
  19. Special Joint Committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons on the Constitution of Canada, 1980-81, Proceedings, 7:80ff. I am indebted to Professor Joseph Magnet for providing me with a copy of the Canadian Jewish Congress’s “Submission to the Select Committee on the Constitution of Canada,” November 1980. Professor Magnet served as special advisor to the committee.
  20. R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295. See also Lorraine E. Weinrib, “The religion clauses: Reading the lesson,” Supreme Court Law Review 8 (1986): 506 and “’Do justice to us!’: Jews and the Constitution of Canada” in Michael Brown, ed., Not Written in Stone: Jews, Constitutions and Constitutionalism in Canada, forthcoming.
  21. In “From stereotype to scapegoat: Anti-Jewish sentiment in French Canada from Confederation to World War I” in Antisemitism in Canada, supra note 2, 57, Professor Michael Brown suggests that early, local-business closing laws were designed to harass Jews and thus render Quebec inhospitable to their continued settlement.
  22. Edwards Books and Art Limited v. the Queen, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 713.
  23. R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697.
  24. Ross v. New Brunswick School District No. 15, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 825.
  25. R. v. Zundel, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 731.
  26. Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 892.
  27. Zylberberg v. Sudbury Board of Education (1988), 52 D.L.R. (4th) 577 (Ont. C.A.) and Re Corporation of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and Minister of Education (1990), 71 O.R. (2d) 341 (Ont. C.A.)
  28. Adler v. Ontario, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 609.
  29. The decision can be found at: http://www.pch.gc.ca/ddp-hrd/english/iccpr/ ccprwaldman.htm.
  30. Factum of Canadian Jewish Congress, prepared by Lyle S.R. Kanee, submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada in Vriend v. Alberta Vriend v. Alberta, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493.
  31. Liebmann v. Canada (Minister of Defence) [1998], 56 C.R.R. (2d) 152.
  32. Henry F. Srebrnik, “Multiculturalism and the politics of ethnicity: Jews and the Charlottetown Accord” in Adelman and Simpson, Multiculturalism, Jews, and Identities in Canada, supra note 4, chapter 4, 96.
  33. Robert McKenzie, Toronto Star, January 12, 2001.

6. The Struggle for Justice: Nazi War Criminals in Canada
  1. This analysis highlights the core elements in the Jewish community’s agenda on this issue and reflects, specifically, the approach taken in B’nai Brith Canada’s legal and legislative initiatives.
  2. Howard Margolian, Unauthorized Entry: The Truth about War Criminals in Canada, 1946-1956 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2000).
  3. David Matas with Susan Charendoff, Justice Delayed: Nazi War Criminals in Canada (Toronto: Summerhill Press, 1987), 77 and 78.
  4. Ibid., 68.
  5. David Matas, Bringing Nazi War Criminals in Canada to Justice (Toronto: League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada, 1985).
  6. Matas, Justice Delayed, page 154.
  7. Commission of Inquiry on War Criminals, Report, December 30, 1986, Supply and Services Canada, Part I: Public, 261.
  8. Margolian, Unauthorized Entry, 134.
  9. Security Council Resolution 827.
  10. Security Council Resolution 955.
  11. R. v. Finta [1994] 1 S.C.R. 701.
  12. Section 14(3).
  13. Section 14.
  14. Section 269.1(3).
  15. Now Statutes of Canada, chapter E-23.01; 1999 Statutes of Canada, chapter 18.
  16. Bill C-16.
  17. Section 27(2)(i).
  18. Immigration Act sections 46.01(1)(e)(ii) and 19(1)(j).
  19. United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees Article 1F(a); Immigration Act Schedule.
  20. Immigration Act section 49(1)(c)(i).
  21. Regulation 2, “member of the post determination refugee claimants in Canada class” (a)(vi).
  22. Section 49(1)(e).
  23. Canadian Jewish News, January 14, 1999.
  24. Tobiass v. M.C.I. 1997 3 S.C.R. 391, paragraph 81.

7. Between Prejudice and Acceptance: A Post-War Case Study
  1. Education Act of 1867.
  2. Commission royale d’enquête sur l’enseignement dans la province de Québec, Rapport, Gouvernement de Québec, 1963.
  3. Bill 101, Charte de la langue française, 1977.
  4. See Tilya Gallay Helfield, “The Jews of Canada : Quebec,” Viewpoints 7:3 & 4 (1973): 41.
  5. Ernest Renan (1823-1892), historian and philosopher, has exercised a strong influence on the development of concepts such as people and laïcité.
  6. Webster New World Dictionary (1980).
  7. Laïcité et religions: Perspective nouvelle pour l’école québécoise, Rapport du Groupe de travail sur la place de la religion â l’école, Gouvernement du Québec, Ministère de l’Education, March 1999.
  8. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, first part of the Canadian Constitution, 1982.
  9. Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, 1975, in Lois réfondues du Québéc, Chapter C-12.
  10. Commissions des droits de la personne du Québec, 1995, Le pluralisme religieux : un défi d’éthique sociale, 12-13.
  11. Université du Québéc à Montréal, Conseil d’administration, Politique 28, Politiques sur les relations interethniques, October 17, 1995.
  12. Université du Québéc à Montréal, Ecole des sciences de la gestion, Guide d’inscription, Winter 2000, 26.
  13. Protocole entre Torah and Vocational Institute of Montreal et Université du Québéc à Montréal, April 8, 1999.
  14. Julien Bauer, “Entente entre l’UQUAM et le Torah Vocational Institute: Les groupes minoritaires doivent trouver leur place a l’université,” Le Devoir, March 2, 2000.
  15. Alfred Dubuc, “L’UQAM accorde aux Lubavitcher ce qu’on a refusé naguère aux Jésuites: Par une voie détournée, l’Institut TAV s’oriente vers l’acquisition progressive d’un statut d’université,” Le Devoir, March 2, 2000.
  16. SPUQ-Info, Bulletin de liaison du Syndicat des professeurs et professeurs de l’Université du Quécéc à Montréal, no. 208, February 2000.
  17. Adler V. Ontario, Supreme Court of Canada, November 21, 1996, 2.

[ Table of Contents ] [ Endnotes 1 - 4 ] [ Endnotes 8 & 9 ] [ Endnotes 10 - 13 ] [ Endnotes 14 & 15 ]