HUAC North and its backers

The other day I posted a brief update about the goings-on of a bizarre all-party grouping known as the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Anti-Semitism. Maybe it's time to dig into the operations and background of this outfit in a little more depth.

The CPCCA is supposed to be conducting an "inquiry" into anti-Semitism in Canada. But as I noted in an earlier post, the chair, Liberal MP Mario Silva, let slip a telling comment this past week: those denying the threat of "anti-Semitism" on Canadian university campuses, he said, are "downplaying" it; those hyping this alleged threat and sounding the appropriate sirens are being "frank."

Among the less-than-frank, in Silva's estimation, would be people like Fred Lowy, former president of Concordia:

By and large, Canadian campuses are safe and are not hotbeds of antisemitism of any kind.

And Patrick Monahan, Provost of York University:

The difficulty is that there is a narrative (of antisemitism) that gets picked up by others who never set foot on the campus here, but purport to be experts on the atmosphere on our campuses. It is unfair to the students, because it sows fear, it sows division. It fans flames of more conflict. We hope that your report and work of your committee will not in anyway contribute further to that.

This is definitely not what Silva wanted to hear. He has been parti pris on the issue from day one. Hence his implicit smear of the witnesses: that they were being dishonest.

The hearings, with hand-picked guests, have been ludicrously one-sided. One organization that did not receive an invitation, the Seriously Free Speech Committee*, has protested:

We have been in contact with more than a dozen organisations and individual academics that submitted briefs expressing concern over the process and mandate of the Coalition and it’s potential impact on freedom of expression in Canada. None had received an invitation to testify nor notification about the hearings.

Also troubling is that the Coalition has not revealed its funding sources despite a promise that it “will voluntarily disclose all sources of funding.” As the Coalition is not an official parliamentary body, it would be unethical for individual MPs to use their constituency or party resources to support its “inquiry”.

It appears that the Coalition is trying to have it both ways, implying that it is an official parliamentary committee by referring to itself as a “committee” (as quoted above) and using parliamentary facilities but avoiding the transparency and openness required of an actual parliamentary body.

The Coalition’s actions force us to conclude that its process is closed to anyone who questions its preordained recommendation of expanding the definition of anti-Semitism to include criticism of the State of Israel, such as calls for a boycott or political discussions of Israeli apartheid, thus moving toward criminalising dissent in this country. In addition, The Seriously Free Speech Committee infers that the Coalition is not genuinely concerned with determining the state of antisemitism, racism and human rights in Canada. Clearly, the operation of the Coalition is designed to shield Israel from criticism and to silence Canadians who are critical of Israel’s illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories and Israel’s recent war crimes in Gaza, as documented by the Goldstone Report to the UN.

Independent Jewish Voices of Canada, another group excluded from the hearings, has mounted a petition against the process.

There has never been a parliamentary group quite like this one, in fact, self-selected and conducting a farcical "inquiry" with the evident intent of chilling debate about Israel on Canadian university campuses and elsewhere. Now, to take up the Seriously Free Speech Committee's question: how is it being funded?

I have said before, in response to those who mutter darkly about alleged conspiratorial thinking, that everything about CPCCA is out in the open. Not entirely, as it turns out. Here is what they have to say about financing:

The CPCCA is not affiliated with the Government of Canada, any NGO, or any advocacy group. It is associated with the Inter-parliamentary Coalition toCombat Antisemitism, the international steering committee which organized the conference in London in 2009.

Who is paying for/supporting the Inquiry?

. The CPCCA is independent of the Government of Canada, and NGOs or Jewish Community Organizations.

. Funding will only be accepted for the inquiry and conference if it will not compromise the terms of reference and the mandate of the CPCCA.

. We will voluntarily disclose all sources of funding.

That ain't necessarily so. I am reliably informed that a number of people have written to the CPCCA to ask where its funding is coming from. I have written myself, although very recently. Replies are still awaited.

Never mind: follow me.

Let's begin with Monica Kugelmass, the CPCCA's Director and an assistant to Liberal MP Irwin Cotler, who is an "ex officio" member of the CPCCA.

From her bio: "Monica is the first Canadian Legacy Heritage Fellow, and is working as a Middle East policy advisor at the office of the Honorable Irwin Cotler MP, official opposition critic for Human Rights."

What is the Legacy Heritage Fund, of which she is a Fellow? Well, it's an organization that promotes "Israel awareness" with generous grants. And that connection with Israel is not without its politics:

JobKatif, a grassroots organization developed by Rev Yosef Tzvi Rimon of Gush Etzion, West Bank, is dedicated to rebuilding the lives and restoring normalcy and a sense of dignity to displaced settlers.

--

Funding for JobKatif’s projects comes mainly from American Jews. But there has been an outpouring of support from all over the world, including gifts from Israel, Europe and Australia, notes Gur.

Recently, the Susan Wexner Fund of the Legacy Heritage Fund offered $600,000 to JobKatif if it could get matching donations from individuals or foundations.

What is the Susan Wexner Fund? Better still, who is Susan Wexner?

You don't have to dig very deeply to discover the hard-right Middle East politics lying not far beneath the surface here:

StandWithUs - an "organization that ensures that Israel's side of the story is told" - has become increasingly aggressive in challenging the "pro-Israel" credentials of moderate Jewish-American groups, going so far as to suggest that receiving money from Arab donors and supporters of Human Rights Watch undermines a group's commitment to Israel and peace.

J Street - the "Pro-Israel and Pro-Peace" advocacy group - faced criticism last week for accepting contributions from donors who have been critical of Israeli government actions.

But an IPS investigation into the tax records of the donors to StandWithUs, which professes to be ideologically neutral, found a web of funders who support organisations that have been accused of anti-Muslim propaganda and encouraging a militant Israeli and U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.

Some of these organisations have tied the origins of Palestinian nationalism to Nazi ideology, and suggested that a vast Muslim conspiracy - in a similar vein to the anti-Semitic Protocols of the Elders of Zion - is mobilising to undermine the U.S. constitution and impose Sharia law.

The biggest donors to StandWithUs since 2005, according to a search of publicly available tax returns, were foundations controlled by Susan Wexner, who has contributed over 850,000 dollars to the group. [emphasis added]

Is it impertinent to ask if CPCCA is being funded from this source? To suggest such a thing is sheer speculation, of course, at this point. I'm hoping that CPCCA will clear things up by delivering on its promise to "disclose all sources of funding," and I shall share with my readers any correspondence I receive from it.

UPDATE: (December 15) As I suspected, the CPCCA prefers to keep its funding sources secret after all. A written inquiry by reader and commenter Antonia to an MP she knew was referred back to CPCCA. Today she received this response from CPCCA functionary Sarah LaFreniere:

''Thank you for your inquiry. The website describes our funding restrictions and regulations, disclosure of funding will occur with the publication of the report.''

So much for voluntary disclosure of funding sources.

Why should this information be withheld until the final report is published? What does CPCCA have to hide? Inquiring minds want to know.

_____________________
*"The SFSC was formed in February, 2008 to defend individuals being sued by Canwest, in a classic Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP), for producing a parody about the pro-Israel bias of the Vancouver Sun."

Open letter to Professor Gil Troy

Dear Professor Troy:

You have by now written two articles naming me personally, and have appeared before the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Anti-Semitism to sing the same tune (with reference to me, at least by name, mercifully absent): the "new anti-Semitism," as opposed to the more recognizable Jew-hatred, is directed towards the state of Israel and its policies.

Rather than having the "courage of [your] convictions," you have defined me, a critic of the CPCCA, as an anti-Semite through innuendo and juxtaposition. (Or is that "a new anti-Semite?") You then have the chutzpah to wonder aloud why it is that critics of Israel such as I are concerned about a parliamentary "inquiry" that has all the earmarks of a witch-hunt.

Your articles and submission make my point. After pushing my way through the mountains of straw out of which you have constructed your arguments, I see three themes emerging.

1) Criticism of Israel must not be "disproportionate." I cannot help but recall Prime Minister Stephen Harper's description of Israel's destruction of Lebanon in 2006 as "a measured response" to a border skirmish. If the displacement of one-quarter of the Lebanese people, the deaths of 1,000 civilians and the wholesale destruction of Lebanon's infrastructure is "measured," I assure you that I shall try to be even more measured in my response to you.

Setting aside the question of who decides what is, or is not, "disproportionate," let me note that the oppressive policies of the other countries you mention--Iran, for example, or Sudan--are not a matter of controversy in Canada. We all see those policies, and the actions that flow from them, exactly as they are. We neither excuse them nor pretend that they aren't there, nor do we minimize the effects on their victims.

But this is not the case with Israel. We do not have a consensus, pro or con, about the slow annexation of the West Bank by settlement and by wall, the often brutal behaviour of both the settlers and the Israeli armed forces who protect them, the human toll and the physical devastation of Gaza and Lebanon, the use of weapons prohibited by international law, collective punishment that is likewise prohibited, and so on. Our own government excuses each and every such move by the state of Israel. When these things are reported, as they are very frequently, heated debates inevitably follow.

It isn't that we are "obsessed" with Israel, or give it "disproportionate" attention. We discuss Israel because the very actions and policies that would be almost unanimously denounced if perpetrated by any other nation are inevitably denied, excused, rationalized and/or defended by government, by strong and effective extra-parliamentary actors, and by various media commentators.

It is unfair, I believe, to denounce participants in what amounts to an on-going debate for even being engaged in it.

2) "Legitimate" criticism of Israel should be permitted.

This is, by now, a commonplace rhetorical gesture that seeks to make a distinction that is very hard, on closer examination, to pin down. Let me give a personal example.

A senior B'nai Brith figure comments from time to time on my blog. When I expressed implicit agreement with the findings of the recent Goldstone Report, which indicates that war crimes were committed by the Israel Defence Forces during the Gaza incursion last year, and noted further that the IDF has treated the occupied territory of the West Bank with considerable brutality (a matter of record documented by Israeli human rights groups like B'Tselem), I was called an "anti-Semitic a**hole" by the gentleman in question.

The proposed distinction is blurred by such excesses. But let me go further: I don't believe that there such a thing as "illegitimate" criticism of any nation-state, in the sense of requiring legislation to suppress it. A state and its policies do not constitute a culture, a race or a people.

Casual comments about nuking "Iran," for example, are hateful and wrong-headed, because the people of Iran who would suffer are not the state of Iran, but we hear this kind of comment rather more often than we might like, and no one dreams of constituting a parliamentary inquiry into it. It is generally understood that it is the Iranian government, not the Iranian people, that has displeased us.

By the same token, no one imagines that the sometimes over-the-top criticism of "America" of which even I might occasionally have been guilty, is an attack on Americans as a people. Ditto "Russia," "China," and so on: everyone seems to be on the same page here, even if we might strongly disagree in our evaluations. But for some reason Israel is once again an exception: any trenchant critique of this nation-state predictably brings forth cries of "anti-Semitism."

What, may I ask, has become of that "higher standard" to which, it is alleged, we hold Israel? What about settling for the same standard by which we make our various judgments of any other nation-state?

Making things even worse, you declare certain areas of debate off-limits: "comparing Israel to [apartheid] South Africa," for example. And yet several of the practices of Israel, the nation-state, might legitimately be held to be, at the very least, apartheid-like in character. (Rather than reopening that debate here, I draw your attention to some earlier reflections of mine on the issue.)

I might also point out that, despite those who claim that such comparisons "delegitimize" Israel's existence, I do not recall that those of us in the anti-apartheid struggle, while demanding regime change, ever questioned the right of South Africa to exist.

Finally, our own Prime Minister has stated, unequivocally, that criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. He doesn't bother with the distinction you and others have half-heartedly attempted to make. And his government will, at some point, be seized of the report that will be forthcoming from the Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Anti-Semitism.

The line that you are encouraging the Coalition to draw--between "honest" criticism on the one hand and "demonization, delegitimization and obsession" on the other--is bound to be subjective. And given the CPCCA's ludicrous bias, one that it makes no attempt whatsoever to hide, and our Prime Minister's straightforward comments, we have every right to feel concerned.

3) Critics of Israel pretend to care about the Palestinians, but it's just a mask.

Like any other would-be Grand Inquisitor, you reverse the onus. The default position is that we are "anti-Semites" until somehow we can demonstrate otherwise. In your words,

[T]he hearings should also help us understand the historical pathology of anti-Semitism by highlighting the similarities between today’s targeting of the Jewish state and the traditional targeting of the Jew. Yet we must learn from the modern mutation, too. The way the new anti-Semitism manifests itself, sometimes obscured by its “we’re pro-Palestinian and we’re just criticizing Israel” rhetoric, hides a despicable anti-democratic agenda. This upside-down agenda rationalizes terrorism, romanticizes violence, justifies extremism and perverts justice while purporting to defend it.

We are left, of course, in the impossible position of trying to prove a negative.

In another article, you lead off with unquestionable instances of anti-Semitism in the Arab world, including elements of the text of the Hamas Charter (you omitted, however, the references to Henry Ford's The International Jew and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion). You raise the equally clear example of the fire-bombing of a Jewish school in Montreal. But that's just to set up for this:

Israel’s critics could distance themselves from these vile expressions but rarely do. And we have learned from the civil rights movement, feminism, and gay liberation, that the moral onus is not on the victim to parse who is criticizing legitimately and who is perpetuating prejudice. If more critics of Israel denounced the anti-Semitism poisoning so much of the Palestinian movement, fueling so much criticism of Israel, there would be no need for Parliamentary inquiries.

I see two obvious problems here. First, as we've seen, the word "anti-Semitism" has become remarkably fluid recently, a floating signifier. A critique of Hamas is one thing--and I think I, for one, have been personally straightforward about it--but if one agrees with Stephen Harper that criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic per se, then there is really very little left for us to say.

The second issue is that activism tends to focus and polarize. If there is a demonstration against, say, the Israeli incursion into Gaza, one will quickly discover that the demonstrators carry signs with slogans to that effect, rather than statements dissociating themselves from the present Gaza government. Does that of necessity make them supportive of a theocratic, anti-Semitic regime? Do opponents of the Afghanistan mission support the Taliban? Some attempt to make such arguments on "objective" grounds, but I get the uneasy feeling, Professor Troy, that you suspect the pro-Palestinian left of being outright anti-Semites in pectore.

Oddly, many of the the recommendations that you append to your CPCCA submission make more sense. You urge the adoption of the EUMC working definition of anti-Semitism, for example--which turns out to be a far cry from the wide net you and other have advocated:

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred towards Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals, and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities."

Who could quarrel with that? The drafters go on to mention Israel, but in such a circumspect manner that it would be hard to find fault. They do, it is true, open a few doors for those who are wont to accuse us, without any basis, of holding Israel to a higher standard, re-phrasing the Blood Libel, and so on. "However," they add, "criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic."

Amen. An occupying power is an occupying power. State-sanctioned brutality is state-sanctioned brutality. Civilian deaths are civilian deaths. Annexation is annexation. War crimes are war crimes.

Other recommendations--community policing and so on--are reasonable as well. But you stray into very dangerous territory indeed when you attempt to make yet another distinction--this time between "academic freedom" and what you call "educational malpractice." Can you not see, as an academic yourself, the dangerous and slippery character of such a vague formulation? Who would decide these questions? Does this not return us to the era of speech codes and other campus straitjackets?

Let me end, in any case, on what I hope is a more conciliatory note. I've always liked this analogy:

A man once jumped from the top floor of a burning house in which many members of his family had already perished. He managed to save his life; but as he was falling he hit a person standing down below and broke that person’s legs and arms. The jumping man had no choice; yet to the man with the broken limbs he was the cause of his misfortune. If both behaved rationally, they would not become enemies. The man who escaped from the blazing house, having recovered, would have tried to help and console the other sufferer; and the latter might have realized that he was the victim of circumstances over which neither of them had control. But look what happens when these people behave irrationally. The injured man blames the other for his misery and swears to make him pay for it. The other, afraid of the crippled man’s revenge, insults him, kicks him, and beats him up whenever they meet. The kicked man again swears revenge and is again punched and punished. The bitter enmity, so fortuitous at first, hardens and comes to overshadow the whole existence of both men and to poison their minds.

You will, I am sure, recognize yourselves (I said to my Israeli audience), the remnants of European Jewry in Israel, in the man who jumped from the blazing house. The other character represents, of course, the Palestine Arabs, more than a million of them, who have lost their lands and their homes. They are resentful; they gaze from across the frontiers on their old native places; they raid you stealthily and swear revenge. You punch and kick them mercilessly; you have shown that you know how to do it. But what is the sense of it? And what is the prospect? --Isaac Deutscher

What indeed is the prospect, Professor Troy, when you and others, appearing before a trumped-up "inquiry" into alleged "new anti-Semitism," insist on demonizing and delegitimizing the critics of Israel while simultaneously demanding that Israel be neither demonized nor delegitimized?

Perhaps we should be trying to figure out how the descendants of both the man in the burning house and the innocent passer-by upon whom he lands might come to some lasting accommodation. In the meantime, the descendants of the man who jumped are even now burning--or bulldozing--the houses of the passer-by's descendants; and some of the latter, exiled, poor, and looking for meaning in their fate, embrace religious fundamentalism and even grasp at the vile myths that led to the original arson.

There can be no solution if those are the only two sides that we are permitted to recognize, locked in their Manichaean embrace. I would suggest, with respect, that there are other sides to this question, sides that are legitimate, honest and constructive. Even setting aside the wider question of freedom of expression in Canada, it would be a tragedy if the weight of the law and of government policy were used to stifle the many critical voices that need to be heard if Canada is someday going to play a useful international role in contributing to a lasting peace in the Middle East.

Sincerely,

John Baglow

Olympic shark jumping

The National Post's Jonathan Kay has had enough.

On January 4, B'nai Brith issued a press release that was so over the top that Kay had to confirm by telephone that it wasn't a send-up. In it, BB's League for Human Rights compared the lamentable exclusion of women ski jumpers from the Vancouver Olympics to the Berlin Olympics of 1936, in which Jewish persecution was ignored by the International Olympic Committee.

As one who is critical of shoddy, sloppy moral equivalences (e.g., Gaza = the Warsaw Ghetto), I couldn't begin to defend this, even though I believe that there is a bona fide case of discrimination here, while Kay doesn't. But what is most interesting about Kay's article is that this latest BB salient appears to be what labour relations folks call the "culminating incident." Kay excoriates the organization:

Every year, B'nai Brith puts out an "audit" of anti-Semitic incidents in Canada. And every year, the document is reported on by the mass media, which uncritically parrots the group's absurd contention that anti-Semitism is a growing epidemic in this tolerant country. Reporters politely overlook the fact that B'nai Brith's definition of "incident" is dumbed down: Any web posting, stray comment, or scrap of graffitti fits the bill. This allows B'nai Brith to reel off thousands of examples.

Most readers don't stop to scrutinize how trivial these examples are: They just look at the impressive-seeming bar graphs, which purport to show a Jewish community in a constant state of terror. The result: Older Jews with dark historical memories become terrified, and the donations to B'nai Brith come rolling in.

And he ends by describing anti-Semitism in Canada as--wait for it--a "very minor problem."

Recall that Kay has, at least up to now, been an assiduous witchfinder in this regard. He has uncovered so-called "anti-Semitism" (meaning criticism of Israel) everywhere: on campuses, in the arts community, in organized labour, and even among his journalistic colleagues. But a still small voice has apparently been trying to reason with him, and, thanks to B'nai Brith, it has been heard at last.

Meanwhile, the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Anti-Semitism chunders on with its full-bore inquiry into the "minor problem." Despite CPCCA's careful selection of witnesses, a couple of university officials have managed to put some sense on the record.

Here's Fred Lowy, former president of Concordia:

By and large, Canadian campuses are safe and are not hotbeds of antisemitism of any kind.

Patrick Monahan, Provost of York University, added this cautionary note:

The difficulty is that there is a narrative (of antisemitism) that gets picked up by others who never set foot on the campus here, but purport to be experts on the atmosphere on our campuses. It is unfair to the students, because it sows fear, it sows division. It fans flames of more conflict. We hope that your report and work of your committee will not in any way contribute further to that.

Unsatisfied, CPCCA is now hoping to hear from more university presidents--and, next month, from the police. Despite Kay's apparent defection, the witchhunting continues apace.

[H/t MediaBuzzard]

The CJC's submission to HUAC North

The Canadian Jewish Congress submitted its recommendations to HUAC North on August 20. Its report blends examples of genuine anti-Semitism and criticism of Israel in a long preamble to a series of recommendations, using specious logic (the Nazis boycotted Jews, some call for boycotting Israel, therefore...) and strategically vague concepts ("anti-Semitism," "the new anti-Semitism") to underpin what is in fact a blueprint for regulating discussion of the Middle East in Canada.

Here are the recommendations, with my commentary:

1) That political leaders stress the need for civil discourse, based on Canadian values, among groups in Canada, especially when dealing with contentious political issues.

No problem there. Civility is indeed a Canadian value. Our elected leaders should certainly call for it. But should incivility, short of hatred or incitement, be against the law?

2) That funding guidelines should be strengthened to withhold any form of government funding or other support for NGOs that preach hatred or antisemitism - particularly those involved in integration and settlement of new Canadians where they may influence understanding of the responsibilities and obligations of Canadian citizenship.

This is a direct slap, of course, at the Canadian Arab Federation, recently stripped of a grant that it legitimately applied for and received because its head called Immigration Minister Jason "no Gypsies" Kenney a name.

But in any case, the definition of anti-Semitism is precisely what's at issue here. The CJC defines it, not only as anti-Jewish expression and actions (school bombing, graffiti, assault, vandalism, etc.), which are already covered by Canadian legislation, but as criticism of another nation.

To call France a country of "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" is permissible. To call for the nuking of Iran, a commonplace on far-right blogsites, is perfectly within the law. But to call for sanctions against Israel for its depredations in the West Bank and its recent assault on Gaza would become illegal. If the CJC gets its way, it might even be against the law someday to circulate copies of the Goldstone Report.

3) That the government move quickly to ratify and/or enact the various international instruments dealing with antisemitism (including international commitments to combat antisemitism and Holocaust denial, including but not limited to, the Berlin Declaration of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and similar UN resolutions) and prepare constructive suggestions and resolutions befitting its role as host for the 2011 conference.

Obviously international covenants to oppose genuine anti-Semitism are to be applauded. And "constructive suggestions and resolutions" should be welcome at any time. But, just as criticism of Israel is said to be a mask for anti-Semitism, as it undoubtedly is in some instances--David Duke comes to mind--so too can such resolutions and conferences provide cover for advancing Israeli foreign policy initiatives.

The blurring here is strategically deliberate: the honest critic, meanwhile, needs to insist upon a distinction between anti-Semitism and criticism of Israel as a nation among other nations, and to hold Israel to the same standards as any other nation.

4) That political and diplomatic leaders take up their special obligation to challenge expressions of antisemitism and threats of genocide in the international arena, including the rejection of such statements by foreign leaders, foreign diplomats and representatives at international forums such as the UN and through international conventions and protocols to which Canada is a signatory.

Obviously any civilized nation should stand up internationally against genocide and real anti-Semitism, and indeed against racism, ethnocentrism and their expression (e.g., "ethnic cleansing") in all of their forms. Given its record of evictions and land-seizures in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, however, Israel may not fare too well under such scrutiny.

5) The establishment of a permanent, adequately funded secretariat within the CPCCA to oversee future Coalition activities, monitor implementation of priority recommendations and ensure compliance and accountability (including annual reporting by each Department on the implementation of Inquiry recommendations and other action items within their jurisdictions).

The intent here is clear: CPCCA is to become a permanent inquisitorial body.

6) The creation of a permanent, publicly-accessible “ambassadorial” position under the auspices of the most appropriate Department (Foreign Affairs, Justice, Multiculturalism) to develop and implement policies, projects and research on combating antisemitism, including the provision of funds to NGOs to further these aims. This office should also table an annual Report to Parliament on progress made and challenges outstanding in combating antisemitism in Canada, triggering a government response.

I'd like to see such a position or positions created to deal with all forms of racism and ethnocentrism in Canada. Why should "antisemitism," even in the unexpanded sense, be singled out?

7) That police departments at all levels of jurisdiction be encouraged to establish dedicated hate and bias crime units with a universal, standardized definition of what constitutes such crimes. They should also be encouraged to establish specialized training to understand, recognize and respond to such crimes appropriately.

This, on its face, is unexceptionable. But we know from the entire thrust of this submission that part of the role of "bias and hate crime units" will be to suppress such events as Israeli Apartheid Week. As a Canadian citizen, I object to using the police to enforce one view of Middle East politics across the country.

8) That a national database of hate and bias crimes be developed to track trends and patterns, and that Statistics Canada update and modernize methodologies for capturing and analyzing such data. Data compilation must be as uniform as possible among all jurisdictions to ensure analysis will use comparable information.

This would, in fact, be a very useful tool indeed--an excellent suggestion in itself.

9) That a comprehensive database of antisemitic content on the Internet be established to allow for better understanding and more effective tracking of contemporary manifestations of antisemitism worldwide and in Canada. Such a database would require international agreement on uniform and objective standards and definitions as well as measurement and reporting techniques, in order to ensure all database users globally are comparing similar information.

Again, the problem of "uniform and objective standards" is what's at issue here. "Anti-semitic," to the CJC, has a very broad and ill-defined scope, including, as noted, criticism of the government policies of another country.

10) That the existing statutory “fence of protection,” both in the Criminal Code and in Human Rights legislation, should be reaffirmed and, where appropriate, strengthened.

For this we need some argument backed up with evidence. If by "strengthened," the CJC means making it explicitly illegal to criticize Israel, then this should be resisted might and main.

11) That regulatory measures, especially in the field of telecommunications, that are consistent with Charter standards for the protection of free expression should be considered. This should include ratification of the Council of Europe's Convention on Cybercrime and the Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime.

Of course such regulatory measures are already in place, and the subject of a concerted attack by the far Right for some time. I, for one, would like to see evidence that these measures (such as S.13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act) are insufficient. Is it that criticism of Israel is not caught by the current regulatory regime?

12) That appropriate training be provided for members of Federal Boards and Tribunals that deal with hate speech and antisemitism to ensure appropriate application of the law.

Is there evidence that inappropriate rulings have been forthcoming due to a lack of such training, if lack there is? (And as an aside, is "antisemitism," at least in its everyday meaning, not an instance of "hate speech?")

13) That the Security Infrastructure Pilot Project be made permanent with sustainable funding for the Jewish and other at-risk communities to upgrade security at communal institutions in the face of the contemporary threats of violence.

The Pilot Project appears to be a very sound one. But may we have some facts and figures about these "contemporary threats of violence?" The problem is that all we ever seem to receive is anecdotal evidence. In keeping with the CJC's emphasis on uniform standards and data-collection, perhaps such a recommendation requires more than that.

14) That the Government of Canada work with the provinces, courts and police to ensure training and educational opportunities are available within the criminal justice system to help it cope with the unique challenge of hate crimes and antisemitism.

Training and education are always a good thing. But again, much hinges on the working definition of anti-Semitism.

15) That it similarly work with the provinces to develop educational resources to help sensitize Canadian students to the dangers of antisemitism and the importance of joining the struggle against it.

Ditto.

Colleges and Universities are within the provincial sphere of jurisdiction, and are undoubtedly entitled to the respect that is accorded to the principle of academic freedom. Nevertheless, it is on the campuses of these institutions that some of the most troubling and pernicious manifestations of the new antisemitism have arisen. The Government of Canada and the Parliamentary Inquiry can each play constructive roles in helping academic institutions better meet the challenges posed by the new antisemitism. The Inquiry should recommend:

16) That the Federal Government and/or the Inquiry consider offering assistance sponsoring conferences and other similar initiatives, or the issuance of statements of principle to help combat hate on campus.

There is a lot simply assumed here. Besides introducing the undefined concept, "new antisemitism," which, it is fairly safe to say, means criticism of Israel unacceptable to the CJC, campus "anti-Semitism" is simply taken as a given (although students and faculty at universities like York are strongly contesting this.) At the beginning of the submission, this is made abundantly clear:

Antisemitism may now no longer speak of a goal to make a country Judenrein (cleansed of Jews) but instead it may aim for a world that is Judenstaatrein (cleansed of a Jewish State): Israel within the community of nations becomes the stand-in for the individual Jew and anti-Zionism becomes the new antisemitism.

There are those who claim that the linking of anti-Zionism with antisemitism is a misleading attempt to shield Israel from legitimate criticism of its behaviours. This position is incorrect. One has only to look at the vibrancy of debate on Israeli policies and practices that takes place within the Jewish state itself to realize that Israel has no immunity from legitimate criticism. Nor should it. While not all criticism of Israel is antisemitic, some criticism does cross that line, and it does so by invoking very specific themes.

This is simply pernicious. Comparing criticism of one nation among nations to the Holocaust is an appeal to emotion and a grossly dishonest tactic--a classic Godwin maneouvre. The indisputable "vibrancy of debate" within Israel is one thing, but the CJC evidently wants no such vibrancy here at home.

Once again, of course, we get the obligatory reference to permissible "legitimate criticism," but no examples are ever provided when such handwaves are made. A straight question to the CJC: are the activities during Israeli Apartheid Week "legitimate" or "illegitimate"? If the latter, should such activities be made illegal?

17) That the Federal Government and/or the Inquiry work with the provinces to help administrators develop suitable tools and structures to deal with this burgeoning problem in an effective and principled manner.

I have no idea what this recommendation means concretely.

*******

What we have in this submission is an unmistakable call for the full weight of the law to be applied against critics of Israel. By suitably redefining anti-Semitism, the CJC is attempting to impose one view of the Middle East on all Canadians.

Unfortunately, the agency would appear to be preaching to the converted.

The CJC has friends in high places. Our Prime Minister has gone so far as to claim that criticism of Israel in anti-Semitic per se, and then goes much, much further:

Some of the criticism brewing in Canada against the state of Israel, including from some members of Parliament, is similar to the attitude of Nazi Germany in the Second World War, Prime Minister Stephen Harper warned yesterday. [emphasis added]

And, as readers of my previous post will know, HUAC North has already telegraphed its own conclusions.

Anyone interested in maintaining a "vibrancy of debate" on Middle East issues in Canada has every right to be alarmed at what's going on, right under our noses, and as yet miserably under-reported by the mainstream media. Will the CJC's Maximum Programme for debate control find its way into law, thanks to Harper, HUAC North, and a Parliament cowed into silent support for fear of being called "anti-Semitic" on the hustings?

Conservative priorities

During the current rustication of Parliament by Stephen Harper, the parliamentary committee investigating Canadian complicity in torture in Afghanistan has been meeting in informal session, and the Foreign Affairs Committee, too. The meetings have been boycotted by the Conservatives.

Not so, however, with that ridiculous political sideshow called the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Antisemitism. This gaggle of witch-hunters, whose funding remains mysterious despite promises of transparency, and whose conclusions, clearly established from the start, have been buttressed by a largely one-sided selection of witnesses, is chugging merrily along with its "inquiry." And today Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney will be "testifying" before it.

More from Kady O'Malley.

Torture? No big deal. But investigating a "problem" that even the far-right Jonathan Kay admits is minor in the scheme of things--the Cons can't miss that. After all, it's entirely of a piece with their de-funding of KAIROS for alleged anti-Semitism (gosh, there's Kenney again), cancelling a grant to a major Arab-Canadian group (goodness me, there's Kenney again) and taking a wrecking ball to the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development because it dared to support human rights for Palestinians in the Middle East.

During today's session, the parliamentary inquisitors will also be hearing from an assortment of policemen. Doesn't that just warm the blood?

UPDATE: Kenney and his government proved to be too much even for some members of the CPCCA. His smarmy little dance around the defunding of KAIROS was a sight to behold:

He also defended the funding cut to KAIROS, saying the group doesn't deserve government money because it advocates the boycott of the Jewish state, including disinvestment and sanctions, charges denied by the group's defenders.

Kenney added, however, the KAIROS decision had nothing to do with his take on the group's anti-Israel positions. The call was made solely by the Canadian International Development Agency on grounds it wanted to focus on food security and fighting poverty, he said. [emphasis added]

Pull the other one, Minister.

HUAC North: the Chairman's sophistry

Mario Silva today:

I think Israel can be criticised like any other country, but the question is where to the lines start to be crossed, and when those lines are crossed then it becomes a problem and it is anti-Semitism. For example, when there’s cartoons depicting Jews in a very derogatory fashion, when there is presentation that all Jews are responsible, when they’re referring to Israel as an apartheid state that doesn’t have a right to exist, then there’s still some lines that are crossed and I think that’s not appropriate. Is criticism of Israel legitimate? Absolutely it’s legitimate, and people have a right to criticise Israel like they have a right to criticise any other country – it’s a free country. The problem is when people start crossing the line into areas that will legitimately be considered anti-Semitism.

Let's pick this apart, just for fun.

• "when there’s cartoons depicting Jews in a very derogatory fashion." Jews qua Jews? Couldn't agree more. IDF soldiers on one of their rampages, who happen to be Jews? Not so much. Could we get some examples of the former?
  
  
• "when there is presentation that all Jews are responsible." Might we have an example of this? Is that too much to ask? Besides, "responsible" for what?
  
  
• "when they’re referring to Israel as an apartheid state that doesn’t have a right to exist." Nice bit of double-barreling there, Mario. But in any case, why is it "anti-Semitic" to make the case that Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is a kind of apartheid? Bishop Desmond Tutu thought so, and he ought to know.
  
  In fact, why is it "anti-Semitic" to question the "right" of Israel to exist? What nation on the planet has such a "right?" Does suggesting a one-state solution to the ME situation effectively question this "right?" Is it "anti-Semitic" to propose such a solution? (Good luck with a two-state one.)
  
  
• "Is criticism of Israel legitimate? Absolutely it’s legitimate, and people have a right to criticise Israel like they have a right to criticise any other country – it’s a free country. The problem is when people start crossing the line into areas that will legitimately be considered anti-Semitism."
  
  I'm still looking for a name for this slimy rhetorical gesture. Shorter Mario: "In principle, criticism of Israel is fine. In practice, it jolly well isn't."
  

Recall that Mario and his companions are supposed to be conducting an "inquiry." Do some readers sceptical of my earlier remarks now doubt that the CPCCA's conclusions were established before this farce even began?

[H/t Hill Queeries.]

HUAC North: the fix is in

If anyone had any doubts about the purpose and function of the Parliamentary inquisition now under way--the so-called Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Antisemitism--they should now be dispelled.

This isn't an inquiry. It's a witch-hunt.

Here is the Chair, Mario Silva: "Freedom of speech, thought and expression are vital components of academic discourse - but this rule has to apply to all points of view, including those who have unfashionable views supportive of Israel." [emphasis added]

"Unfashionable views," eh?

In Canada, the Prime Minister himself has called criticism of Israel "anti-Semitic," and compared parliamentarians who have voiced such criticisms to Nazis. Three well-heeled pro-Israel lobby groups have the ear of this government: B'nai Brith, the Canadian Jewish Congress, and the moderate Canada-Israel Committee, which at least appears more interested in dialogue than denunciation.

The Harper government is uncritically supportive of Israel. It has refused to oppose continued settlement-annexation of the West Bank in Har Homa, for instance, even after the US did so. In 2006, our PM called the wholesale destruction and carnage in Lebanon a "measured response," and appeared completely disinterested in the deaths of Canadian citizens at the hands of the Israeli Defence Forces. Internationally, it has soiled our reputation for fairness on the issue. Politicians at the federal and provincial level who speak out of turn, and even some who are merely accused of doing so, are smeared and pressured to withdraw their comments.

The media don't exactly hang back either: it wasn't that long ago that CanWest re-wrote copy to make it more pro-Israel, suppressed numerous articles, and harassed employees for daring to explore the Palestinian side of the dispute.There are some brave commentators who try to be even-handed, but they are in a distinct minority even today.

As for public opinion, while it is divided, Israel enjoys a substantial base of support. In a CTV poll carried out in 2006, for example, 45% disagreed with Stephen Harper's uncompromising stance, but 32%--nearly a third--agreed with it.

"Unfashionable" to support Israel? I don't think so.

Back to the current activities of HUAC North. Check out this new press release, with the provocative hed, "Is campus antisemitism on the rise in Canada?"

Why do these "inquirers" even bother with the question-mark? Here is the roster for their hearings on the issue:

Part one:
- Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld (Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs)
- Professor Yehuda Bauer (Yad Vashem Institute)
- Professor Kenneth Marcus (City University of New York)
- Professor Alvin Rosenfeld (Indiana University)

Part two:
- Zac Kaye (Director, Hillel of Greater Toronto)
- Josh Zelikovitz (former President. Hillel at Queen's University
and Jewish Identity Chairperson for the Canadian Federation of
Jewish Students)
- Miriam Stein (University of Ottawa Law Student)

How fair. How balanced.

My speculation? The Final Report from HUAC North was written before it even went on the road, leaving a few gaps so that gobbets of the unbiased testimony they have solicited can be dropped in before it goes to the printer.

The only bright note is that commenter Marky Mark, who takes a far more moderate view, was notified at the last minute that he would be invited to appear. This was after concerns had been raised* that the CPCCA was showing obvious bias in its selection of witnesses. But Marky, bless him, is evidently the closest thing to the "other side" that HUAC North is prepared to tolerate.

Somewhere, Joe McCarthy is smiling.

____________
*For example, in this internal email from MP Carolyn Bennett:

From: Bennett, Carolyn - M.P.
Sent: October 25, 2009 11:59 AM
To: Silva, Mario - M.P.
Cc: Bennett, Carolyn - Assistant; Neville, Anita - M.P.; 'bob.rae@***'; Cotler, Irwin - M.P.
Subject: Independant voices

Judy Rebick just approached me at a conference

She says NONE of the dissenting opinions groups have been allowed to appear .. Only able to submit written reports ....

Big backlash brewing ..
I think we have to hear from both sides ...

And then write a report .... That can take a stand ...

Carolyn Bennett MP St. Paul's

The "neutrality" of HUAC North

...captured in one telling statement about alleged anti-Semitism on campus. Here's Liberal Mario Silva, who chairs the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Anti-Semitism (CPCCA):

"[C]ertainly some universities downplayed it while others certainly were quite frank about what’s taking place on the ground."

How long will this farce continue--a parliamentary "investigation" committee whose conclusions were obviously written before their hearings ever began, whose handpicked witness list has been almost exclusively one-sided, and whose chair now states that universities that have found little to complain about as far as anti-Semitism is concerned must be "downplaying" it, while others are being "frank?"

Is that how this bunch weighs evidence?

More installments to come--as you and I continue to finance this miserable parliamentary sideshow.

House Un-Canadian Activities Committee launched

Antisemitism represents a break from Canadian values, which promote the rights of all individuals to practice their religion, educate themselves, and express themselves with security and freedom. --CPCCA

With a flourish of trumpets, the portentously-named All-Party Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Antisemitism has begun its hearings. And by no coincidence an op-ed piece appeared in the Ottawa Citizen today, warning of the return of the "beast of anti-Semitism," written by one of the Coalition's scheduled first witnesses.

There has never been a fancy-dancy Parliamentary Coalition to investigate anti-gay prejudice, sometimes fatal. Nor does anti-Black or anti-Asian discrimination warrant so much as a passing glance. Ditto for the scrofulous anti-Aboriginal bigotry that is virtually a hallmark of far-right blogs today, and evidently extends into the government itself.

Nope. Only one group in the entire country warrants a House Un-Canadian Activities Committee, complete with hearings across the country. I already posted about this miserable little witch-hunt back in July, while it was unaccountably not deemed important enough to be mentioned by the mainstream media. Better late than never.

If real anti-Semitism were being investigated, I'd have far fewer problems with this, although a question would remain in my mind why Canadian Jews, hardly alone in facing discrimination and hate crimes in this country, were being singled out. But by all means go after the Holocaust-deniers, the graveyard vandals and the schoolburners, although I thought we had laws, courts and police to deal with that sort of thing.

Max Yalden, former head of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, makes some sensible cautionary points:

[Anti-Semitism remains] a real threat...though I should have thought a diminished one. ... Of course, the position of the State of Israel in the turbulent events in the Middle East has brought out different critics who are also sometimes accused of being anti-Semites. Doubtless some of them are, but there are others who are critical of Israel on grounds that have little or nothing to do with religious intolerance.

One might say much the same with regard to Canada's Muslim population. This difficult situation is rendered more complex by considerations of race and colour, but some of the indignation on the part of other Canadians clearly relates to unacceptable, violent behaviour outside Canada. The two should not be confused, just as evidence of violence or potential for violence on the part of some Muslims should not be generalized to the Muslim community as a whole.

In any case, the problem is, and anyone who's been around the block more than once knows this, that the word "anti-Semitism" has lost its original meaning almost entirely, and become code for criticism of Israel and too-vocal support for the Palestinian people. The Coalition itself, in fact, has already telegraphed its intent and its conclusions:

While accusations of blood libel, or petty vandalism are still issues for the Jewish community, new fears have arisen especially for those who support the State of Israel. On campuses specifically, Jewish students are being threatened and intimidated to the point that they are not able to express themselves, or are even fearful to wear a Jewish skull cap or star around their necks. [emphasis added]

Let's have the evidence for these very serious charges, or is it too late to request it now that the Coalition has already accepted the claims in advance of its hearings?

Talk about "new fears" to the folks at Carleton University, whose President intervened earlier this year to stifle debate about the Middle East, and sent out veiled threats from her office to every student at the place, including me, to watch our mouths when we talk about Israel. And then fired a professor, Hassan Diab, hours after B'nai Brith complained about him. (His department protested, and for its pains was collectively tarred with the anti-Semitic brush by senior Ottawa Citizen journalist Andrew Potter: "it is hard to interpret the slur against Jews as anything but entirely deliberate."

Lots of intimidation there for sure, but not against Jews.

Of course, we're getting the usual vague assurances about "legitimate criticism of the state of Israel" being allowed:

[D]issent and opposition to individual actions of the Israeli government are both permitted and encouraged in and outside of Israel, just as political dissent is permitted and encouraged with respect to any democratic nation.

No examples of such "legitimate criticism" are ever given, of course. The phrase has inevitably been used as a foil to target alleged illegitimate criticism. And all criticism of Israel seems to fall into the latter category. Here, for example, is what a senior B'nai Brith operative had to say when I criticized Irwin Cotler's publicly-stated pride that his children had signed up with the Israel Defence Forces, given the IDF's dismal human rights record in the West Bank and Gaza:

"Are we not permitted to question a senior Canadian politician's publicly expressed pride that his children have signed up with an armed force that has brutalized the West Bank population for years and recently committed war crimes in Gaza?"

That's it Dawg.

You're an antisemitic asshole.

"Anti-Semitic," once clearly defined, now a floating signifier, at this point can mean anything the accusers want it to mean, like the epithet "Communist" when Joe McCarthy and HUAC were in full swing.

Well, welcome back, Joe. The House Un-Canadian Activities Committee is now well-launched, and will be coming soon to a public pillory near you.

[H/t skdadl]

HUAC North loses members [updated]

"The Bloc Québécois decided yesterday to pull out of the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Antisemitism because it found it 'biased' in favour of Israel and against the Palestinians."

What kept you? Come on, NDP.

UPDATE: (March 11) Here's the key paragraph in the story:

«On trouvait que la liste des témoins proposée présentait un seul côté de la médaille, explique le whip du Bloc québécois, Michel Guimond. On voulait que ce soit beaucoup plus modéré.» Il a demandé à entendre la Fédération canado-arabe, qui avait soumis un mémoire et demandé une audience, ainsi que le groupe Canadiens pour la justice et la paix au Moyen-Orient. Le comité, présidé par le conservateur Scott Reid, n'a pas donné suite à cette requête.

["We found that the proposed list of witnesses presented only one side of the coin," explained the BQ whip Michel Guimond. "We wanted it to be a lot more balanced." He asked that the Canadian Arab Federation be heard--they had submitted a brief and asked to appear--as well as another group, Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East. The Coalition, chaired by Conservative MP Scott Reid, refused his request.]

The CAF brief may be found here (scroll down about halfway). It is an ironic piece that is well worth reading. It begins by noting that Arabs, too, are Semites, and then discusses Islamophobia in Canada. "Off-topic," some will sniff. On the contrary, it's witty and directly relevant.

If the definition of "anti-Semitism" can be stretched out of shape in one direction (to include criticism of Israel), it's entirely fair ball to stretch it in another. The serious underlying message in the CAF brief is that anti-Arab discrimination is a fact in Canada, but these communities have no Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to assist them. Being refused the opportunity to appear before the CPCCA rather makes their point.

[H/t reader Marky Mark]

UPPERDATE: In other news, Tim Uppal's motion to condemn Israel Apartheid Week in the House of Commons, contrary to my prediction, went down to defeat.

HUAC North and the missing report

While the fate of Canadian critics of Israel is being decided behind closed doors this week, perhaps a little juxtaposition might lighten the mood.

Readers may recall that the Final Report of the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Anti-Semitism, which conducted one-sided "hearings" earlier this year, was due this past Spring. But somehow it hasn't surfaced, even during this week's international gabfest.

Scott Reid, the Conservative MP who chairs the CPCCA, is miffed with the critics. But let's do that juxtaposing thing:

Some critics have pointed out that Statistics Canada says there are more hate crimes directed at black people in Canada than at Jews and suggest that the focus on anti-Semitism by MPs is a crude political attempt to court the Jewish vote.

And here's the indignant yet disarmingly frank Mr. Reid:

The report will be released, he said, hopefully before the next federal election.

All we can do is smile, as we wait for the other shoe to drop.

ADDENDUM: Shriek! Campus anti-Semitism!

Just a few months ago, for example, two Carleton University students reported being attacked by fellow students wielding a machete at an off-campus bar; the attackers berated them as “Jews” and “Zionists.” Last year, Jewish students were besieged inside the York University offices of Hillel, a Jewish campus group; assailants reportedly banged on walls and floors and yelled anti-Semitic slurs. These two incidents, sadly, are part of a broader pattern of hostility that many Canadian – and American – Jewish students are reporting.

"Reported." "Reportedly."

Big City Lib has done the heavy lifting on the first "example," which he aptly names "Machetegate." The York "anti-Semitic slurs," like an earlier claim of physical assault, have never been substantiated. But here, as a reminder to readers, is how the York University's aptly-named Hasbara Fellowship rolls.

Last word to Jonathan Kay. And when I call upon him as a beacon of common sense, you just know something is way out of whack in the continuing narrative of Canadian anti-Semitism.