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 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?

CJC-Quebec submission to HUAC North

It gets still worse.

While the CJC submission noted in my last post was relatively guarded in its language, its Quebec counterpart has thrown all caution to the winds in its submission of August 31.

Some quotations from the brief, with my comments:

Anti-Zionism is thus used as a means to mask antisemitism, without assuming its stigma. Automatic, onesided condemnation of Israel’s unsubstantiated “illegal” actions in Gaza and Lebanon has become the mantra of numerous Quebec institutions, especially and most ironically, those that describe themselves as favoring the left i.e. trade unions, academic associations, the Quebec Federation of Women.

Hence, to refer to the completely one-sided body count in both places, including hundreds of civilians; to note the wholesale destruction of Lebanese infrastructure; to cite the war crimes documented in the Goldstone Report--are all instances of masked "anti-Semitism." You can't make things much clearer than that.

Anti-Semites attempt to refute this assertion by pointing to members of the Jewish community that similarly condemn Israel. The criticism of Israel is not in itself antisemitic. However, when it is voluntarily blind to the human rights violations throughout the world and falsely accuses Israel of these same violations; one singles out the Jewish state for differential and discriminatory treatment. Furthermore, studies reveal that, “those who endorse anti-Israel statements tend to endorse anti-Semitic statements,” as well.

Only "anti-Semites," then, refer to the fact that some Jews are also critical of Israel. Even to refer to an organization such as Independent Jewish Voices is proof, therefore, of anti-Semitism. To criticize Israel without mentioning other countries whose violations of human rights aren't even in dispute is anti-Semitic. And anyway, all such accusations against Israel are false.

Please note the last, particularly smelly piece of slanderous, self-serving dreck: "studies reveal that, 'those who endorse anti-Israel statements tend to endorse anti-Semitic statements,' as well." (Only one study is cited, which looked at an anything-but-randomly-selected sample of 197 people.) In other words--well, other words aren't really necessary, are they?

[T]o promote a boycott on Israel is to promote the notion that Jews, or the Jewish state are to be excluded from the international community on the premise that they are dangerous and unworthy of international participation.

Or could it be that such boycotts are a means of bringing pressure upon a nation to behave according to the norms of international law and human rights? But calling for such pressure is "anti-Semitic" too.

In 2004, anti-Israel forces on school campuses began to promote Israeli Apartheid Week, unjustly associating Israel with the apartheid regime that existed in South Africa. Apartheid is a crime against humanity. Labeling Israel as an apartheid state is a deliberate attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the Jewish state itself. The anti-Apartheid campaign has garnered the support of mainstream labor unions (CSQ) and the Quebec Women’s Federation, to name just a few.

This, like much of the submission, is jaw-droppingly dishonest. South Africa persists as a state, long after the apparatus of apartheid was dismantled. No one called for the eradication of the South African state, but for some fundamental changes in it. Rational arguments, in my opinion, can indeed be mustered to defend the notion of "Israeli Apartheid." But CJC-Quebec wants to stifle any such discussion, heading it off at the pass with cries of "anti-Semitism."

CJC-Quebec goes on to cherry-pick a handful of genuinely anti-Semitic comments from the Bouchard-Taylor Commission hearings on "reasonable accommodation," but noted itself that the Commission received over 900 briefs, and heard from 241 persons at the hearings. The regional forums that it conducted included 3,423 participants, and the province-wide forums, 800. From such a large pool of participants, no doubt a few would have admitted to having been abducted by aliens if the subject had come up.

But all that was to make the point that anti-Semitism is a real and pulsating presence in Quebec, with the implicit suggestion that government intervention, including the regulation of discussion about the Middle East, is necessary. This, even though CJC-Quebec, to its undoubted discomfiture, had to admit that hate crimes against Jews in Quebec have actually been diminishing of late.

CJC-Quebec concludes by endorsing all of the CJC recommendations, plus recommending "greater education of immigrants on matters of human rights, cultural diversity and multiculturalism."

There you have it. More forthright than the CJC proper, CJC-Quebec virtually defines criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic and false. Even to note that some Jews themselves are critical of Israel (the "vibrancy of debate" within Israel, referred to by the CJC in its brief, no doubt includes such voices) is yet more proof of "anti-Semitism." Only silence on the part of Israel's critics, it seems, will do.

And HUAC North has just begun its work.

Monday field notes

A few random jottings during a pleasant sunny Monday in Ottawa:

• Officer Bubbles' Statement of Claim. Just suck it up, princess. [H/t Antonia Z., via Alison]
  
  
• Who says students these days are apathetic robots-in-waiting, unwilling to challenge the status quo? Erin Larson stands up. (And ageing Librocon Lloyd Axworthy wimps out.)
  
  
• Criticize the Department of Veterans Affairs? Are you nuts?
  
  
• Loose end: the death of Junior Alexander Manon. Where are the autopsy results? What happened to the SIU investigation? Why the media silence?
  
  
• Another loose end: whatever became of HUAC North's final report?
  
  
• G20 and social media, from the cops' perspective.
  

Plenty to chew on there. As ever, readers' suggestions are always welcome.

ADDITION: What Teabaggers really think of press freedom.

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.]

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.

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.

Hasbara by juxtaposition

One story is a report on anti-Semitic graffiti sprayed by vandals in Calgary, the city of whites-only nightclubs and apparently a place for up-and-coming Nazis to prosper. No surprises there. Nevertheless, Calgary Police Inspector Richard Hinse is being prudent:

This could be kids who have no hate in their hearts to have done something like this or it could be a group that does. So really it's classifying this after we've had a chance to talk to those who have committed it.

And nestled right in there alongside, the foolish commentary of a witness appearing at the bogus "inquiry" being run by HUAC North:

ANTI-SEMITIC VIEWS GOING 'MAINSTREAM'

OTTAWA–Anti-Semitism is creeping from the shadows into the mainstream and even onto university campuses, a parliamentary committee heard Monday.

U.S. experts told the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Antisemitism that officials in some countries and even students are using anti-Israel tirades to mask their anti-Jewish views.

--

The experts pointed to the rise of rallies against so-called Israeli apartheid at Canadian universities. Supporters argue they're denouncing Israeli policies. [emphases added]

Geddit? Critics of Israel are the same as Nazis.

Stay classy, Star. We keep Stephen Harper around for that sort of thing.

UPDATE: (November 18) Via commenter Holly Stick, this classic example of political symbiosis. Stephen Harper is now out to paint the Liberals as "anti-Semitic," as he trolls for votes in Jewish districts.

And more hasbara follies, as the Jewish Tribune "reports":

B’nai Brith Canada was overwhelmed by the positive feedback it received as a result of the public service announcement waking up Canadians to the dangers confronting us as a result of radical Islam.

It would appear that Canadians were waiting for a leading human rights organization to come forward and finally tell it like it really is. The phone calls and emails have been most encouraging and pleading with us to continue this proactive advocacy. [emphasis added]

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."