Canada Adopts IHRA: 'To Silence Criticism of Israel and Zionism' - IJV

There is certainly political will on the right to take this path.   Here's a gem from the National Post on the growing threat of BDS:

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/robert-fulford-the-bds-halo-is-slipping...

"Steven Salaita is a self-confessed despiser of Israel who unleashed a storm of hate-filled tweets before and after the last Gaza War in 2014, and was then denied a campus appointment at the University of Illinois — a decision Nelson endorses, since Salaita in his books as well as his social media posts is a proud hate-monger who disdains the academic virtues of civil debate. Salaita wants to ban Zionists from the left. Should a university hire someone like Salaita, Nelson asks, who would promote discrimination on campus? Nelson also believes that Judith Butler, like other BDS advocates, rejects “Israel’s cultural institutions and its right to exist.” 

Mobo2000 wrote:

Won't it be enforced by the Canadian Human Rights Commission?   Individuals or organizations will bring complaints against BDS activists, who will then have their cases heard by CHRC.

IANAL, but I wouldn't expect there to be a direct domino relationship between the federal government announcing they support a particular definition of something, and that definition having to be enforced by human rights commissions.

 

According to Canadian Jewish News, the IHRA was adopted by the Ministry Of Heritage And Multiculturalism, and is not legally binding.

Also, from reading the article, it seems that the main problem would be with the guidelines attached to the resolution, not the text of the resolution itself. Not sure what difference that makes.

“Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
 

Guidelines attached to the definition include illustrations of anti-Semitism, including Holocaust denial, accusing Israel and Jews of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust, making “mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing or stereotypical allegations about Jews,” denying Jews their right to self-determination by claiming that Israel is a racist endeavour, along with other facets of anti-Jewish racism.

http://tinyurl.com/y2vktc8j

 

A motion to condem critisim of islam.

Only here it can be a motion to condem anti-Semitism.

josh wrote:

Not when a political state is included within the definition.

 

Is it though?  The definitions of anti-semitisim I've came across only mention Jews and not Israel as a state.

Quote:

"Today I was joined by Marco Mendicino and Irwin Cotler & Jewish community leadership to highlight the Gov'ts' adoption of the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism, as part of our new Anti-Racism Strategy. This is an important stop forward in ensuring a safer future for Jews in Canada."

Quote:

"Today I was joined by XXX and XXX & Muslim community leadership to highlight the Gov'ts' adoption of the IHRA Definition of Islamophobia, as part of our new Anti-Racism Strategy. This is an important stop forward in ensuring a safer future for Muslims in Canada."

 

They seem interchangable to me.

VOTD:  Re your post 7 I'm not sure what you mean, or what Burch is implying with his questions.  If his implication is this is no big deal and will not be used against critics of Israel on university campuses, I disagree.  

I mean, the fact that the government has adopted this definition will not directly lead to the HRCs or other governmental organizations adopting it as part of their definition.

How many times have you heard someone complain "The government ratified the International Convention Of Whatever, but hasn't done a damn thing to implement its principles". Unless further legislation is put forth, this IHRA could end up being something like those international conventions.

Which is not to say I'm cool with adopting it. If nothing else, it could give those wishing to suppress criticisim of Israel a rhetorical device in pursuit of that aim: "How can you call Israel an apartheid state? Don't you know our own government considers that to be anti-semitism?"

 

Mobo2000 wrote:

VOTD:  Re your post 7 I'm not sure what you mean, or what Burch is implying with his questions.  If his implication is this is no big deal and will not be used against critics of Israel on university campuses, I disagree.  

RE: Paladin's comments and M103, the National Post agrees:

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/theres-a-debate-over-canadas-new-...

"The IHRA definition of anti-Semitism is brief, but includes a list of 11 contemporary examples, such as “the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy,” and the claim that Jews invented or exaggerated the Holocaust. It also lists as anti-Semitic “applying double standards by requiring of (Israel) a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.”

A proposed example of this double standard is given later in the article:

"Independent Jewish Voices, an organization that supports the call for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israel, is urging Ottawa to reconsider. “The full definition’s examples conflate fundamental criticisms of Israel and/or Zionism with anti-Semitism — a position IJV strongly rejects,” the organization said in a statement, adding its adoption “would pose a serious threat to freedom of expression and academic freedom in Canada.”

Fishman and Housefather both denied this, pointing out that the definition states that “criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic.” But Fishman said support for the BDS movement does constitute anti-Semitism under the IHRA definition to the extent that supporters also, for example, call for the lifting of sanctions against Iran — a double standard, he argued.

“There are many parts of BDS which are indeed a new form of anti-Semitism when you single out Israel,” Housefather said."

"Canada’s anti-racism strategy does not propose any new penalties for anti-Semitism, nor does it propose new legislation — it provides only a definition. But Meghan McDermott, staff counsel for the BCCLA, said she worries it could eventually be incorporated into the Criminal Code. “It’s kind of what we would call soft law for now,” she said. “We just worry about that whole floodgates argument.”    ... That “floodgates argument” is strikingly similar to the concerns raised by Conservatives and other critics of M-103, the 2017 motion that called on the government to condemn Islamophobia and all forms of racism and religious discrimination. Though M-103 was not a government bill and proposed no changes to legislation, critics claimed that because Islamophobia was not precisely defined, the motion could restrict legitimate criticism of Islam."

---------------

Mobo:   My own view is that both M103 and this new definition are overly broad.   I don't think they will have any positive effect on reducing racism or bigotry.  I don't think governments are generally successful at influencing the public's opionion about anything, and ours seems particularly bad at it.    Sometimes these efforts have the reverse effect of what they are aiming for when they try.   I think our government should err on the side of free speech to the greatest degree possible, only speech that contains direct incitments to violence should be criminalized.  

I'm not "implying" anything-I'm asking a legitimate series of questions about what, precisely, it means that "Canada"-I assume that refers simply to the government, rather than every individual Canadian agreeing to it in unison-has agreed to this definition.  If I didn't make this clear in my wording, my intent is not to minimize the implications of the Canadian government accepting this definition.  I was simply asking for clarification as to what this would and would not mean.

I deeply oppose the adaptation of these guidelines-they are clearly not about fighting actual antisemitism, a prejudice  the pro-Palestinian community is just as deeply opposed to as anybody else, as should go without saying; the intent of the guidelines, as written, is to equate virtually ANY public criticism of the actions of the Israeli government with anti-Semitism, to imply that the State of Israel and the world's Jewish communities are somehow a single entity, and to give "pro-Israel" types-the largest number of whom, in North America, are evangelical Christians who support Israeli territorial aggressiveness and the oppression of the Palestinian people as part of the despicable and TRULY anti-Semitic "Last Days" eschatology-the Last Days/Rapture notion of Christianity being a scenario which includes, after the reconstruction of the Temple, an insistence that Jews either convert to (evangelical)Christianity or face extermination.

The IHRA "guidelines and examples" also have the indefensible effect of giving the Israeli government and its apologists an automatic veto on what anyone can and cannot say about the actions of the Israeli government-under those guidelines, all anyone has to do is to claim that the criticism in question "singles out" the Israeli government or "holds it to a higher standard" than other countries-something virtually no opposition to Israeli policies ever actually does, for the record-and whatever was said is not anathema, with whoever said it being a pariah until that person, presumably, recants in some sort of degradation ceremony and then pledges, henceforth, to be unquestioning defender of the Netanyahu regime.

 

So I will not be able to say that Israel's treatment of Palestinians is racist? That sounds equivalent to telling me I can't say the country to the south of me is a white supremacist nation or that Canadians have committed genocide against our native population.

I can say anything I want about China though and it isn't racist it is merely a comment about their form of government not a new expression of Canada's Anti-Asian Exclusion history.

Ken Burch wrote:

In saying that, are you agreeing that accusations that similiar critiques of the Israeli role in Canadian politics are somehow "anti-Semitic" are bogus?

I'm not very smart when it comes to this stuff. I don't even fully understand your question (but I'll take a shot).

I think it's bogus that criticism, dislike, even hate speech towards jews has it's own special word. I think the act of doing something like that suggests jewish people should be held above everyone else. Like hate criems are bad but against jews they're REALLY bad.

I don't understand why (they do) but I think Israel (not sure if I'd say jewish people or not) get special, preferential treatment from the US and Canada. They're like the old boys club at a workplace (or message forum...) that can figuratively and litterally get away with murder.

I don't believe critiques of the Israeli role in Canadian politics are "anti-Semitic" at all. I think that's a case of Israels, or maybe Jweish, special treatment.

We should be able to critique the shit out of Israel, out of Saudia Arabia, out of Judaism, Catholicisim, you name it.

Paladin,

i think that anti-semitism is very real. Jewish people have faced persecution for centuries, no millennia. The holocaust was a very recent example of how evil hatred against Jewish people can take out their hatred against them. 

I don’t blame Jewish people for being so acutely sensitive about negativity that is directed against them. However, what the Israeli government is doing to Palestinians is disgraceful and people need to have the freedom to be able to criticize actions that Israel has taken.withiut being accused of racism and anti-semitism.

 

Misfit wrote:

Paladin,

i think that anti-semitism is very real. Jewish people have faced persecution for centuries, no millennia. The holocaust was a very recent example of how evil hatred against Jewish people can take out their hatred against them. 

I don’t blame Jewish people for being so acutely sensitive about negativity that is directed against them. However, what the Israeli government is doing to Palestinians is disgraceful and people need to have the freedom to be able to criticize actions that Israel has taken.withiut being accused of racism and anti-semitism.

 

Absolutely.  

NDPP wrote:

IHRA is yet another strategem by the Zionist lobby to shut down criticism of itself and Apartheid Israel using the Canadian political class to accomplish this against its own people. The President of Israel identified this mechanism during a recent trip to Canada. What must be done is to isolate this lobby's domestic sources of funding, support and influence and shut those down.

A good start might be for Canadian voters to exercise their own initiative in this regard when contemplating your voting choices. If you, as I, believe Israeli writer Gideon Levy is correct when he says "There is no decent politician in the world today who supports Israel,' then it is incumbent upon you to determine if your candidate is one of these and if so NOT to continue to aid and abet Israeli apartheid and throw more Palestinian lives under the bus by voting for them.

Well said, NDPP.

Mobo2000 wrote:

Ken, re: post 18 - I did read you wrong upthread, thanks for clarifying.

 

It's all good-perhaps I might have written what you responded to with greater clarity.