On August 30, Amira Elghawaby, Canada’s Special Representative on Combatting Islamophobia, wrote to Canada’s college and university presidents. She expressed concern that “far too many Canadian Muslim, Arab and Palestinian students have faced adverse consequences for their advocacy, coinciding with a stark rise in Islamophobia, anti-Arab and Anti-Palestinian hate.”
In her letter, Ms. Elghawaby also supported the rights of university members to engage in democratic and peaceful methods of protests and advocacy, and that campuses must remain spaces where dialogue is encouraged. Following the Special Representative’s letter, I wrote to her, indicating that I would welcome clarification to assist me in attempting to forge the respectful dialogue she appeared to encourage. Over a month later, I have received no response to my correspondence.
The Network of Engaged Canadian Academics (“NECA”), a non-partisan group of Jewish and non-Jewish academics who share concerns about rising antisemitism on campus and who advocate for strengthening academic freedom, viewpoint diversity, and inclusion on Canadian campuses, also wrote to her. NECA has not received a response either.
Below is my correspondence to her. My questions and points of clarification remain unanswered.
September 24, 2024
Ms. Amira Elghawaby
Canada’s Special Representative on Combatting Islamophobia
Dear Ms. Elghawaby,
I am the founder of the Alliance of Canadians Combatting Antisemitism (ALCCA), a coalition of diverse community groups, organizations and individuals who are concerned about the sharp rise in antisemitic activity in Canada, particularly on Canadian university and college campuses, and especially since the attacks on October 7, 2023. ALCCA includes Jewish, Muslim, Indigenous, Hindu organizations, doctors, lawyers, dentists, psychologists, professors, academics, educators, parents, students, on-campus organizations, NGOs, synagogues, a media monitor, national security experts etc. Of course, our concerns extend to all schools, institutions and professions.
Our work is guided by principles that include our belief in respectful dialogue with those who disagree with us. But we reject hatred in all its ugly forms, including intimidation, harassment, and the celebration of violence or barbarity.
As you know, shortly after October 7, 2023, the Muslim and Jewish Law Students Associations at the University of Ottawa issued a joint statement that focussed on what unites them, rather than what divides them, and on their common humanity. They stated that “with racism, antisemitism and Islamophobia rising, we simply will not be bystanders in the face of hate.” They called upon the Ottawa law community to focus on “how our shared pain unifies us instead of letting hatred divide us. We ask that you listen to each other with empathy, dignity and respect.”
Inspired by that statement, members of the law community across Canada created a Respectful Dialogue Initiative. We indicated that the entire law community in Canada can play a critically important role in advancing the rule of law and in promoting respectful dialogue on the difficult issues that face us.
We stated that we reject all manifestations of antisemitism and Islamophobia, verbal and physical, incitement to violence and the celebration of glorification of violence and barbarity. We also recognized that there are profound differences in how the events in Israel and Gaza are perceived. However, the legal community can be instrumental in promoting respectful dialogue, open-mindedness to opposing perspectives and critical thinking. The initiative quickly attracted many signatories from across Canada, including Jews and Muslims. We have begun to develop programming to support this initiative. It now extends well beyond the law community.
Accordingly, it was with great interest that I read your letter to college and university presidents and would welcome your response and clarification to several questions I have posed below. It would be of great assistance to me in attempting to forge respectful dialogues.
Given your mandate, it is important that your letter addresses concerns expressed by or on behalf of Canadian Muslim, Arab and Palestinian students. They are fully entitled to forceful advocacy on their behalf, which includes your recommendations and advice.
You state that far too many Canadian Muslim, Arab and Palestinian students have faced adverse consequences for their advocacy, coinciding with a stark rise in Islamophobia, anti-Arab and Anti-Palestinian hate. As a Zionist and a Jew, I unequivocally reject any discrimination if directed against Muslims, Arabs, or Palestinians because they are Muslim, Arab or Palestinian. Indeed, I have devoted much of my life to rejecting hatred regardless of its victims. Nor do I take freedom of speech lightly and defend the right of any Canadian to robustly criticize Israel, its government, its policies in a peaceful way that does not involve intimidation, harassment or violence.
However, it is difficult to foster respectful dialogue and a safe environment on campuses across the country if we fail to acknowledge the full reality of life on campuses for their diverse populations. I respectfully believe it is unfortunate that your letter failed to acknowledge that statistically, far more hate crimes are being committed against the Jewish community than any other community in Canada, and there are far more instances of Jewish students and their allies facing severe negative consequences for even attempting to express pro-Israeli or pro-Zionist views. This leaves aside the many instances of Jewish students who are justifiably afraid to come to school, or to manifest their Jewish identity while at school. My point is not that the disproportionate targeting of Canadian Jews and students means that hate crimes or suppression of protected speech should be taken less seriously if and when it is directed against others. My point is that a failure to explicitly acknowledge the level of hate on campuses being directed against Jewish and Zionist students contributes to the problem, rather than a solution. I hope that you will consider this point in your future correspondence.
I take no issue with your important statement that we must support the rights of university members to engage in democratic and peaceful methods of protests and advocacy. I wholeheartedly support your position that colleges and university campuses must remain spaces where dialogue is encouraged; where everyone feels safe to express their views on important issues and global events, although hate and violence should not be allowed and should be denounced as unacceptable forms of speech or action. These principles were well expressed in your correspondence.
But we will not make any progress in respectful dialogue if these words are not given appropriate content. Two examples suffice:
On a number of campuses, pro-Palestinian students chant or hold up signs that says “Zionism off campus” or “Zionists off campus.” Professors have been recorded saying that they will not teach Zionists in their classes. All Zionists are characterized as evil, genocidal, racist. Some faculty members seek to indoctrinate their students, rather than actively listen to, encourage and facilitate opposing views on the Middle East and more importantly, create an environment where students feel free to express their views.
Approximately 91% of Canadian Jews are Zionists, that is, they believe in the right to a Jewish state in Israel. They hold widely divergent views on the controversial issues of the day, and many represent some of Israel’s harshest critics. But my question is a simple one. Do you believe that calling for all Zionists off campus, and refusing to teach Zionists, constitutes protected speech? Are you prepared, at a minimum, to publicly state that the demonization of all Zionists on campus represents an unacceptance form of speech and undermines respectful dialogue? Such a public statement would go a long way in reducing on-campus hatred.
Second, there has been a controversy about the role that anti-Palestinian racism should play in anti-racism policies. You are well familiar with the arguments and counterarguments made on this issue. Again, I have no tolerance for anti-Palestinian discrimination, so that isn’t the issue for me. But I am mindful of definitions of anti-Palestinian racism that effectively make every Zionist a racist. Anti-Palestinian racism, when defined in this way, weaponizes the concept to demonize us all. I welcome your comments on whether it is appropriate to define anti-Palestinian hatred in a way that makes every Zionist anti-Palestinian, regardless of their personal views.
It is a disservice to the many Canadian Zionists who have supported Palestinian self-determination, and a two-state solution. It is a disservice to the many Zionists in Israel who have worked to uphold Palestinian self-determination, and the rights of Palestinians at risk, often in partnership with Palestinian Arab counterparts. Equally important, the demonization of all Zionists as anti-Palestinian prevents respectful dialogue. In fact, this demonization has greatly contributed to the struggle in moving forward on respectful dialogue. It is more difficult to have respectful dialogue when the very act of dialogue with Zionists is regarded as inexcusable. I believe that you could contribute to a significant reduction of hatred through denouncing the view that any discourse with Zionists is unacceptable. I am asking that you do so.
You draw the distinction between advocacy that makes people uncomfortable and advocacy that creates an unsafe space for students and faculty members. That distinction, again, is a valid one. Freedom of expression on contentious matters will undoubtedly make people feel uncomfortable. It is a price we must all pay for upholding democratic values. And you are right in saying that it is particularly difficult to draw important distinctions between protected and hate speech when lives are at stake in the Middle East, regardless of one’s perspective.
However, the distinction has been used by some to diminish, minimize or discount the legitimate safety concerns, not mere discomfort, felt by too many Jewish students on campuses. For example, this distinction was raised in response to the TMU students’ letter that was the subject of Michael MacDonald’s report. In the aftermath of Michael MacDonald’s report, it was suggested that Jewish students failed to recognize that expression that merely made them uncomfortable did not justify the suppression of that expression. However, although I disagree with much of Mr. MacDonald’s report, he found that many of the school’s Jewish students experienced an “intimidating, hostile and offensive” study environment “for a variety of reasons of which the letter was a significant one.” Leaving aside our undoubtedly divergent views on the nature of that student letter, it is unfortunate that few of those who supported the student signatories have acknowledged the lived experiences of the affected Jewish students or acknowledged that none of us should find acceptable expression on campus that creates an intimidating, hostile and offensive study environment for any students. I hope you agree.
Finally, I agree with your comments on the importance of defending academic freedom. I have never advocated that any Canadian college or university boycott universities situated in countries or territories in conflict with Israel. Accordingly, in my view, it is troubling that some pro-Palestinian protestors seek to prevent Canadian colleges and universities, and their faculty, from partnerships with Israeli universities and academics. I cannot support Canadian universities’ boycotting any foreign universities or academics. I would hope that you would join me in agreeing that the values of academic freedom, research integrity and institutional neutrality do not support such boycotts, regardless of your political views and any political views of Canadian Muslims, Arabs or Palestinians.
I hope, in the spirit of dialogue, that you will share with me, our Alliance and the colleges and universities your response to the specific issues and concerns raised in my letter to you.
Thank you in advance for your consideration in this regard.
Mark Sandler, LL.B., LL.D (honoris causa)
No Double Standards in Addressing Hate
As is obvious from my correspondence, I believe that the Special Representative could serve as a catalyst for positive change if she chose to do so. Her mandate – combatting Islamophobia – is poorly served if she fails to condemn all forms of hate including those that demonize all Zionists, all Israeli Jews, and all our allies without distinction.
Her mandate is also poorly served if she endorses academic freedom and freedom of expression selectively by condoning those who suppress those freedoms, as well as institutional neutrality and research integrity through boycotting Israeli educational institutions.
And her mandate is poorly served if she denounces hate speech, but rarely recognizes its existence unless directed against Muslims, Palestinians, or Arabs. To be clear, the same standards should be expected of the Jewish community and its allies. We cannot say we support freedom of speech and academic freedom unless they extend to those who criticize Israel and her policies in the same way other countries are criticized. The IHRA definition of antisemitism, adopted by the Government of Canada, says precisely that.
Many of us believe, with justification, that some (or many) of those criticisms are deeply offensive, and fundamentally untrue. However, unless they rise to the level of criminal hate speech, violate codes of conduct and/or create poisoned environments for our students or in the workplace, our answer must be found in proper education and respectful dialogue.
Unfortunately, Ms. Elghawaby’s voice has not contributed to the appropriate resolution of these important issues. Indeed, her advocacy for inclusion of anti-Palestinian racism (APR) in the federal government’s anti-racism strategy has been troubling on many levels, particularly when APR has been defined by its proponents so as to label expressions of any support for Israel and Zionism and the core identities of most Jews as racist. Her unresponsiveness to my outreach and NECA’s outreach does not inspire confidence.
Those charged with defending against one form of hate must have the integrity and fortitude to defend against all forms of hate. I still welcome an opportunity to engage Ms. Elghawaby in a respectful dialogue about the issues I have raised.
--
Additional Resources
About the Author
Mark Sandler, LL.B., LL.D. (honoris causa), ALCCA’s Chair, is widely recognized as one of Canada’s leading criminal lawyers and pro bono advocates. He has been involved in combatting antisemitism for over 40 years. He has lectured extensively on legal remedies to combat hate and has promoted respectful Muslim-Jewish, Sikh-Jewish and Black-Jewish dialogues. He has appeared before Parliamentary committees and in the Supreme Court of Canada on multiple occasions on issues relating to antisemitism and hate activities. He is a former member of the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, a three-time elected Bencher of the Law Society of Ontario, and recipient of the criminal profession’s highest honour, the G. Arthur Martin Medal, for his contributions to the administration of criminal justice.