The conflict between Israel and Hamas has spilled over into Canada’s streets, classrooms, businesses, places of worship, community centres, and professions. Hate crimes against Jews and Muslims spiral upwards. Civil discourse spirals downwards.
A war of words is being waged in the Canadian media, accompanied by conflicting assertions – often misinformed --- about what constitutes protected speech v hate speech, academic freedom v indoctrination. More importantly, antagonists fail to recognize the harm caused to all affected communities in Canada, whether Jewish, Muslim, Palestinian, Israeli, Arab, by the absence of true dialogue.
The Muslim and Jewish Law Students Associations at the University of Ottawa Faculty of Law understand this. They issued a joint communique emphasizing what unites them, rather than divides them. They rejected both antisemitism and Islamophobia and called on professors and fellow students to recognize the pain that both communities are feeling and show sensitivity and tact in how difficult issues are discussed.
Almost 1,900 (and still counting) members of Canada’s law community, including some of our leading lawyers and former judges also understand this. In an open letter supporting the Ottawa students’ initiative, they are calling for a respectful dialogue, rejecting intimidation, incitement to violence and any celebration of violence and barbarity. The signatories include Muslim and Jewish lawyers, faculty and students who may hold sharply divergent views, but wish to hear what others have to say.
Contrast this with three false assertions about freedom of speech.
First, that vandalism constitutes “protected speech.” Vandalism is a crime. It suppresses freedom of speech by intimidating those with contrary views.
Second, that “academic freedom” permits faculty members to say virtually anything (or even commit crimes) to advance their political agendas. Faculty cannot create a poisoned environment for their students through comments in or outside the classroom that marginalize or demonize students who hold conflicting views. Such faculty are properly accountable in law for conduct antithetical to their professional duties. In their zeal to win the war of words, they are more interested in indoctrination than discourse.
Third, that radical activists are immunized against prosecution for hate crimes when they strategically distinguish between hatred of all Zionists and hatred of all Jews -- such as the hatemonger in Montreal who reportedly issued a prayer for the destruction of all Zionists. The overwhelming majority of Jews are Zionists. For most Jews, Zionism represents support for Jewish self-determinism and the existence of Israel as a democratic Jewish state with equality rights for minorities. Zionists undoubtedly hold widely divergent views. Many Zionists support a two-state solution, have been sharply critical of the current Israel government, and hold varied views on the Gazan offensive, although recognizing Israel’s right to defend itself against terrorism. However, people who deny even the existence or legitimacy of Israel often demonize all Zionists by distorting what being a Zionist means. They falsely equate being a Zionist with being anti-Arab or anti-Palestinian and describe all Zionists or supporters of Israel in the most vile terms. It is hardly surprising that this demonization of all Zionists, when it occurs -- as opposed to vigorous criticism of the Israeli government or its actions --is reasonably regarded as hatred directed against Jews and thus, antisemitic in its effect.
Canadians must demand that the conflict in Israel and Gaza not be waged here. Hate speech, intimidation, incitement to violence, the celebration of barbarity, have no place here. Canadians should call it for what it is, regardless of its source. As a Zionist, I am prepared to carefully listen to the views of anyone not intent on my destruction or the destruction of the State of Israel. It is imperative that Palestinians and Jews co-exist in the Middle East and realize their legitimate aspirations together. It is also imperative that Canadians stop shouting at each other. Please support respectful dialogue at https://chng.it/NJhMk66Qf8.
Mark
Postscript
After completing this article, I watched the congressional hearing in Washington D.C. respecting antisemitism on campuses. The question posed to the presidents of three ivy league schools was a simple one: does calling for the genocide of Jews violate their universities' code of conduct or rules regarding bullying or harassment.
The moral bankruptcy revealed by their answers was stunning. They were not prepared to acknowledge that the answer should be an unequivocal "yes." Instead, they stated that the answer "depends on the context" and on whether the speech turns into conduct (ie whether individual Jews are attacked or killed)/
This interpretation of their codes of conduct can only embolden antisemites and undermine the safety of Jewish students and faculty members. How could a call for the destruction of all Jews not constitute a call for the destruction of each individual Jew on campus? The presidents' answers give licence for hatemongers to call for the extermination of all groups distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, sexual orientation or gender identity or expression. Would these presidents have answered the same way if asked whether a call for the extermination of all Arab, Muslim, Black, LGBTQ community members .violate their codes of conduct or rules?
In Canada, advocating or promoting the genocide of Jews (and other groups identified above) not only violates campus codes of conduct, but constitutes a crime pursuant to s. 318(1) of our Criminal Code.
For much of my professional life, I have been aware of the sometimes difficult issues around freedom of speech v. hate speech. As indicated earlier, I recognize and support the ability of others to express opposing, even troubling views, subject to clearly articulated limits. And I certainly expected that antisemitism would continue to exist, as it has for 1000s of years, as it mutates and masquerades itself in forms that attract adherents -- sometimes malevolent, sometimes ignorant. But I confess that I never expected that advocating the extermination of all Jews, all Zionists, all Israelis would be excused, condoned, encouraged, facilitated by so many. All the more reason to build respectful coalitions that engage people of good will of all descriptions.
This post was originally published on LinkedIn Pulse on December 6, 2023.
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.
Comments