Article content

Center for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) and B’nai Brith Both say they were “alarmed” by reports that “the Canadian government is considering a definition of anti-Palestinian racism.”

“Canada risks branding legitimate criticisms of Palestinian political narratives as ‘racist’ or ‘discriminatory,’” B’nai Brith warned. “This dangerous expansion of the definition of racism would censor open discussion of Jewish identity, history, and self-determination—fundamental aspects of Zionism and Jewish identity.”

Article content

These are all based on Statement by Amira ElghawabyCanada’s special envoy to combat Islamophobia welcomes the federal government’s “commitment to adopting the definition of anti-Palestinian racism to describe the prejudice and discrimination experienced by too many Palestinian Canadians.”

I understand the concern of Jewish groups. More on this in a moment. But this “let’s define specific forms of racism” effort quickly turns into farce.

CIJA and B’nai Brith were among those who successfully petitioned the federal government to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism; many pro-Palestinian advocates oppose it on the same grounds that CIJA and B’nai Brith object. Some proposed definitions of anti-Palestinian racism. (I share some of these concerns.)

Prior to this, these Jewish organizations had successfully petitioned the government to add Holocaust denial to the Criminal Code as a specific form of inciting hatred against a protected group of people. (The IHRA definition does not apply to the Criminal Code. In fact, it is not clear. What for reference. Holocaust denial has not been prosecuted since Ernst Zundel incident; The Supreme Court overturned the “false news” law that led to Zundel’s 1992 conviction.)

Article content

Article content

If Jewish organizations are truly “alarmed” or otherwise surprised that these efforts are inspiring other groups to give them their own special treatment, or that the Liberal government in Ottawa is open to the idea, then I really don’t know what to do. tell them. This was as inevitable as the sunrise.

Canadian law sets an appropriately high bar for prosecuting hate speech against any group

In fact, Palestinians are next in line behind Indigenous Canadians who have recently pushed to enact speech laws of their own. “The federal government should amend the Criminal Code to make it a crime to knowingly promote hatred against Indigenous peoples by ignoring, denying, minimizing or justifying the Indian residential school system or misrepresenting facts about it,” said Kimberly Murray of the Independent Special. he said. Addressee of Missing Children and Unmarked Graves and Burial Grounds, In his final report he wrote:It was published last month.

Members of the Law Society of British Columbia They were recently denounced as “deniers” just for persisting The community uses accurate language about the discovery of possible cemeteries, as opposed to confirmed cemeteries, at former residential school sites.

Article content

This is the world we live in. If it was illegal (or something like that) to deny the Holocaust, then, he thinks, why wouldn’t it also be illegal (or some sort) to deny the Nakba or the devastating effects of the residential school system? ? A reasonable person can give a reasonable answer to this question. But governments are not reasonable people.

As I said, I understand very well the concerns of Jewish groups. Some definitions of anti-Palestinian racism certainly seem scrupulously and deliberately vague. Quote from Arab Canadian Lawyers AssociationCanadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East includes as an example “Destroying the human rights, equal dignity and worth of Palestinians” is meaningless; and “legitimizing violence against Palestinians,” which could include defending Israel’s right to retaliate against Hamas’ atrocities.

However, it should be noted that Elghawaby welcomed this possibility. A. The definition is not a specific definition. I think such “definitions” have little meaning if they are not included in the law. However, in my view, it would make much more sense for Canada to create its own definition of antisemitism, rather than sign up to an international definition that triggers freedom of expression concerns. Freedom of expression is much more protected in Canada than in many peer countries, and that’s a good thing.

Article content

It would probably make a lot more sense to just leave all this alone. Canadian law sets an appropriately high bar for prosecuting hate speech against any group. We do not need the additional confusion and division that comes with “defining” each form of bigotry.

National Post
[email protected]

Get more in-depth National Post political news and analysis in your inbox with the Political Hack newsletter, where Ottawa bureau chief Stuart Thomson and political analyst Tasha Kheiriddin break down what’s really going on behind the scenes on Parliament Hill every Wednesday and Friday. subscribers. Sign up here.

Article content