Selectively spineless Canada has become a Jew-hating country. Mostly due to the toxic wokey leftists, many of whom are "Liberal", NDP, Green, and are Members of Parliament, fervently supporting and aiding the radical Islamists. The toxic, heavily slanted reporting and propagandizing by the ideologically and intellectually compromised CBC and MSM is another big reason.
This Parliament has adopted the resolution against Islamophobia. It should also adopt a resolution against Judeophobia. Lastly, this Parliament DOES NOT REPRESENT the majority of Canadians.
The City of Victoria has shown it's usual immaturity, lack of experience or love for it's community and allowed, again, a few nut bars to disrupt our streets time and again.
This may all be true, but the slogans are just the tip of the iceberg which also includes two years of mass media platforming people accusing Israel of genocide, supported by social media influencers and organized harassment of Jews in their communities, and Jewish children in their schools.
I have encountered not conversations, but ridicule and contempt when trying to challenge the claims of Israeli genocide. The hatred is being propagated culturally and the slogans are its expression. Responsible advocacy for free speech has to include resolute opposition to the propagation of hatred.
What are you doing about the growing Jew hatred in Canada?
Accusations of genocide in the context of a conversation can’t be banned. But propagating the idea unchallenged so that people who know nothing about what’s happening is propaganda. There are reasonable arguments that genocide is not happening.
Ethnic cleansing is a separate claim which can also be debated.
What is not OK is saturating the zone with accusations of genocide without explaining the case against it. What is not OK is calling anyone who makes that argument a “genocide denier” as though Israeli genocide is an established fact equivalent to the Holocaust.
Unfortunately I have frequently encountered the laugh emoji and accusations of”genocide denial” rather than a reasoned conversation.
The reason for my alarm is that the coverage looks more like preparing the ground for the marginalization of Canadians Jews than a reasoned debate on geopolitics.
And things keep happening that suggest that Canadian Jews are in fact being marginalized.
Check out the Canadaland podcast on antisemitism since the Hamas attack on Israel in October 2023.
The law on “nuisance” and “trespass” are both reasonably clear, and it is pretty much the same in all the provinces.
Accordingly, it is important to appreciate that trespass, or harassment, or impeding the lawful activities of citizens going about their business, can all be declared unlawful; and that it looks pretty much the same, whether it is: badgering people or blocking access to an abortion counseling service; OR union picketers impeding access to a business during a strike; OR aboriginals/environmentalists blocking roads or railways in support of their “cause” (especially if there are court injunctions prohibiting that very conduct); OR “convoy” scofflaws blocking the Ambassador Bridge (in that case interfering with millions of dollars of international commerce); OR protesters impeding access to a celebratory dinner for the Toronto Italian community, because the Prime Minister was planning to attend - so that, in the end, it had to be cancelled.
Moreover, non-enforcement (or worse, selective enforcement) of the law, clearly challenges the reputation of police officers and it can bring the law itself into disrepute. And it also introduces an unfortunate concern about the “politicization” of law enforcement.
For example: how was it that the anti-Israel occupations on university campuses, in some provinces, went on for weeks and weeks, while in Alberta, they were gone in a couple of days?
How was it that access to a Toronto Jewish neighborhood was blocked (and police seemed quite chummy with the protesters doing it) until the Prime Minister whispered in the ear of the Toronto Police Chief, and the road was magically, and almost immediately, cleared?
Conversely, if injunctions won’t be enforced, and if the police are free to let the law be broken, and if politicians cannot direct them to put a stop to it, then what is does “the rule of law” mean anyway?
That said, it seems to me that two things have changed, in recent years; and only one of them has to do with “the law”.
First of all, the use of force (however justified or “lawful”) can now be effortlessly electronically recorded, which is troubling to the squeamish, who may see it on their nightly news. So, police are reluctant to do it, lest citizens be discomfited. Moreover, many citizens do not recognize that enforcing the law, will sometimes require the use of force; and that is so even if the dispute is “political” rather than “commercial” (as it would be for striking workers or perhaps for employees protesting a plant closure).
Secondly, in this era of “the Charter” and “rights consciousness”, it seems to me that the police have, in many ways, elevated the rights of protesters over those of ordinary citizens, and property owners and businesses.
Because the police seem to have adopted the position that it is more important that protesters get their message out, (i.e. their “freedom of speech”) and that the protest be “peaceful”, than that the property and civil rights of these ordinary citizens be respected.
Which is to say, it is more important that the protest be peaceful than that it be lawful.
Even when the protest is punctuated by blatant unlawfulness (like property damage, or fires), which just go unpunished. [Like the behavior associated with the “unmarked graves” controversy].
Finally, as things now stand, there are significant barriers to legal redress for ordinary citizens, (or businesses), who merely wish to be uninvolved, and who are economically or socially impacted by the dislocation.
For example, what could the Toronto Gay Pride marchers DO last year when their annual parade was interrupted and the police refused to remove those individuals blocking the procession? What practical redress was available to them? Or put differently: what happened to THEIR rights?
Similarly, how long did the citizens of Caledonia have to endure the occupation of their town and abuse by aboriginal protesters; and how long did they have to wait for economic redress? [I recognize that there may also be aboriginal land claims in play in this setting, but if so there are legal avenues to pursue them, too].
Finally, the scariest possibility, is that if ordinary people are unprotected by the law, then they may organize their own collective action in self defense. For, if the law seems impotent, citizens may turn to self-help.
We saw the beginnings of that in Ottawa, when citizens blocked access to their neighborhoods to prevent the “truckers” from coming through. And I can only imagine what would have happened if the Laborers’ Union members who wanted to attend the Toronto Italian dinner had known, in advance, that the protesters were going to disrupt that event.
We saw that kind of tumult in the US during the Vietnam period (remember the “hard hats?) and it is not something that should be welcomed in Canada.
But, if the law can be broken with relative impunity, then don’t be surprised if it becomes more frequent and if ordinary citizens begin to resort to self-help. Again, the citizens of Caledonia come to mind; although, happily, the legal dispute there was ultimately settled.
[For those academically minded see See: Kerry Sun, Trespass Encampments and the Charter: a discussion of the decision of Ontario Superior Court decision in University of Toronto (Governing Council) v. Doe et al., 2024 ONSC 3755. And lest readers think this is a “new problem”, see Ontario (Attorney General) v. Dieleman, 1994 CanLII 10546 (ON SC) which involved religious protesters picketing abortion clinics, counseling services, hospitals, doctors offices and doctors’ homes]. That was 30 years ago!
Thank you, Josh Dehaas, for a clear-eyed take on the situation that Jewish Canadians face right now. We have long been calling for the police and Crown offices to do their jobs. If there is any uncertainty about the laws we currently have, we will only know that by testing those laws in court. We feel very frustrated by the lack of support on enforcement -- by police, Crown offices and all levels of government. It was also good to see your very concrete suggestions on what else to do and what to require of various investigative and legal organizations.
TL/DR when I got to “brave Israeli IDF”. Your Zionist tilt reaffirms my decision to terminate my subscription.
Canada is still supplying genocide.
We Canadians are signatory to a UN Convention that requires we take ACTION to prevent genocide. Failure to take such action makes us party to genocide.
The actions of the state of Israel, for the 75 years leading up to October 7 but especially since then, are the #1 cause of the increase in antisemitism worldwide. The world does not like genociders, regardless of uniform…and in that topic, here’s a little haiku to help clarify:
Banning a specific phrase is both illiberal, and dumb. They'll just invent slight variations for those in-the-know.
Like overthrowing the government: "The Boogaloo", "big igloo", "large ice structure"... on and on.
Me, I'd be happy if we used the same standards that were used against the truck convoy....
Selectively spineless Canada has become a Jew-hating country. Mostly due to the toxic wokey leftists, many of whom are "Liberal", NDP, Green, and are Members of Parliament, fervently supporting and aiding the radical Islamists. The toxic, heavily slanted reporting and propagandizing by the ideologically and intellectually compromised CBC and MSM is another big reason.
This Parliament has adopted the resolution against Islamophobia. It should also adopt a resolution against Judeophobia. Lastly, this Parliament DOES NOT REPRESENT the majority of Canadians.
The City of Victoria has shown it's usual immaturity, lack of experience or love for it's community and allowed, again, a few nut bars to disrupt our streets time and again.
We suffer so many fools here on the fringe.
We know banning books is a stupid idea. Banning slogans is no different.
This is an excellent article.
This may all be true, but the slogans are just the tip of the iceberg which also includes two years of mass media platforming people accusing Israel of genocide, supported by social media influencers and organized harassment of Jews in their communities, and Jewish children in their schools.
I have encountered not conversations, but ridicule and contempt when trying to challenge the claims of Israeli genocide. The hatred is being propagated culturally and the slogans are its expression. Responsible advocacy for free speech has to include resolute opposition to the propagation of hatred.
What are you doing about the growing Jew hatred in Canada?
Accusations of genocide, or cleansing, by Bibi/Likud are of course legitimate criticisms of their choices and will be protected.
For my part, if what they chose in Gaza and the West Bank is not cleansing, it'll do fine until a cleansing comes along...
I think we're rightly backing away from censoring anything that makes anyone uncomfortable, lol.
Accusations of genocide in the context of a conversation can’t be banned. But propagating the idea unchallenged so that people who know nothing about what’s happening is propaganda. There are reasonable arguments that genocide is not happening.
Ethnic cleansing is a separate claim which can also be debated.
What is not OK is saturating the zone with accusations of genocide without explaining the case against it. What is not OK is calling anyone who makes that argument a “genocide denier” as though Israeli genocide is an established fact equivalent to the Holocaust.
I'm not sure what you want.
Go ahead and challenge/debate the accusations of genocide or ethnic cleansing til the cows come home.
"Saturating the zone?" If you mean you're hearing it a lot, or a lot of people are saying it... there might be a number of conclusions from that.
I’ve done so. Here for example. https://open.substack.com/pub/canadianzionistforum/p/war-and-genocide?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
Unfortunately I have frequently encountered the laugh emoji and accusations of”genocide denial” rather than a reasoned conversation.
The reason for my alarm is that the coverage looks more like preparing the ground for the marginalization of Canadians Jews than a reasoned debate on geopolitics.
And things keep happening that suggest that Canadian Jews are in fact being marginalized.
Check out the Canadaland podcast on antisemitism since the Hamas attack on Israel in October 2023.
The law on “nuisance” and “trespass” are both reasonably clear, and it is pretty much the same in all the provinces.
Accordingly, it is important to appreciate that trespass, or harassment, or impeding the lawful activities of citizens going about their business, can all be declared unlawful; and that it looks pretty much the same, whether it is: badgering people or blocking access to an abortion counseling service; OR union picketers impeding access to a business during a strike; OR aboriginals/environmentalists blocking roads or railways in support of their “cause” (especially if there are court injunctions prohibiting that very conduct); OR “convoy” scofflaws blocking the Ambassador Bridge (in that case interfering with millions of dollars of international commerce); OR protesters impeding access to a celebratory dinner for the Toronto Italian community, because the Prime Minister was planning to attend - so that, in the end, it had to be cancelled.
Moreover, non-enforcement (or worse, selective enforcement) of the law, clearly challenges the reputation of police officers and it can bring the law itself into disrepute. And it also introduces an unfortunate concern about the “politicization” of law enforcement.
For example: how was it that the anti-Israel occupations on university campuses, in some provinces, went on for weeks and weeks, while in Alberta, they were gone in a couple of days?
How was it that access to a Toronto Jewish neighborhood was blocked (and police seemed quite chummy with the protesters doing it) until the Prime Minister whispered in the ear of the Toronto Police Chief, and the road was magically, and almost immediately, cleared?
Conversely, if injunctions won’t be enforced, and if the police are free to let the law be broken, and if politicians cannot direct them to put a stop to it, then what is does “the rule of law” mean anyway?
That said, it seems to me that two things have changed, in recent years; and only one of them has to do with “the law”.
First of all, the use of force (however justified or “lawful”) can now be effortlessly electronically recorded, which is troubling to the squeamish, who may see it on their nightly news. So, police are reluctant to do it, lest citizens be discomfited. Moreover, many citizens do not recognize that enforcing the law, will sometimes require the use of force; and that is so even if the dispute is “political” rather than “commercial” (as it would be for striking workers or perhaps for employees protesting a plant closure).
Secondly, in this era of “the Charter” and “rights consciousness”, it seems to me that the police have, in many ways, elevated the rights of protesters over those of ordinary citizens, and property owners and businesses.
Because the police seem to have adopted the position that it is more important that protesters get their message out, (i.e. their “freedom of speech”) and that the protest be “peaceful”, than that the property and civil rights of these ordinary citizens be respected.
Which is to say, it is more important that the protest be peaceful than that it be lawful.
Even when the protest is punctuated by blatant unlawfulness (like property damage, or fires), which just go unpunished. [Like the behavior associated with the “unmarked graves” controversy].
Finally, as things now stand, there are significant barriers to legal redress for ordinary citizens, (or businesses), who merely wish to be uninvolved, and who are economically or socially impacted by the dislocation.
For example, what could the Toronto Gay Pride marchers DO last year when their annual parade was interrupted and the police refused to remove those individuals blocking the procession? What practical redress was available to them? Or put differently: what happened to THEIR rights?
Similarly, how long did the citizens of Caledonia have to endure the occupation of their town and abuse by aboriginal protesters; and how long did they have to wait for economic redress? [I recognize that there may also be aboriginal land claims in play in this setting, but if so there are legal avenues to pursue them, too].
Finally, the scariest possibility, is that if ordinary people are unprotected by the law, then they may organize their own collective action in self defense. For, if the law seems impotent, citizens may turn to self-help.
We saw the beginnings of that in Ottawa, when citizens blocked access to their neighborhoods to prevent the “truckers” from coming through. And I can only imagine what would have happened if the Laborers’ Union members who wanted to attend the Toronto Italian dinner had known, in advance, that the protesters were going to disrupt that event.
We saw that kind of tumult in the US during the Vietnam period (remember the “hard hats?) and it is not something that should be welcomed in Canada.
But, if the law can be broken with relative impunity, then don’t be surprised if it becomes more frequent and if ordinary citizens begin to resort to self-help. Again, the citizens of Caledonia come to mind; although, happily, the legal dispute there was ultimately settled.
[For those academically minded see See: Kerry Sun, Trespass Encampments and the Charter: a discussion of the decision of Ontario Superior Court decision in University of Toronto (Governing Council) v. Doe et al., 2024 ONSC 3755. And lest readers think this is a “new problem”, see Ontario (Attorney General) v. Dieleman, 1994 CanLII 10546 (ON SC) which involved religious protesters picketing abortion clinics, counseling services, hospitals, doctors offices and doctors’ homes]. That was 30 years ago!
Thank you, Josh Dehaas, for a clear-eyed take on the situation that Jewish Canadians face right now. We have long been calling for the police and Crown offices to do their jobs. If there is any uncertainty about the laws we currently have, we will only know that by testing those laws in court. We feel very frustrated by the lack of support on enforcement -- by police, Crown offices and all levels of government. It was also good to see your very concrete suggestions on what else to do and what to require of various investigative and legal organizations.
TL/DR when I got to “brave Israeli IDF”. Your Zionist tilt reaffirms my decision to terminate my subscription.
Canada is still supplying genocide.
We Canadians are signatory to a UN Convention that requires we take ACTION to prevent genocide. Failure to take such action makes us party to genocide.
The actions of the state of Israel, for the 75 years leading up to October 7 but especially since then, are the #1 cause of the increase in antisemitism worldwide. The world does not like genociders, regardless of uniform…and in that topic, here’s a little haiku to help clarify:
the not sees are back
star of david from armband
to top of the cap