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.
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 just assume it's true, 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.
Yes, unreasonable, unreasoned commentary proliferated by people with no control of themselves, racists, is a blight on our condition. This is made worse because those of us who choose to participate are greatly downgraded by all social media, A-B tested to high dudgeon perfection.
It is a reflection on themselves, of course.
The insanity of abusing a jew in Canada for Bibi's choices is obviously beyond the pale. Unfortunately for all of us, people with little intellectual horsepower, self-control, or self-awareness, on both sides of the spectrum, make these bizarre leaps.
I read it, thank you. There was nothing there to change my mind. To me, that article looked like apology, mental masturbation, and awkward justification, by people with an obvious bias.
I'm still convinced Bibi/Likud enthusiastically used the horrible events of Oct 7 to cleanse Gaza for their own benefit, using security as cover, knowing Trump could be counted on. As is too often the case, and well studied, a few terrorists can make it easy to vilify and condemn a whole people. This is also racism.
I fail to see what benefit Bibi and Likud have gained from the war in Gaza. In spite of your characterization of what happened as "cleansing", almost nobody has left Gaza. People have been displaced because they were positioned between the IDF and the Hamas fighters that Israel was trying to kill. The alternative would have been a much higher civilian death toll. But in spite of the ruminations of extremists in the governing coalition, there is no sign of any move to resettle Gaza.
The events of 2023 were preceded by two decades of violence coming out of Gaza. I raised money six years ago for a daycare run by a friend of mine in Ashkelon. The daycare needed to build an adjoining bomb shelter because of frequent rocket attacks from Gaza. Every time there was an alarm the workers had to grab a baby under each arm and run down the stairs to the existing shelter. The warning time for rockets in Ashkelon is 45 seconds.
The characterization of the people who killed over a thousand Israelis in a few hours as "a few terrorists" is unreasonable, in my opinion. How big a force would it take for you to see "a lot of terrorists?" Israel has reported the deaths of 17,000 enemy combatants, out of an estimated 30,000 at the beginning of the war. That number is not up to date.
Everything the IDF has done during the war in Gaza can be understood as a reasonable response to the atrocities committed during the invasion of Israel on October 7, 2023. The people responsible for those atrocities and for 20 years of rocket fire before that were hiding under ground and the IDF did what was necessary to try to get to them. Given the resurgence of Hamas rule since the ceasefire began in October, it seems like Israel used insufficient force to achieve their just war aim of eliminating Hamas.
People who are predisposed to dislike Israel are able to see everything Israel does coming out of malice rather than self-defense. Accusations of genocide and ethnic cleansing are not very well supported by the evidence. Nevertheless they are favoured because they point to evil intent by Israel. Israel's enemies are determined to characterize everything Israel does as arising from a desire to oppress the Palestinians. So ethnic cleansing is alleged rather than an attempt to move civilians out of harm's way. Genocide is alleged, even though the Palestinian population has tripled in sixty years under Israeli rule and Israeli military operations are invariably triggered by Palestinian atrocities.
Politically, Bibi is unpopular on the issues that have arisen from the war. On the need for a state commission of inquiry, into what went wrong, 70% of the population is against his refusal to establish one. The need for a more equitable system of military service threatens to break his alliance with the ultra-religious factions essential to his government.
The claims of genocide depend on a redefinition of the term. This is apparent from the fact that accusations of genocide long predate the war. Similarly with ethnic cleansing. The case for ethnic cleansing is much stronger if you direct it at the Palestinian Authority which has presided over the departure of the majority of Palestinian Christians over the past 25 years.
Thanks for engaging, even if you think what I write is "mental masturbation!"
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!
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.
All true ... but "apparently" ... based on the recent duelling open letters between politicians and crown attorneys and cops ... the police are disheartened/unmotivated because the Crown Attorneys (who are supposed to be doing what the politicians say) are routinely too timid to press charges ... even when the cops bring them legitimate arrests!
There ya go ... perfectly expressed in one sentence ...
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.
> Some supporters of banning the slogan “globalize the intifada” say this is not a content-based restriction, but rather a limit on “incitement” or on “counselling terrorism.” But these three words, without more, do not amount to incitement or counselling.
I'm not so sure. You might be right... it's sometimes splitting hairs when we parse the difference between actionable threats and calls for violence that are sufficiently vague as to qualify as free speech, but let's try swapping this out for a different ethnic group.
How about a group of far-right skin heads walking through predominantly black neighbourhoods in Toronto chanting "bring back lynching!" They're not saying which specific people to kill and they're not technically saying "kill innocent black men". Maybe some will say insist that the phrase really means to bring back legal execution by hanging for people convicted in fair trials of murder. And probably some deluded people in the crowd really believe that's what it means. (People can believe almost anything.)
Does "bring back lynching" really not amount to incitement or counselling? Really? Well if such a heinous call about horrific terrorism against black people qualifies for free speech protection, then I would be forced to concede that "globalize the intifada" does too. But it does seem to me like both are legally actionable threats of violence. (And whatever they are, they ARE the same thing.)
******************
I hate to say it, but I think there's a lot of Canadians who chant "globalize the intifada" who would be horrified by that being compared to "bring back lynching"... but not because things are effectively the same thing... but actually because those Canadians correctly see lynched black people as victims of horrible terrorism... but they also think on some level that the Jews dying from terrorism prior to October 7th and on October 7th itself... deserved it or got what was coming to them. It's ugly, but true. Some Canadians don't want to admit it, but there's a basic anti-Jewish racism in their differing reaction to evil when it's evil directed at Jews.
I wonder what Mr Dehaas would say about Karl Popper's dictum regarding the toleration of intolerance, though. It would be helpful to hear from him on this.
In his own words, [Popper] suggests that "in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance." And the fact that something that calls for tolerance so much has to practice essentially the opposite of tolerance is something that is considered paradoxical-as in, it appears contradictory but he considers it true.
and...
In page 220 of his book, A Theory of Justice, John Rawls says that we should tolerate intolerance, or else the society will itself become intolerant. However, he comes to a similar conclusion as Popper: in extreme consequences, a tolerant society still has the right to self defense, but he adds a condition to what Popper said--only when the tolerant "sincerely and with reason" believe that their own safety and liberty are in danger.
In essence, John Rawls tells us that we should allow intolerance as a right and freedom, just as long as it doesn't go against the right and freedom of the other.
END QUOTE
C.f.: Ahmad EL SAATI, Should we tolerate intolerance? Reading Karl Popper and John Rawls, Université Saint-Joseph de Beyrouth, posted 16 November 2020, https://www.usj.edu.lb/news.php?id=9643.
Canada was founded on cowardice. On the Anglo side the United Empire Loyalists fled north from the winning Patriot side to hide behind the skirts of Mother England.
The French side was dominated by an oppressive Catholic Church for over two centuries. Its isolation from European ideas means that the tenets and ideology of the Spanish Inquisition’s antisemitism continues unabated even after the Church fell from overt power in the 1960s. (As it did in Mexico BTW). And since Quebec holds the balance of power in Parliament this innate antisemitism will be protected and nurtured in the name of Canadian (whatever that means) culture.
Like all things to do with British imperial colonialism when administering a bunch of colonies laziness meant consolidating a bunch of disparate pieces. The Canadian shotgun marriage of two disparate cultures was one result and geographically consolidating a bunch of middle eastern tribes (Hindus, Pakistanis, Kurds, Bangladeshis, various Muslim sects, etc) who were mortal enemies of each other was another result. Pretending that banishing words and expressions will improve the situation is a pipe dream. IMHO restoring absolute freedom of speech is a necessary safety valve so that Canada doesn’t replicate the path followed by other former colonies . The only benefit of the current hodgepodge of rules is to create employment for well connected entitled but otherwise unemployable products of the Canadian unionized educational system.
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:
Accusations of genocide were flying around on October 8th while the bodies in Israel were still warm and the last of the Hamas attackers were still being liquidated. Which goes to show how sincere those accusations were. Has Israel committed war crimes and collective punishment? Most likely; they're certainly led by extremists. But genocide? They're engaged in a war with a government that is explicitly genocidal in Hamas, and said government hides among its population while shooting anyone in the back who tries to evacuate the area when warned by Israel. The IDF could absolutely kill everyone in Gaza tomorrow with conventional weapons and barely breaking a sweat, yet they don't. What exactly do you think Hamas would had they similar power?
It's also really strange how there aren't a bunch of college campuses erupting in protests over the 10-20k people who Iran just slaughtered over the last few days. Or the 500k-1m who died in Syria's civil war. Or the hundreds of thousands dying in Sudan and Somalia, many of whom are black Africans being slaughtered by Arab Muslims. Few or no Jews in those conflicts, so I guess they're perfectly kosher, right?
Remind us how the cop responds to “I disagree with the breathalyzer/radar/your assessment” etc. YOU aren’t the rules based order and nevermind your whataboutism etc, genocide it is and the warrants are out on those you dismiss with “led by extremists”, like there’s a disconnect between the outcome and the choices of those who bring it about.
Meanwhile, the IOF are perfecting the tools, techniques and training of the contemporary police state. And FWIW there’s no daylight between ICE and IOF; the only distinction worth mentioning is competence. I hope it is not antisemitic to say that generally, Jews are known for excellence at whatever they turn their hand to…this holds true for the victim become perpetrator of genocide, an horrific honorific.
I SEE THAT THE FEDEERAL COURT OF APPEAL HAS CONFIRMED THAT "THE LAW" IS FULLY ADEQUATE TO ADDRESS THE SITUATION OF THE CONVOY. THE EMERGENCIES ACT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. WHICH SIMPLY CONFIRMS THE COMMENTATOR'S PROPOSITION: JUST ENFORCE THE LAW. AS WAS SUBTANTIALLY DONE IN TORONTO.
Historically speaking, banning things (products, services, behaviours, ideas) has generally only served to make them more desirable in the hearts and minds of many people, and generally much more profitable to those for whom laws are merely guidelines, or in more extreme cases, minor impediments.
The laws of supply and demand are rarely not in effect. There are too many examples to list.
I'll do just one for each type:
Goods: alcohol/drugs - banning has been tried and failed; regulation is also imperfect but better
Services: prostitution - see above
Behaviours: gambling - see above
Ideas: antisemitism - would that we could actually ban this forever, but alas, I maintain we must resort to another idea - that sunlight is the best disinfectant - that is, expose this and other horrible ideas and offer alternative points of view, consistently, forever.
All political parties try to ban things. Find a list of promises from any election campaign from any party, and you'll find some reference to banning something. It's endemic in the political species.
I understand the desire to ban something is, often, well intended, but my points above remain.
Criminalizing speech and even thought has been tried, and failed every time - in fact, it is inevitably weaponized, and generally makes things worse.
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.
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 just assume it's true, 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.
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.
Yes, unreasonable, unreasoned commentary proliferated by people with no control of themselves, racists, is a blight on our condition. This is made worse because those of us who choose to participate are greatly downgraded by all social media, A-B tested to high dudgeon perfection.
It is a reflection on themselves, of course.
The insanity of abusing a jew in Canada for Bibi's choices is obviously beyond the pale. Unfortunately for all of us, people with little intellectual horsepower, self-control, or self-awareness, on both sides of the spectrum, make these bizarre leaps.
I’ve written quite a lot about the genocide libel. Here for example. https://open.substack.com/pub/canadianzionistforum/p/war-and-genocide?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
I read it, thank you. There was nothing there to change my mind. To me, that article looked like apology, mental masturbation, and awkward justification, by people with an obvious bias.
I'm still convinced Bibi/Likud enthusiastically used the horrible events of Oct 7 to cleanse Gaza for their own benefit, using security as cover, knowing Trump could be counted on. As is too often the case, and well studied, a few terrorists can make it easy to vilify and condemn a whole people. This is also racism.
I fail to see what benefit Bibi and Likud have gained from the war in Gaza. In spite of your characterization of what happened as "cleansing", almost nobody has left Gaza. People have been displaced because they were positioned between the IDF and the Hamas fighters that Israel was trying to kill. The alternative would have been a much higher civilian death toll. But in spite of the ruminations of extremists in the governing coalition, there is no sign of any move to resettle Gaza.
The events of 2023 were preceded by two decades of violence coming out of Gaza. I raised money six years ago for a daycare run by a friend of mine in Ashkelon. The daycare needed to build an adjoining bomb shelter because of frequent rocket attacks from Gaza. Every time there was an alarm the workers had to grab a baby under each arm and run down the stairs to the existing shelter. The warning time for rockets in Ashkelon is 45 seconds.
The characterization of the people who killed over a thousand Israelis in a few hours as "a few terrorists" is unreasonable, in my opinion. How big a force would it take for you to see "a lot of terrorists?" Israel has reported the deaths of 17,000 enemy combatants, out of an estimated 30,000 at the beginning of the war. That number is not up to date.
Everything the IDF has done during the war in Gaza can be understood as a reasonable response to the atrocities committed during the invasion of Israel on October 7, 2023. The people responsible for those atrocities and for 20 years of rocket fire before that were hiding under ground and the IDF did what was necessary to try to get to them. Given the resurgence of Hamas rule since the ceasefire began in October, it seems like Israel used insufficient force to achieve their just war aim of eliminating Hamas.
People who are predisposed to dislike Israel are able to see everything Israel does coming out of malice rather than self-defense. Accusations of genocide and ethnic cleansing are not very well supported by the evidence. Nevertheless they are favoured because they point to evil intent by Israel. Israel's enemies are determined to characterize everything Israel does as arising from a desire to oppress the Palestinians. So ethnic cleansing is alleged rather than an attempt to move civilians out of harm's way. Genocide is alleged, even though the Palestinian population has tripled in sixty years under Israeli rule and Israeli military operations are invariably triggered by Palestinian atrocities.
Politically, Bibi is unpopular on the issues that have arisen from the war. On the need for a state commission of inquiry, into what went wrong, 70% of the population is against his refusal to establish one. The need for a more equitable system of military service threatens to break his alliance with the ultra-religious factions essential to his government.
The claims of genocide depend on a redefinition of the term. This is apparent from the fact that accusations of genocide long predate the war. Similarly with ethnic cleansing. The case for ethnic cleansing is much stronger if you direct it at the Palestinian Authority which has presided over the departure of the majority of Palestinian Christians over the past 25 years.
Thanks for engaging, even if you think what I write is "mental masturbation!"
We know banning books is a stupid idea. Banning slogans is no different.
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!
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.
This is an excellent article.
All true ... but "apparently" ... based on the recent duelling open letters between politicians and crown attorneys and cops ... the police are disheartened/unmotivated because the Crown Attorneys (who are supposed to be doing what the politicians say) are routinely too timid to press charges ... even when the cops bring them legitimate arrests!
There ya go ... perfectly expressed in one sentence ...
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.
> Some supporters of banning the slogan “globalize the intifada” say this is not a content-based restriction, but rather a limit on “incitement” or on “counselling terrorism.” But these three words, without more, do not amount to incitement or counselling.
I'm not so sure. You might be right... it's sometimes splitting hairs when we parse the difference between actionable threats and calls for violence that are sufficiently vague as to qualify as free speech, but let's try swapping this out for a different ethnic group.
How about a group of far-right skin heads walking through predominantly black neighbourhoods in Toronto chanting "bring back lynching!" They're not saying which specific people to kill and they're not technically saying "kill innocent black men". Maybe some will say insist that the phrase really means to bring back legal execution by hanging for people convicted in fair trials of murder. And probably some deluded people in the crowd really believe that's what it means. (People can believe almost anything.)
Does "bring back lynching" really not amount to incitement or counselling? Really? Well if such a heinous call about horrific terrorism against black people qualifies for free speech protection, then I would be forced to concede that "globalize the intifada" does too. But it does seem to me like both are legally actionable threats of violence. (And whatever they are, they ARE the same thing.)
******************
I hate to say it, but I think there's a lot of Canadians who chant "globalize the intifada" who would be horrified by that being compared to "bring back lynching"... but not because things are effectively the same thing... but actually because those Canadians correctly see lynched black people as victims of horrible terrorism... but they also think on some level that the Jews dying from terrorism prior to October 7th and on October 7th itself... deserved it or got what was coming to them. It's ugly, but true. Some Canadians don't want to admit it, but there's a basic anti-Jewish racism in their differing reaction to evil when it's evil directed at Jews.
This was a good op-ed.
I wonder what Mr Dehaas would say about Karl Popper's dictum regarding the toleration of intolerance, though. It would be helpful to hear from him on this.
Thank you.
Perhaps more specificity was needed?
QUOTE
In his own words, [Popper] suggests that "in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance." And the fact that something that calls for tolerance so much has to practice essentially the opposite of tolerance is something that is considered paradoxical-as in, it appears contradictory but he considers it true.
and...
In page 220 of his book, A Theory of Justice, John Rawls says that we should tolerate intolerance, or else the society will itself become intolerant. However, he comes to a similar conclusion as Popper: in extreme consequences, a tolerant society still has the right to self defense, but he adds a condition to what Popper said--only when the tolerant "sincerely and with reason" believe that their own safety and liberty are in danger.
In essence, John Rawls tells us that we should allow intolerance as a right and freedom, just as long as it doesn't go against the right and freedom of the other.
END QUOTE
C.f.: Ahmad EL SAATI, Should we tolerate intolerance? Reading Karl Popper and John Rawls, Université Saint-Joseph de Beyrouth, posted 16 November 2020, https://www.usj.edu.lb/news.php?id=9643.
Canada was founded on cowardice. On the Anglo side the United Empire Loyalists fled north from the winning Patriot side to hide behind the skirts of Mother England.
The French side was dominated by an oppressive Catholic Church for over two centuries. Its isolation from European ideas means that the tenets and ideology of the Spanish Inquisition’s antisemitism continues unabated even after the Church fell from overt power in the 1960s. (As it did in Mexico BTW). And since Quebec holds the balance of power in Parliament this innate antisemitism will be protected and nurtured in the name of Canadian (whatever that means) culture.
Like all things to do with British imperial colonialism when administering a bunch of colonies laziness meant consolidating a bunch of disparate pieces. The Canadian shotgun marriage of two disparate cultures was one result and geographically consolidating a bunch of middle eastern tribes (Hindus, Pakistanis, Kurds, Bangladeshis, various Muslim sects, etc) who were mortal enemies of each other was another result. Pretending that banishing words and expressions will improve the situation is a pipe dream. IMHO restoring absolute freedom of speech is a necessary safety valve so that Canada doesn’t replicate the path followed by other former colonies . The only benefit of the current hodgepodge of rules is to create employment for well connected entitled but otherwise unemployable products of the Canadian unionized educational system.
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
Accusations of genocide were flying around on October 8th while the bodies in Israel were still warm and the last of the Hamas attackers were still being liquidated. Which goes to show how sincere those accusations were. Has Israel committed war crimes and collective punishment? Most likely; they're certainly led by extremists. But genocide? They're engaged in a war with a government that is explicitly genocidal in Hamas, and said government hides among its population while shooting anyone in the back who tries to evacuate the area when warned by Israel. The IDF could absolutely kill everyone in Gaza tomorrow with conventional weapons and barely breaking a sweat, yet they don't. What exactly do you think Hamas would had they similar power?
It's also really strange how there aren't a bunch of college campuses erupting in protests over the 10-20k people who Iran just slaughtered over the last few days. Or the 500k-1m who died in Syria's civil war. Or the hundreds of thousands dying in Sudan and Somalia, many of whom are black Africans being slaughtered by Arab Muslims. Few or no Jews in those conflicts, so I guess they're perfectly kosher, right?
Remind us how the cop responds to “I disagree with the breathalyzer/radar/your assessment” etc. YOU aren’t the rules based order and nevermind your whataboutism etc, genocide it is and the warrants are out on those you dismiss with “led by extremists”, like there’s a disconnect between the outcome and the choices of those who bring it about.
Meanwhile, the IOF are perfecting the tools, techniques and training of the contemporary police state. And FWIW there’s no daylight between ICE and IOF; the only distinction worth mentioning is competence. I hope it is not antisemitic to say that generally, Jews are known for excellence at whatever they turn their hand to…this holds true for the victim become perpetrator of genocide, an horrific honorific.
I SEE THAT THE FEDEERAL COURT OF APPEAL HAS CONFIRMED THAT "THE LAW" IS FULLY ADEQUATE TO ADDRESS THE SITUATION OF THE CONVOY. THE EMERGENCIES ACT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. WHICH SIMPLY CONFIRMS THE COMMENTATOR'S PROPOSITION: JUST ENFORCE THE LAW. AS WAS SUBTANTIALLY DONE IN TORONTO.
Historically speaking, banning things (products, services, behaviours, ideas) has generally only served to make them more desirable in the hearts and minds of many people, and generally much more profitable to those for whom laws are merely guidelines, or in more extreme cases, minor impediments.
The laws of supply and demand are rarely not in effect. There are too many examples to list.
I'll do just one for each type:
Goods: alcohol/drugs - banning has been tried and failed; regulation is also imperfect but better
Services: prostitution - see above
Behaviours: gambling - see above
Ideas: antisemitism - would that we could actually ban this forever, but alas, I maintain we must resort to another idea - that sunlight is the best disinfectant - that is, expose this and other horrible ideas and offer alternative points of view, consistently, forever.
All political parties try to ban things. Find a list of promises from any election campaign from any party, and you'll find some reference to banning something. It's endemic in the political species.
I understand the desire to ban something is, often, well intended, but my points above remain.
Criminalizing speech and even thought has been tried, and failed every time - in fact, it is inevitably weaponized, and generally makes things worse.