THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, December 2, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met with videoconference this day at 5:03 p.m. [ET] to examine such issues as may arise from time to time relating to human rights generally; and, in camera, to examine such issues as may arise from time to time relating to human rights generally.
Senator Salma Ataullahjan (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I would like to begin by acknowledging that the land on which we gather is on the traditional, ancestral and unceded territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation and is now home to many other First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples from across Turtle Island.
I am Salma Ataullahjan, a senator from Toronto and chair of this committee. Today, we are conducting a public hearing of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights.
I would like to invite my honourable colleagues to introduce themselves, starting on my left.
Senator Arnot: David Arnot from Saskatchewan.
Senator Bernard: I’m Wanda Thomas Bernard from Mi’kmaq territory, Nova Scotia.
Senator Senior: Hi, my name is Paulette Senior from Ontario.
Senator Pate: Welcome. Kim Pate. I live here in the unceded, unsurrendered and unreturned lands of the Algonquin Anishinaabe.
Senator K. Wells: Senator Kris Wells, Treaty 6 territory, Edmonton.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. Today, our committee will begin its study on anti-Semitism in Canada. The study will examine anti-Semitism in Canada, including its prevalence and impact, Canada’s efforts to combat it through laws, policies and other federal initiatives and the role of education, digital platforms and law enforcement in addressing it.
This afternoon, we shall have two panels. In each panel, we shall hear from the witnesses and then the senators around the table will have a question-and-answer session.
I will now introduce our first panel. Our witnesses have been asked to make a five-minute opening statement. With us today at the table, from the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, please welcome Shimon Fogel, Chief Executive Officer. I will now invite Mr. Fogel to make his presentation.
Shimon Fogel, Chief Executive Officer, Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to the committee for taking the time to drill down on this issue.
Bringing testimony before this august committee brings me no joy today, nor can elegant words disguise the ugly reality that confronts not only Jewish Canadians, but in a fundamental way, all Canadians. Forgive the candour of my remarks.
There is a crisis of Jew hatred in this country. The anti‑Semitism emanating from the extreme right, the radical left and, to be truthful, from segments of the Muslim and Arab communities; a bitter irony, given that they too experience discrimination and hate.
The Prime Minister called the recent rise of anti-Semitism terrifying, and he’s right. The statistics are staggering. Since October 7, there has been a 93% rise in hate crimes in Toronto, the majority of which have been directed at the Jewish community. In Vancouver, reports of anti-Semitism increased 62% in 2023 over 2022; 70% of those occurred subsequent to October 7.
In Ottawa, the nation’s capital, the overall number of hate‑related incidents rose nearly 20% in 2023. While Jews only comprise about 1.4% of the population, incidents affecting the Jewish community in Ottawa comprise 27% of reported hate‑related incidents in 2023.
I could mention that we’ve recently learned that the two young people charged with terrorism offences earlier this year were planning to set bombs at a Jewish event here on Parliament Hill, or that our former Minister of Justice and human rights activist, Irwin Cotler, required 24/7 RCMP protection, having been the target of terrorist assassination plots alleged by Iranian agents for his outspoken criticisms of that regime.
I could mention Jewish schools in Montreal being shot at or bomb threats targeting Jewish schools in Toronto or synagogues across the country picketed and vandalized; demonstrations taking place in Jewish neighbourhoods for the sole purpose of intimidating its residents; Jewish-owned businesses are defaced, damaged, boycotted and vandalized.
In our streets, we hear glorification of terrorism and violence. On Parliament Hill, the very heart of Canada’s democracy, on April 18, we heard praise for the October 7 attack by Hamas and its affiliates that murdered 1,200 people in Israel. Both the National Post and The Globe and Mail reported statements including:
Our resistance attacks are proof that we are almost free. . . . Long live October 7, long live the intefadeh, long live every form of resistance.
On October 28 in Montreal, a controversial imam was given the microphone and in Arabic he said:
Allah, take care of these Zionist aggressors. . . . Allah, identify them all, then exterminate them. And don’t spare any of them.
Shockingly, we subsequently learned that he was not going to be charged. Still in Montreal, yells of “death to the Jews” were heard in front of the Jewish school. The Jewish community centre was under siege, with people not able to go out for hours and then finally being escorted by police through the backdoor.
It’s gotten so bad that the authorities were so passive and the only solution the community could turn to for relief was the courts, where they sought injunctions to protect our institutions, an extraordinary recourse. These junctions were granted and extended, twice. These injunctions, that were followed by lawyers on behalf of our community, were necessary because of the failure of civil authorities.
And the situation on campus for Jewish students is especially disturbing. We see hate symbols such as swastikas defacing campus property; kippah-wearing students are spat on and called “dirty Jew”; Mezuzoah, the holy Jewish scripture parchment housed in the distinctive cases affixed to door posts, are being torn down in residence; discriminatory remarks in lectures claiming Jews harvest the organs or blood of non-Jews; and even bare-faced threats of violence against Jewish students at the threat of detainment and arrest.
Peaceful rabbis, like Rabbi Adam Scheier of Shaar Hashomayim in Montreal, and Jewish journalists being directed to move by police while the haters are free to spew their venom. Students and faculty share with me that they avoid reporting incidents due to fear of retribution by both their professors and peers.
When reports are made about potential safety concerns, we’ve heard numerous instances where Jewish students and faculty were advised to stay home rather than address the root cause of the matter. Student unions and educators on Ontario campuses have made statements supporting and celebrating violence and discrimination. We’ve witnessed campus protests disguised as legitimate forms of political activism, only to morph into riots while spreading hateful and violent rhetoric directed toward Jews, as they rob students of their educational rights and professors of their teaching commitments.
Let me be clear, academic freedom and freedom of expression are pillars of our values as a country and as a society, both on and off campus. But when the lines are crossed and policies are not enforced, it shakes the trust of our community, our trust in the system that we support.
At this point words are not enough. We’ve had enough of those. We need action from government. Let me offer, in conclusion, just a few brief recommendations, that I’d be more than happy to expand on in the rest of our time together.
Number one, it is urgent that the government convene a national forum on combatting hate crimes, terrorism and anti‑Semitism, bringing together federal, provincial and municipal leaders, together with law enforcement, to coordinate efforts and ensure the consistent application of not just anti‑hate legislation, but of the law in general when it comes to protecting vulnerable and at-risk communities.
Number two, we have to strengthen enforcement of Canada’s criminal laws. I believe Mark Sandler, a panellist whom you’ll hear from soon, has some very specific ideas on what that should look like. In general, we have to ensure that charges, including for criminal intimidation, unlawful assembly and hate propaganda, are laid against those promoting violence or inciting hate against Jews. We have to enhance judicial and law enforcement training modelled on past initiatives, like the anti‑intimidation protections of Bill C-3, to equip officials with the tools to recognize and address anti-Semitism while utilizing the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, or IHRA, definition of anti-Semitism adopted by the federal government and many of the provinces.
Number three, we have to bolster community safety programs by establishing dedicated liaisons within law enforcement, creating specialized hate crime units and improving intelligence sharing to address rising threats.
Finally, we have to address radicalization and extremism, including banning terrorist symbols and cracking down on those glorifying terrorism, which emboldens extremists and undermines Canadian security.
Honourable senators, the time for action is now. I close where I opened: This is not only about Jews. We’re the low-hanging fruit, the proverbial canary in the coal mine. As the saying goes, what starts with the Jews never ends with the Jews.
I’m grateful and thank you for your time and would be delighted to engage in further conversation, if time permits.
The Chair: Thank you for your presentation. We will now proceed to questions from the senators. Senators, I will remind you that you have five minutes for your questions and answers. If time permits we can also go to second round. Let’s start with the deputy chair, Senator Bernard.
Senator Bernard: Thank you, chair. Mr. Fogel, thank you for your candour. I appreciate all that you’ve shared.
I wonder if you could tell us a bit about your perspectives on the impact. What is the impact of anti-Semitism on the Jewish community?
Mr. Fogel: Thank you, senator. Permit me to just stray for a moment into the very personal.
I’m a child of Holocaust survivors; both my parents. And what perhaps makes them exceptional is that when they were warmed by the embrace of Canada, they had a second opportunity almost to be reborn. They cherished their lives here in Canada. They saw Canada as a beautiful, exceptional place to build lives, to grow families, to contribute to community.
I’m almost grateful that they are no longer with us, because for so many survivors with whom I come into contact you see this paralyzing fear as signs begin to emerge and behaviour begins to assert itself that reminds them of what they survived.
I can tell you that we are now two, three, even four generations past the Holocaust, and for many Canadian Jews they’ve experienced very little by way of overt or aggressive anti-Semitism. That’s no longer the case. They are riddled with anxiety and fear. They’re frustrated with a system that is not living up to its social contract. They’re angry. They are worried and they’re looking for solutions. For some, the expectation and the hope is that those who are charged with the responsibility of fostering an inclusive, tolerant, respectful society will come forward and provide the kinds of solutions and remedies that will push back against this hate, hate that I underscore is not exclusively directed against Jews but has become normalized because of the expression of hate against Jews more than any other group.
But I will tell you frankly, senator, that there are those who are looking at other options. They’re looking to move. They’re encouraging their children to seek a more stable and secure environment. What that tells me is that they’re giving up. Absent signals and actions on the part of authorities and on the part of civil society in general, that will only accelerate and deepen over the coming days, weeks and months. We can ill afford that.
Senator Bernard: Thank you. You hinted at the connection between anti-Semitism and other forms of racism and bigotry. Can you tell us a bit more about those connections as you see them and experience them?
Mr. Fogel: I don’t think it’s a secret, senator, that, especially with the role that social media has played over the last number of years, it’s as if all the filters have been removed. All the constraints on people, what they say and what they think now becomes almost an automatically uninterrupted stream that makes its way through social media. Younger cohorts in particular receive most of their information through various social media channels. What they learn from the hate that has just exploded on these social media platforms is that it’s okay.
That’s what I mean by “normalized.” When you feel comfortable expressing hate, disdain and discrimination toward or bias against one group, it’s a very slippery slope to extend that kind of sentiment or animus to others. It seems that the common factor is this notion of “the other.” Whomever doesn’t share your particular, oftentimes self-defined, attributes become fair game and fodder for whatever other frustrations you want to express or give into.
I think that as we increasingly tolerate a climate that allows for that kind of expression, it becomes not just normalized, it becomes the standard. We, especially the political leadership of this country, have to signal in words and deeds that this view is relegated to the darkest corners of our society.
Senator Bernard: Thank you.
The Chair: Before we continue, we’ve been joined by my colleague who I’d like to introduce.
Senator Osler: Flordeliz (Gigi) Osler, Manitoba.
Senator Arnot: Thank you, Mr. Fogel, for your testimony. anti-Semitism in Canada is not a new phenomenon. It’s clearly on the rise, as you said, and getting much worse. The media provides regular reports about this.
I’d like you to comment on whether you see this as perhaps indifference to the issue or a lack of knowledge. We don’t have a lot of public champions, other than Jewish Canadians, speaking out against anti-Semitism, and anti-Semitism does strike at the very core of what it means to be Canadian.
What’s your understanding of whether, for instance, the general public has a good grasp of anti-Semitism? How well does the government, broadly speaking, understand anti‑Semitism? What is the impediment to the action that you’re calling for?
Mr. Fogel: Thank you very much, senator. I have to split the question into two. There is some good news, some encouraging news. We have undertaken, as have some of our sister organizations, a considerable amount of research since 2021, when we first started to see a measurable and significant increase in hate. I am pleased to say that, consistently, studies reveal that most Canadians do not harbour anti-Semitic views. That’s the good news. The more challenging aspect is that most people don’t understand anti-Semitism, and without us unpacking it and being able to lay out what it looks like, what it feels like and how it manifests itself, Canadians are opposed to anti-Semitism but are not persuaded that Jews are experiencing anti-Semitism.
The second dimension of that, though — and I’m sure, honourable senators, you’ve seen this in so many different contexts — is that we live in an environment where one has to be exceptionally brave, oftentimes, to take a principled stand, because to do so as a politician or as a civil society leader invites the same kind of attack and assault as the ones you’re speaking up in defence of.
I don’t know if we should call it “cancel culture,” but weighing in on issues such as these are almost a lightning rod for those who are calling attention to it. If there isn’t some kind of coordinated, consistent and sustained approach that draws in a whole cross-section, not just in terms of a range of actors in the public space but geographically from across the country, then it becomes very difficult for people to feel motivated to stand up, do what’s right and say what’s right.
These are some of the considerations that have to go into the thinking about what remedies are available or what remedies have to be introduced in order to push back against hate in general, that kind of intolerance, and in our particular context, hatred directed toward Jews.
Senator Arnot: What role do you think education initiatives should have in addressing these issues? I’m thinking particularly in the K-to-12 system or the university system.
Mr. Fogel: The only hope in the long term is education. I thank you for raising it because I do want to make another point. Even if we’re talking about kids on social media platforms, for the most part, we’re talking about unintended or unthoughtful participation in hate. I have no statistics to support it, but anecdotally, I would suggest that maybe we’re looking at 20% of those who express hate as being hard-core haters. The rest are simply ignorant. They’re not sensitive to what the words mean. They can’t appreciate what the significance is to the target. Through an intentional program of education, whether it’s Holocaust studies or anti-racism strategies that have been adopted in many parts of the country and at the federal level as well, we can move people and raise their level of sensitivity.
Madam Chair, if you’ll just allow me one more minute, I will share with you an initiative I raised with the government on a number of occasions. I think there are always so many competing imperatives and interests that we look to put out the fire rather than to correct the wiring in the electrical system.
It’s not by accident that I’ve mentioned several times the issue of social media. I believe that one of the important initiatives that governments, at the federal level especially, but also at the provincial level, should consider is a social media literacy program.
I can explain it very simply by asking you to recall, without offering any normative judgment, the decision on the part of the federal government to legalize marijuana and cannabis products. It started the process of what it had to do from a legislative and regulatory sense and so forth, and very soon after, they were contacted by multiple health care professionals. Then those health care professionals said, not so fast. You have to appreciate that cannabis products bring with them certain risks in their use. It doesn’t matter if they’re edible products or ones that are inhaled, but mixing cannabis and alcohol amplifies the effects of the drug. Edible products don’t break down in the body in the same way as those that are inhaled, so the person consuming it won’t feel any impact; they’ll take more, because it’s a much slower process of absorption and assimilation into the body. And then all of a sudden, they actually start to feel the effects in a much exaggerated way.
These health care professionals also said, you must undertake some kind of program to educate people about what the implications of cannabis consumption are. Not to say yea or nay, but just so they can appreciate, just as you can’t drive while intoxicated with alcohol, there are measures that you must take in order to ensure that you are consuming the product safely.
The government undertook an 18-month marijuana literacy program that reached every Canadian in an effective way, and brought home the message of responsible cannabis use for those who chose to do it.
I’m suggesting that we have to do the same thing with social media. Young people in particular have to be taught what hate looks like, what abuse and bullying constitutes on social media. They have to know how to report it, how to flag it, who to turn to and what to do. I’m absolutely convinced that if we were to undertake this kind of a program — circling back, senator, to your notion of the role of education — that we would make a dramatic difference in the amount of hate that is consumed, and then reposted, if I can use that term.
Senator Senior: Thank you for being here. You talked about convening a national forum on hate crime, and I’d like to hear more about what you imagine coming out of that particular forum. I also want to pick up where you left off, but maybe from a slightly different angle, which is talking more about online hate. I hear the strategy in terms of using a digital educational approach, in particular for young people, but I’m also curious about the use of platforms that are used to spread anti-Semitic content and which ones you see are the most dangerous in terms of that usage.
Mr. Fogel: Thank you. With respect to your first question, about this national forum, senators, you might recall that a couple of years back — maybe it’s three now — we called on the government, and the government responded by convening an emergency summit on anti-Semitism. Participants in that exercise did include officials at various levels of government, but it also included a significant cross-section of stakeholders, both Jewish and non-Jewish, who were provided an opportunity to share their lived experience, and to help others understand and appreciate what it was that they were confronted with.
This time around, we think that a forum should be much more focused, and the participants should be from various levels of government officials, both elected representatives as well as departmental officials. Here we’re talking about law enforcement, the intelligence community, attorneys general, the Crown, public safety, which many of the provinces have as a complement to the federal Ministry of Public Safety. All these experts should be coming together so that they can develop a comprehensive program that is going to address all the different dimensions of hate and the necessary response to it.
The kind of thing, senator, that we’re looking at is a consistent reporting mechanism across the country. We’re looking at standards that should be consistent from province to province in terms of identifying what hate crime looks like, what are the options, what are the provisions in the Criminal Code and what other remedies are available in order to address it? Training of law enforcement and of the Crown, because one of the problems, if I can just expand for a moment, is that you have law enforcement, and I am going to take the position that they are of goodwill, they’re dedicated and committed, and they want to do the right thing. They identify a hate crime, they investigate, charge and then they turn it over to the Crown, and the Crown, for whatever reasons, decides not to pursue the case. The message that goes back to police is our investment of time, energy and money into pursuing this investigation is repeatedly not being followed to its logical conclusion, which is the Crown laying charges and prosecuting. So they lose incentive to move ahead with these kinds of things, and they shift, as they have almost everywhere across the country, to de-escalation — let’s just keep them apart; let’s just try to make sure there isn’t that kind of physical contact that could allow things to explode, and we’ll call it a day.
These are the kinds of things that I think a national forum on hate and anti-Semitism could address. There’s also a dimension on what I referred to earlier with respect to radicalization and extremism. There are things that the intelligence agencies used to do. They invested in the long game. They developed relationships with different vulnerable communities, and they worked with those communities to try and shift the most vulnerable individuals within particular communities away from a radical path toward something that was more constructive, both for them and for their community. This is what has to take place: Something deliberate, something focused and something where there’s a shared commitment, not just to meet but to do. That’s on the first issue.
With respect to online hate, CIJA has been a supporter. In fact, it created the coalition that resulted in the governments moving forward with the online harms legislation that some know as Bill C-63, which has encountered many obstacles from when it was first introduced and it’s not entirely clear where it will end up. It was intended to address multiple different imperatives, everything from the particular risks of children to hate in general. And the plan was, and I think still is, for us to recognize that all stakeholders — that includes government, it certainly includes the social media giants, the platforms on which hate is enabled and Canadian civil society — to contribute toward moving to reduce the threat of online harm.
One of the big challenges — well, there are two, if we’re going to speak frankly. One of the big challenges, or the elephant in the room, is the old section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, where you have competing imperatives. On the one hand, you have the need for protection of free speech, and on the other you have protection from hate. There is a tremendous tension between the two, with some being proponents of almost absolute free speech, and others saying there is prohibited speech. It has to be clarified, and it has to be part of the culture of Canadian society. That has not yet been resolved and we have to find creative ways to be able to balance those two competing imperatives if we are to move forward.
Senator Pate: Thank you for your testimony. In fact, where you just left off is where I wanted to pick up. I’ll speak for myself. I’ve worked for many years on how to address hate speech when it comes to Indigenous, Black folks, women, those who are non-conforming, and I agree, the issue is often put at odds with other groups. I’m curious, at this time anti-Semitism, anti-woman hatred and anti-racism are on the rise. We’re seeing an increase in intolerance in a number of areas and lack of trust in government as well. How do you see working cross these lines in terms of these sorts of issues? Or do you see there are particular ways in which this is fundamentally different than the types of hatred that have long been an issue? I would say anti‑Semitism has long been an issue and we’ve seen the rise in recent years in all of those spheres.
Mr. Fogel: Thank you, senator, for your question. I think it’s a deep one. I’m not sure we would have time today to really drill down in a way that’s fair to the question.
I will say two things, one is referring to an earlier comment that I made, where it seems as if in the larger environment — maybe it’s in part due to polarization, maybe it’s part of a result of people just functioning in their own echo chambers, so they are cut off from experiencing others — there’s a tone that is not limited to Canada. These kinds of things have no borders, but it’s certainly being felt here. When you pull at a knitted sweater, it’s one little thread and you pull it and it unravels in a way that spirals out of control and soon your sweater is in tatters. That is what we’ve experienced over the last few years, in the recent past, that permission, that justification that others in those echo chambers are providing for the ones who are disseminating hate or expressing it has emboldened them, especially in the absence of very strong and sustained pushback that moves beyond rhetoric.
There is another dimension, and I’ll close with this, mindful of the time. My thesis at the opening was that we are here talking about Jews, and there is, Lord knows, pretty compelling reason to give some focused attention on the Jewish experience here in Canada, but it isn’t just about Jews. One of the things that we have to do — it’s not just the role of government to do it — is to reach out and build those kinds of collaborative partnerships between different groups. Beyond those at-risk groups or those that are threatened, to draw in those from broader Canadian society, to make common cause and to be able to recognize that the power of the collective action of the unified determination to push back, to demand that we adhere to core Canadian values and that we establish a standard below which Canadians are not permitted to go would be a very powerful force for bringing us to a better place.
Senator K. Wells: Thank you for being here today, and the rich discussion on many issues you have brought forward could well inform that national symposium where we would have more time to dig into them. I’m mindful of two things. First, your last comment about the importance of allyship and minority communities coming together. Personally, I’ll never forget when the Jewish community came to stand beside the LGBTQ community in the Supreme Court of Canada in the Delwin Vriend decision that fought for sexual orientation to be read into Alberta’s human rights code at the time. And Lyle Kanee, who famously said we need to walk through the gates of equality together and that no one should be left behind. We would be wise to remember those lessons of history and the importance of coming together, particularly in times where all of our minority communities are under attack to different degrees.
I wanted to pick up on a thread that we haven’t talked about that you mentioned in your opening comments about the need for the Jewish community to go to the courts to get a judicial review for their safety. I’m wondering about your thoughts on bubble zone legislation. That applied to schools, religious places of worship or cultural centres, if you see that as helpful rather than having to go each time for a judicial review, which is often limited in time. We don’t want to think of that as a solution but as helping to provide safety — when people become even afraid to go out in public, reach out to their communities and connect to services available to many others in the community without fear or threat.
Mr. Fogel: Thank you.
I don’t want to pass the buck, senator, but from having chatted with Mark Sandler, who will be on the next panel and who is much more of an expert in these legal questions, I do believe he has some very specific thought about it.
However, as a general comment so you don’t think I’m ducking your question, I’m an advocate of bubble legislation. I think we’ve seen it work with abortion clinics, where it was first introduced, and for precisely the reason you suggested: It offers a sense of security that allows people to access places that are important for their identity, and their cultural or religious expression. It sends a signal to those who would put that under threat that there are limits beyond which they’re not permitted to go.
That, too, sends the kind of signal that is almost like a non‑verbal cue that forces people to reflect upon what it is they’re doing, and what the consequences and implications are for others. If our thesis holds — that most people are of goodwill — it would give them pause to think about whether they want to be in the company of those who are posing that kind of threat.
Senator Osler: Thank you very much for being here today.
I’m going to loop back to education. You spoke about it briefly, meaning that education is the way out. Are you aware of any educational initiatives, regardless of how they’re delivered — online, in person, via social media — at any level — municipal, provincial, federal — that are effective and work to reduce anti-Semitism? If you do know of any, what is it about that initiative that makes this work?
Mr. Fogel: The answer is, yes, I do, but I don’t have the empirical data to support it. Again, you have to rely upon my anecdotal impressions that are based upon discussions.
Here in Ontario, the government sponsored a series of anti‑racism, including anti-Semitic, videos that catered to younger people. The point I want to make is that there’s a saying in Proverbs that I’ll loosely translate: “One has to teach a child, according to her, or his way.” If we were to sit around a table and have dinner and chat, we would have a very sophisticated and high-level discussion about everything related to how society behaves, where hate makes its way in and so forth.
That’s not going to resonate with a child.
These videos, which we produced, were then taken to a few other provinces, translated into French for application in Quebec. They had a very strong response from the students who participated in the program. I claim no personal credit for this — colleagues of mine helped design the features — but it was because they translated it into the language and concepts that kids could relate to.
Sometimes, I think we risk achieving less by trying to achieve more. If we do it in bite-sized pieces in language, in approach and in style — because so much of it is not just a function, but form — then I think we have an opportunity to connect with kids in ways that are going to have impacts, will resonate with them and will make them remember.
I was once told that radio ads have to be played eight times before somebody even begins to remember the product or brand. I think that we have to approach this kind of challenge in the same way: It has to be sustained, continuous, consistent and it has to be a “melody” that rings true for their ear.
It may not be the only solution, but there is no one solution. We have to approach this on the “salami method,” which is my wife’s way of saying that, instead of taking a big chunk, you slice it into little pieces. It’s best consumed and used that way.
The Chair: Mr. Fogle, a few things you said have — I’ve been writing and scribbling. The one thing that stood out to me is this: You specifically mentioned 2021, when you saw a rise in anti-Semitism. Could you speak about what the driving force of that was?
Second, you talked about strong and sustained pushback. Whom should that come from? Is it the government? Do you feel the government is doing enough to raise public awareness of hate crimes, generally?
Mr. Fogel: Thank you, Madam Chair.
With respect to your first question, 2021 marked the convergence of two things: The first was the previous Israel-Hamas conflict in Gaza, which was very intense if much shorter than what is being experienced now. It intersected with a point in time when social media became the definitive medium through which information was shared. That’s when TikTok exploded and Instagram became the standard go-to app for young people. For the first time, we saw the power of social media to define what the public conversation was going to be about.
With all of the technology, we saw the bots that amplified in a virtual and disingenuous way different ideas. We saw the ubiquitous nature that social media platforms had and the nature of social media itself. The business model of social media platforms not only thrives on the most extreme, most intense, most aggressive and most provocative; it requires it if it’s going to be successful because that is what generates hits, likes, shares and so forth.
Therefore, 2021 really was the watermark of when this exploded on the scene. We have been falling further and further behind ever since.
That was in reply to the one question about 2021.
The Chair: Do you feel that the government is doing enough?
Mr. Fogel: Right. Yes.
The Chair: You spoke about strong and sustained pushback, and I was asking from whom that should be coming from.
Mr. Fogel: For my entire career, I’ve lived within the parliamentary precinct. I have not just huge respect but affection and admiration for those who serve in public office. It’s always dangerous to offer these generalized statements, but I think that in a very real sense, the government has failed.
I’ll take it out of this parliamentary precinct and pick on some municipalities, without naming them. I have seen mayors fail to rise to the challenge to direct their law enforcement officials to act in appropriate ways. We have seen politicians at every level of government articulate appropriate messages but failing to follow those up with actions that are going to address the issues that they’ve called attention to.
When I speak of sustained pushback, I’m talking about an approach that matches deeds with words, that is not episodic, that recognizes that attention has to be directed to the issue not just when there is a death or a casualty or a city on fire like Montreal a couple of weekends ago, but ongoing. They say that every week that McDonald’s doesn’t advertise, it loses 3% of its market share. If governments, as the leaders, the ones who set the standards and the expectations for everybody else to follow, aren’t going to undertake this in a consistent and sustained way, if they’re not going to meet their words with deeds, then there is no possibility of reversing and pushing back against the hate that’s beginning to entrench itself.
I say this not as a threat but as an alarm, a warning. What my community is experiencing will visit every part of Canadian society in one fashion or another. Here’s the thing: It’s not just the at-risk communities that suffer, it’s also those who are either passive or benign participants in fuelling hate. There’s a corrosive, toxic impact that touches everybody, and that’s what we have to direct our energies toward to reverse and ensure that the Canadian values that we all cherish are alive, dynamic and protective of everything that we hold dear.
The Chair: Thank you. Senator Arnot, you had asked for a second round. I’m going to indulge you, but if you can do it in three minutes for both question and answer.
Senator Arnot: I think Mr. Fogel ended with a really strong statement here. My only thing would be to ask Mr. Fogel: If there’s one message that you wanted to give to this committee about the work we’re going to do and the target we have to accomplish, what would it be?
Mr. Fogel: I would say two things. One is, leaders, lead us. Show us the way. We’ll offer some solutions, we’ll express support, we’ll participate, but you have to lead. That’s your job.
The second thing I’ll say is that governments have another way that they can offer support. That was in our earlier discussion about allyship, partnership and collaboration. Give us the mechanisms and tools. Most communities really don’t have the wherewithal to undertake sophisticated initiatives and partnerships. It’s a very large country, and different pockets live in disparate places across this magnificent land. Give us the mechanisms and the resources to build those coalitions and partnerships that are going to complement your leadership and show that it benefits from an active and engaged responsiveness on the part of the stakeholders across the country.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Fogel. We really appreciate you being here and for your presentation. You can see the interest that’s there and your testimony will help us as we move along.
Honourable senators, for our second panel, our witnesses have been asked to make an opening statement of five minutes. We shall hear from the witnesses and then turn to questions from the senators.
With us at the table, from the Alliance of Canadians Combatting Antisemitism, please welcome Mark Sandler, Chair. With us by video conference, please welcome Karen Mock, Human Rights Consultant and Chair, Enhancing Social Justice Education Group; former Executive Director of the Canadian Race Relations Foundation, and of the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada.
I now invite Mr. Sandler to make his presentation, followed by Ms. Mock. I also want to acknowledge that we’ve been joined by our colleague who will introduce himself.
Senator Cardozo: Andrew Cardozo, Ontario. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Sandler?
Mark Sandler, Chair, Alliance of Canadians Combatting Antisemitism: Thank you, Madam Chair and your committee for the important work you’re doing and inviting me to assist you.
I’m really here in two different capacities. I’m speaking to you as someone who has combatted anti-Semitism and other forms of hate, whether it be Islamophobia, hatred against the LGBTQ2S+ community, against the Indigenous community and against the Black community for over 40 years.
I’m also here, as you’ve heard, as the chair of the Alliance of Canadians Combatting Antisemitism. This is an alliance of now 48 community organizations, Jewish and non-Jewish, to fight anti-Semitism and hate through advocacy, education, training and respectful dialogue.
I wish to address you in both capacities. I’ve also trained police and prosecutors on hate from back in the 1980s, and the needs have never been greater than today.
On October 7 of last year, life irrevocably changed for Canadian Jews. Of course, right-minded Canadians, not just Jews, deplored what Hamas had done, but almost immediately and before a single Israeli soldier set foot in Gaza, protesters in Canada celebrated Hamas’ barbarities. Those murdered included Israeli-Canadian, Vivian Silver, a peace activist and founder of Women Wage Peace and the Arab-Jewish Center for Equality, Empowerment and Cooperation. She was involved in many other things.
Later in the conflict, we saw protesters in Canada cheer on Iran, the world’s leading sponsor of terror, when it launched its unprecedented rocket and drone attacks on Israel. Then we heard demonstrators chant “make us proud, Yemen” when the Houthis attacked Red Sea shipping.
The Houthis, ostensibly making those demonstrators proud, are guilty of some of the worst human rights abuses against children and women and wage war under a slogan that reads, “God is the greatest. Death to America. Death to Israel. Curse be upon the Jews. Victory to Islam.”
In an article entitled, Confronting the Celebration of Barbarity, I describe the impact that the celebration of atrocities in Canada has had on me and the vast majority of the Jewish community. The Middle East conflict has been brought to our shores, our cities, our schools and our streets.
This celebration has been accompanied in Canada by the all‑too-frequent demonizing of Canadian Jews, regardless of our personal politics, and the demonizing of Jews and their allies who are Zionists, of all Israelis and of the State of Israel itself.
To be clear, I am a Zionist; so are 91% of Canadian Jews. A Zionist supports the existence of a single Jewish state in our ancestral lands. It’s not incompatible with Palestinian self‑determination, including an ultimate two-state solution which the majority of Jews and Zionists support.
When demonstrators chant “death to all Zionists,” “all Zionists are evil, racist, genocidal,” without distinction, they are speaking about me and the vast majority of Jews.
All Canadians are entitled to criticize Israel’s government, policies, conduct or extremism in the same way as other countries are criticized. Some of Israel’s harshest critics are Israelis, Jews, Zionists, me. But no one is entitled to demonize and delegitimize Israel’s very existence and all those who support its existence. That is anti-Semitism.
What we are doing in Canada is allowing hate mongers to distort the meaning of freedom of speech and assembly — freedoms that I cherish — to immunize themselves from accountability.
In this regard, it is a distortion. When people say that the International Holocaust Remembrance Association’s working of definition of anti-Semitism — adopted by 43 countries including Canada after decades of study — suppresses pro-Palestinian speech, it does precisely the opposite: it explicitly recognizes that mere criticism of Israel is protected speech.
I ask you senators to contrast that with calling for the death of all Zionists, especially when I say 91% of Canadian Jews are Zionists. That’s not protected speech. Labelling all Zionists without distinction as racist, genocidal and evil chanting is not protected speech.
Chanting “From water to water, Palestine shall be Arab” or “Palestine shall be Jew free” is not protected speech. Calling for the violent destruction of the State of Israel and its supporters is not protected speech. Intimidating Canadian Jews through the deliberate choices of protest venues in proximity to Jewish community centres, places of worship, businesses, or neighbourhoods or blocking roads or access to publicly accessible spaces to convey hateful messages, I’m sorry, that is not protected speech.
Chanting support for designated terrorist organizations and their terrorist leaders, this cannot be regarded as protected speech. And calling for global intifada through armed resistance by any means necessary when the context makes it clear that the call is for the destruction of the entire State of Israel, this is not protected speech.
This is criminal hate speech. This is criminal intimidation. This is incitement to hatred. This is mischief. This is unlawful assembly, and it’s time for all Canadians of goodwill to say it and act upon it.
In the presentation that I provided to you in writing, I set out 10 reasons why anti-Semitism is so prevalent in this day and age. I commend those 10 reasons to you. I’m happy to amplify upon each of them. I have written about almost every one of them and I’ve provided you links to what I’ve written in the past.
In my written presentation, I’ve also set out 10 recommendations that I believe that this committee could adopt and could make a significant difference in how hate activity is dealt with in Canada.
But if I had to develop one theme, and one theme alone, it would be this: We are underutilizing the existing criminal law measures that are available to us as a country in order to address hate crime. I will explain, if asked, why I think the criminal law is being underutilized. But we are seeing its uneven application across the land. We’re seeing that its misuse and underuse is emboldening those who preach hate, and that affects all of us.
I’ll reserve any other comments to any questions directed to me. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. We’ll now turn to Ms. Mock.
Karen Mock, Human Rights Consultant and Chair, Enhancing Social Justice Education Group; former Executive Director of the Canadian Race Relations Foundation, and of the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada, as an individual: I wish I were there in person. I’m using Zoom from the Algonquin territory in Muskoka, where we are snowed in now. We had a power failure minutes ago.
Thank you for including me in this important and timely meeting. I am honoured to have been invited as an individual, albeit one who has actually worked with most of the community organizations who will likely be making submissions.
Some of them — pardon the sloppy language — from the far right in our community might say, “Why would you have her? She’s a progressive Zionist.” They distort the meaning of the word “progressive.”
Some of the people on the radical left in our community would say, “Why would you have her, because she’s a Zionist.” They would distort the meaning of the term “Zionist” to suit their political agenda.
I was pleased to listen to Shimon Fogel. In the past, I served on his Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, CIJA, local partnership committee in the GTA.
I am thrilled to be on the same panel with Mark Sandler, because I work with members of his alliance, especially in the area of respectful dialogue. I did work with Mr. Sandler for many years in several dialogue programs and extensive anti-hate and training initiatives.
I’m glad to be going last. I wish to say I completely agree with what the last two speakers have said. What I wish to do is build on some of the other aspects of which I may be able to contribute.
It’s important that I come to this topic as an educational psychologist and human rights consultant, whose life’s work has been dedicated to bridging the gap between theory, policy and practice, not just education and psychological theory in practice, but also key Canadian policies of multiculturalism, anti-racism, equity and human rights, these days commonly referred to as diversity, equity and inclusion policies and programs.
Initially, a professor in teacher education, I moved to full-time human rights activism in the late 1980s when we began to see that anti-Semitism was increasing in the anti-racism movement.
After 12 years as national director of the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada, I was appointed by the federal government to head the Canadian Race Relations Foundation, right after the UN World Conference Against Racism and, on its heels, 9/11.
As I told the federal National Summit on Antisemitism in 2021, I could not have stayed in this work as long as I have without being an optimist that, one day, we would recognize and counter all forms of oppression and find ways to work together to realize the vision so many of us have for Canada.
That summit was over three years ago. I told them my optimism then had begun to wane, just as Mr. Fogel said. 2021 was quite a year. I’ve become somewhat cynical and, for an optimist, that’s awful because, as I put it then, here we go again.
Here’s what I said then. I want you to understand, though, how much worse things are now. In the years leading up to 2021, groups were already being pitted against one another.
We have always said there should be no hierarchy of oppression. But rather than working together as we once did, there seemed to be more polarization, separation, competition for funds and attention, and even vitriol and violence between groups.
Increasingly, we appear to be violating the very fundamental principles of human rights and justice for all, and undermining the quest for shared power. I am going to submit further written documentation after this.
It was 1996 when I wrote an article for teachers in a teacher education program. The title of it was From Multiculturalism to Anti-Racism to Equity: Sharing Power or Grabbing Power?
Sadly, we are experiencing this kind of polarization and, dare I say, the increase of propaganda and, as you have heard, hate propaganda, hate speech and vitriolic hate.
My first and main point, to follow up on the others, is that anti-Semitism must be on the anti-racist agenda. Yes, it is a form of racism. Jews have been racialized since the Spanish Inquisition, and certainly in the 20th and now 21st century. It needs to be fought with all the same arguments and tactics used against other forms of racism or phobias, and all of them.
Anti-Semitism is also religious discrimination. It is a unique form of racism and needs to be named as such. Naming anti‑Semitism and defining it, as has already been said, does not silence anyone. It allows it to be discussed and called out and countered. As you have also heard and know, anti-Semitism is cyclical and it morphs. It shape-shifts. When economic times are tough, when a plague threatens and attacks civilization, or when people are looking for people to blame for their problems, usually to enhance their own power, they target Jews. And as I said, here we go again.
As you know, during COVID-19, there was a huge rise in anti‑Semitic incidents and hate crime and new blood libels, and here we go again.
On October 7, 2023, the world witnessed a vicious, brutal attack by Hamas on Israel during a ceasefire, the worst since the Holocaust, and the capture of hostages. As you have heard, even before retaliation by Israel and ongoing loss of innocent lives, Jews in Canada experienced a huge rise in anti-Semitic harassment in schools and workplaces and on the streets. It saddens me that they even experienced that in their equity, diversity, anti-racist and human rights communities —
The Chair: Excuse me, Ms. Mock. We’re running out of time. If there’s anything else you would like to add, you can always make a written submission to us, but there is a list of senators who want to ask some questions.
Ms. Mock: Has the time flown so quickly? I’m sorry for that interruption. I wanted to repeat the recommendations, but I will get to that as answers to your questions, particularly in the areas in which you know I have expertise.
The Chair: Thank you. I apologize for interrupting you. I don’t like doing that. We start with Deputy Chair Bernard.
Senator Bernard: Ms. Mock, we would have met a number of years ago when you were with the Canadian Race Relations Foundation.
Ms. Mock: Yes, I remember.
Senator Bernard: I don’t know if the general Canadian public has much awareness and understanding of anti-Semitism or the connection between anti-Semitism and other forms of racism and bigotry and discrimination and hate. Could you expand on this a bit, please? Particularly, was there was a moment where you mentioned anti-Semitism within the anti‑racism movement? Could you say more about that? Do you have any ideas on how we can create more awareness nationally about anti-Semitism?
Ms. Mock: I have many ideas, and I will conclude later, after one of the questions, with some actual concrete recommendations.
One of the main reasons that people do not have the level of awareness is that many of the outstanding programs that have been developed and funded by governments in the past 40 years never went to scale. From all of the recommendations made by Shimon Fogel and Mark Sandler, we can provide you with outstanding training and resource materials. Whether it’s for prosecutors or hate crime units, these materials exist.
In education, outstanding work was done in the early years of the development of multicultural, anti-racist education. The training of people in that area, in universities and colleges and teacher education, was inclusive. In the list that people would make of “-isms” and phobias, anti-Semitism would be included.
As I coined the expression years ago, the Durban conference was the turning point, and Gaza 14 and, as Mr. Fogel mentioned, Gaza 21 were the tipping points in the ignorance because of certain programs. These training programs and funding programs are used — and I have to be as frank as I can because it pains me, and I’m almost in tears to see some of this work ignored. People eliminated the programs that were supposed to have been made systemic with ongoing training of teachers and police. If something was done by the previous government, it either gets shredded or someone wants to put their own name on it so they start over.
I’ve always said that this is an interdisciplinary field. As Mr. Fogel and others have mentioned, yes, we need national convening of summits or fora, but we also need, as was said, leadership and good professional advisers to that leadership, regardless of politics.
I was privileged enough to chair the federal advisory committee from 1990 to 1994 under the Mulroney government and then to chair the federal advisory committee to the Liberal government in the preparation and the lead-up to the Durban conference, so that we would be inclusive and would ensure that all the voices were heard.
We spoke about training of prosecutors and others in these kinds of programs. The Attorney General of Ontario convened the Hate Crimes Community Working Group with nine people, a microcosm of our society. The bureaucrats were beleaguered in these kinds of things. Believe me, I’m not one to dump on the good people who are working around the clock on these issues, but they said it would take about a year and a half to commission a study.
I asked all the committee members to please bring in all the reports, all the recommendations, that their organizations had done over the last 10 years. I’m not very tall, but I had two piles, and they came up to my shoulders. The people in the departments who were responsible for implementing these things had no idea that these studies existed.
Again, I endorse everything that was said by the previous speakers. I hope that our training programs have this kind of influence. The reason the Enhancing Social Justice Education group was convened 12 years ago was that in some of the teacher education facilities and universities, anti-Semitism had been removed from the curriculum on anti-racism and anti-oppression under the guise of, “Well, we shouldn’t have hierarchies of oppression.” These were the very people who were trying to teach people the way we had. It took us years to help White people understand all the forms of racism. You would hear, “Well, I’m not racist. I don’t hate Blacks.” Now you hear from people in the work, “Well, we’re not anti-Semitic. We don’t hate Jews.” Or we would hear comments like, “We don’t have to have Black History Month because we don’t have many Blacks in our school board,” and my response would be —
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Mock. We have to move on.
Ms. Mock: I hope I addressed the question. I can’t help but be passionate.
The Chair: There’s nothing wrong with being passionate.
Senator Arnot: I have one question for Mr. Sandler and one for Dr. Mock.
Mr. Sandler, you’ve been educating police forces for 40 years or so. Do we need new legislation in Canada? Do we need enhanced enforcement mechanisms? Really, what is it that the police aren’t understanding? Why are they not using the tools they already have?
Mr. Sandler: Thank you for that question, senator. There are various proposals that the Criminal Code should be amended to better address hate activity.
Although there can be some amendments, particularly, for example, criminalizing the use of terrorist symbols as an easier route to conviction, I am satisfied that the Criminal Code provisions that currently exist enable police, if they choose to do so, to effectively address hate crime.
The problem, senator, is multifaceted. First of all, there’s been this emphasis upon the wilful promotion of hatred sections of the Criminal Code, to the exclusion of the conventional sections that exist under the Criminal Code, which can be effective.
I’ve heard people say, “What can we do if protesters are blocking the road and engaged in hateful speech?” The criminal intimidation section of the Criminal Code specifically addresses the blockage of roads. Mischief, interference with the lawful use and enjoyment of properties of others, is underutilized, unlawful assembly is underutilized. We have conventional sections of the Criminal Code that are well suited to address the hate activity that we’re seeing, so police have to understand that and they don’t. And that’s why training and education on that subject are so important.
The second is that freedom of speech and assembly have been the subject of misinformation, if not, at times, deliberate distortion. I appeared, together with others, including Irwin Cotler, when we were successful in upholding the constitutionality of the hate speech provisions of the Criminal Code. You would think we lost that battle from the way these things are being discussed in today’s day and age. Canada recognizes that there are limits upon freedom of speech in a free and democratic society, but nonetheless, police feel inhibited in the use of those sections, as do prosecutors. And in my view, this too has to be the subject of robust education and training. Plus we need the support, the political will of governments in order to see the greater use of criminal law provisions. And I’m told by politicians, we can’t direct the police as to whether to lay a charge in a specific case. They’re absolutely right, but police service boards develop policies on public order. So a policy that supports the robust use of the criminal law in order to combat hate is not only appropriate but necessary.
It’s appropriate that cities and provinces and governments signal their acceptance of and support for the robust use of the criminal law. That’s not directing police improperly to a specific case. That’s sending a policy message across the land that we’ve had enough of hate activity and we want zero tolerance for it. So in my view, those are the things that have to be looked at cumulatively in responding to your question.
Senator Arnot: Dr. Mock, you’re known as an educator and a human rights expert, especially on these issues that we’re talking about today. I guess I’m going to ask this question: How do we restore your optimism and really what would you like to see this study recommend? What are the strategic imperatives that we could recommend that would move this in the correct direction and get the outcomes you’re seeking?
Ms. Mock: How do we restore the optimism? I think by building on some of the very important initiatives that have been shown to be successful. As was said earlier, people have to understand that we can put words into action and we can share the best practices, but we would hope that your report and your researchers would gather some of those before going on to recommend that we reinvent the wheel.
I’m never one to say that things should be done the way they used to be. We have to jazz things up. We have to understand Instagram and TikTok, but let’s look back at the earlier national symposia that were convened. When we convened the first national hate crime symposium, international, in 1994, and the first one in 1997 on hate on the internet, and the amazing materials that were prepared to help teach police and prosecutors, and as you well know, senator, whom I used to call Judge Arnot, the kinds of training we did for judges. It’s a combination of advocacy, it’s a combination of law, or what I, in the manual I wrote, called “protection, prevention and partnership.”
So when you ask the second question on what I want to see happen and what the recommendation is, I guess I want to go further than Mr. Fogel did. Support a national forum, absolutely. Once we gather all that material and have something to share with everyone, but first in terms of protection, I would like to see you create a national body, a body that brings together local provincial and federal law enforcement, intelligence and security expertise for intelligence sharing, joint forces operations and for training, and for training of trainers, to stem the rise of right‑wing and left-wing extremism that is a palpable threat to democracy.
And at the same time continue what Mr. Sandler has said, strengthening and implementing the anti-hate legislation and updating it to keep up with the escalation of online hate.
Another wish in the prevention area, support truly inclusive anti-racism education and training, that is including anti‑Semitism and hate at all levels of the education system. And I know that it’s a provincial issue, but there have been ways to support educational initiatives in the past.
And in all government agencies and institutions, with appropriate job-specific components, including security and border personnel, the armed forces, Foreign Affairs personnel, granting agencies, police, corrections, and the judiciary. Build on successful programs taught by experts in the field who have been trained.
Yes, we need the advocacy groups, yes, we need the individual groups, but support the ongoing work.
Lastly, I’ll build on what Mr. Fogel recommended, are the partnerships, and the importance of it, the allyships. We are in the era of silos once again. What has happened in most agencies and school boards is the governments are now supporting programs done by each group separately. And now they’re saying, “Oh, let’s get together. We have to work together.”
Jewish groups need to come together with other groups in common cause, but the government should support programs once again that actually bring people together and take the leadership in bringing them together. And I’m going to elaborate on this in my written submission.
The Chair: Thank you so much.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you to both of our witnesses here. I have a quick question for each of you.
Mr. Sandler, you talked about what could be done to enforce the Criminal Code. Could you give us a little more advice, or perhaps what is your advice to police in a situation where you have a large demonstration, maybe a heated demonstration, with hundreds or maybe thousands of people? I see a lot of commentary about why the police aren’t moving in, and I’m not making excuses for them, but I’m wondering if it’s their way of de-escalating, that you let it go on for a while and hope it peters out, or something like that.
What is your advice to police as to how they should pursue this? Do you pick out a few people and move them away at the cost of creating other kinds of situations?
Mr. Sandler: It’s a great question. And I should say at once that I was involved in developing a framework for de-escalation of protest activities so I’m not against de-escalation per se, but the advice that I would give to police in these scenarios is as follows: First of all, there is nothing wrong with managing the situation on a temporary basis and deferring charges and laying charges after the activity has ended. That’s not the solution in all cases, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that you are powerless to act because you can’t effect an arrest immediately in the wake of a thousand people protesting. So deferred charges are a real possibility.
Senator Cardozo: How would you identify the people you want to charge?
Mr. Sandler: First of all, I have recommended to every police force that all preplanned protests should be the subject of videotaping from the outset. The police should be videotaping.
Second of all, there are provisions in the Criminal Code that address disguises and the use of disguises, and I think if there is one area in which the Criminal Code could also be fortified, it’s in the prohibitions against disguises in certain environments. But the police can engage in surveillance after the fact to identify people who are masked, they can engage in the use of videotapes to determine the identity of the people who are involved, they can intervene quietly — and I’ve seen this in some instances — during an assembly to engage in an identification process and dialogue process and then lay charges after the fact. They can also separate out and isolate people within an assembly that takes place. There are techniques available to the police, but the answer can’t be to do nothing.
Sometimes I hear people saying, well as long as they’re not actually committing violence right now, all we should be doing as a police force is ensuring the immediate keeping of the peace, but that’s not recognizing the harm being done to marginalized communities when these assemblies involves hatred. The police aren’t powerless, and there are techniques to address it.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you so much.
A quick question to Dr. Mock.
The Chair: Dr. Mock, if you can really be brief. We have about nine minutes and I have three senators, including me, with questions.
Senator Cardozo: I will say for the record, I’ve had the great opportunity of knowing Dr. Mock for a long time, and she’s a board member of the Pearson Centre where I worked for the last 10 years before I joined the Senate.
A quick question to you, Dr. Mock, in terms of the work you’ve done in terms of dialogue both at the Canadian Race Relations Foundation and through Jewish-Muslim dialogue that you’ve done over the years. What is your advice as to how we can engage people in dialogue at this particular point? We only have a minute or two, I think.
The Chair: A minute.
Ms. Mock: In one minute.
Senator Cardozo: Yes.
Ms. Mock: Well, these things, that’s the whole issue around this. I would be very glad to lay out some of the real guidelines for dialogue. This Thursday, there’s going to be a symposium that our group has convened called Stop the Hate, Start the Dialogue. I cringed a little bit at the word “start” because everybody wants to talk about, oh, let’s start having dialogue, and let’s start having more inclusive education. We need to look to the groups that have been doing this as tillers in the vineyards for years. There’s a whole strategic and facilitative approach — when I get asked to do a session for their staff, I say can we first have a session with all of you who are responsible for diversity, equity and inclusion, so we can do almost a training of trainers of how you do this.
Let’s meet with the people who have been successful over the years. Let’s even have a forum that you can gather on modelling how this dialogue is actually done. Years ago, I think we did presentations on what they called civil discourse. I don’t know if Shimon Fogel remembers that years ago it was civil discourse. Now it’s respectful dialogue. Our work on Arab-Jewish and Palestinian-Jewish dialogue has been very important. I must tell you, it’s very difficult right now. We have to hold empathy at the same time for all sides that are hurting, and this work that we have done, and that you did and that others in the Senate did over the years, it was always about how you put yourself in the other’s shoes so that together we can build and strengthen what Canada stands for.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Senior: Thank you both for being here. I wanted to go a little bit down history lane, but I am not going to do this. I am thinking of my experience working with folks across the table, or in the late 1980s and 1990s when young Black men were being shot and the way that the Jewish community came to the support of and worked with Black community leaders like Charles Roach and Dudley Laws and others. I learned very well about the importance of allyship from those leaders, and how important it was to address the issues of the day. I think that’s kind of what we need today.
But my question is a bit different. It’s more trying to understand if there are regions around the world that you see and have studied and you think we can learn from, in terms of dealing with the issues we’re seeing today here in Canada.
Ms. Mock: Is that question to me?
Senator Senior: Both of you, but I think Mr. Sandler will tackle it first.
Mr. Sandler: I wish that I could say that I feel energized by some of the work that I’m seeing in other regions. I too am involved in respectful dialogue, and I have drawn some comfort from some of the initiatives that have taken place in the United States, for example, at Dartmouth College.
At Dartmouth, immediately in the aftermath of October 7, a dialogue was established, and a course on the Middle East was jointly taught by a Middle Eastern Jewish professor and a Middle Eastern Muslim professor, and the response from the student community at Dartmouth was very good.
I’m involved right now in a respectful national dialogue, where we hope to bring together some diverse voices in the same way so that the idea is always that you don’t just start by talking about anti-Semitism and its current manifestations; you talk about establishing the ground rules through respectful dialogue, as Ms. Mock said.
If you establish those ground rules, what we are going to be involved in is open listening and critical thinking as opposed to being indoctrinated by professors. That is a path that I’ve seen have some success, certainly in some of the initiatives I’ve studied in the United States.
Senator Senior: Thank you.
Ms. Mock: Sadly, since October 7, worldwide, even the countries that were beginning to be successful at so much of this, we’ve taken many steps back. But that is the nature of our work. We always used to say we took 10 steps forward and 9 steps back, back in those days when we were doing anti-racism education and working with the Black community. But then there would be a crisis or a political upheaval and it would be 20 steps back, and we would have to move forward again slowly.
Interestingly enough, some of the best programs in this kind of work are happening in Israel and Palestine, because it’s life or death there, and they know that either they will live together or they will die together. We have programs like Women Wage Peace, and there is a Canadian chapter of that. We have programs of Heart to Heart, where Jewish and Palestinian teenagers get together, and we bring them here to Canada so that they can go back and take leadership. There are groups like the Bereaved Parents Association. Here also, some of the programs that are being done by Indigenous elders. Maurice Switzer from North Bay is one of our advisers. He’s an Ashkenazi Anishinaabe and says in the great circle of life, we are all related.
The Palestinians and the Jews in that beleaguered part of the world know that they’re cousins. Arabs and Jews are all cousins. They say cousins are your first friends but they can also be rivals. There is even sibling rivalry, so there are power struggles. How do you put yourself in the other’s shoes? How do you vow in whatever country you’re in that celebrates democracy?
I want to focus again on Canada. We bring people together to put their theories and policies into practice, not to distort their theories so they can silence and marginalize another group because they didn’t realize it. Just like they have to understand we are in a systemically racist society and there’s systemic anti-Semitism, and people didn’t even understand their own complicity in that because it’s just part of the air that we live and breathe. Whether it’s in scriptures or around the kitchen table, hate gets proliferated instead of love or putting yourself in the other’s shoes for the human circles.
We do have some international models of hate and anti-hate, and we can share with you some of the research we did, as well as initiatives in other countries. Post-October 7, we’re really looking for better practices.
The Chair: Thank you so much.
Senator K. Wells: Briefly, I have a question for Mr. Sandler.
I wanted to pick up on what you were talking about the protest legislation and our previous conversation around bubble zones. You may be aware that the City of Calgary’s safe and inclusive access bylaw withstood a court challenge last week. Of course, that was very narrow to libraries and recreation facilities. It didn’t include schools, cultural centres or places of worship.
I’m wondering your thoughts. Do you see that as another potential tool in the toolbox to be able to have the right of freedom of expression yet enable a further degree of community safety and inclusivity?
Mr. Sandler: I’ll be unequivocal in my answer. I believe that the federal government, the provincial governments and municipal governments have the constitutional right to create bubble legislation and that bubble legislation can be designed so as not to impair true freedom of speech in a way that’s constitutionally impermissible.
I look at what the City of Vaughan has done. I’ve looked at some legislation in British Columbia as well, and for me, there’s a lot of scope for bubble legislation to give communities an added sense of security and safety without preventing people from exercising their free speech.
The Chair: We are officially out of time, but I just have a quick question for you, Mr. Sandler.
How do Canadians perceive the connection between anti-Semitism and other forms of racism and bigotry? You mentioned Islamophobia. What’s the connection between anti-Semitism and Islamophobia?
Mr. Sandler: It’s a great question, so thank you for it. First of all, we have seen in the past that when events of a turbulent nature take place in the Middle East, we see an increase both in anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. There’s undoubtedly a connection between world events and the levels of hatred that we experience here in Canada. Now, the levels of anti-Semitism have been just right off the charts in that regard, but there is that connection nonetheless.
The one thing that we have to be very careful about is how it is that we define some of these forms of hatred. We have to define hatred in a way that doesn’t deny the core identities of other people. I’m going to give you a perfect example.
There’s a lot of talk, I’ll be perfectly candid, about the introduction as part of anti-racism strategies of anti-Palestinian racism. There are a lot of difficulties with that concept. To be clear, that’s not because I would support in any way any form of discrimination against someone because they’re Palestinian or because they’re Arab or Muslim. We should not support any forms of discrimination. Unfortunately, what has happened is that anti-Palestinian “racism” has been a term that has been defined in such a way to exclude the legitimacy of Zionism. In other words, as a Zionist, I am accused of being racist against Palestinians. We can’t deny the core identities of other people in the way we define these terms.
A lot of consideration has to be given to the way we define our anti-racism strategies. One of the organizations that’s in our alliance, the Network of Engaged Canadian Academics, is doing a fabulous paper on the challenges associated with anti-Palestinian racism. I would recommend that paper to you as one of the answers to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
I want to take this opportunity to thank all the witnesses on behalf of the committee. Thank you for sharing your testimony. It will be helpful in deliberations and with this study as we continue.
Senators, the public portion of our meeting is now over. We shall continue in camera to discuss a draft report.
(The committee continued in camera.)