Local News
How effective are Canada’s hate speech laws in combating anti-Semitism?
By BERNIE BELLAN Are Canada’s hate speech laws at all effective in combating what has been an outpouring of anti-Semitism since the Hamas massacre of October 7?
That was the question discussed by two individuals with legal backgrounds – Lea Ross and David Matas, in front of an audience in the Multipurpose room of the Asper Campus on Tuesday, December 19.
The event was sponsored by The Jewish Federation of Winnipeg, Winnipeg Friends of Israel, and Bridges for Peace. There were about 75 people in attendance.
Lea Ross is a former lawyer who now works teaching musical conducting within the Winnipeg school system. She is also a former student of David Matas – having studied human rights law with Matas at the University of Manitoba law school. Ross also had a number of years experience at the Manitoba Legislature helping to draft laws.
The format for the evening, following introductory remarks, had Ross posing a series of questions to Matas about human rights laws and, following Matas’s answers, entering into further discussion with him about what he had said. Their exchanges moved along quite quickly and, after about an hour, members of the audience were also invited to ask questions.
Ross had also prepared a hand-out for audience members which listed “relevant federal and provincial laws related to hate speech and expression.
In her introductory remarks Ross noted that, since 2009, there have been approximately 2,000 hate crimes a year recorded in Canada. Ross observed that various professors at law school had stated that hate crime laws in Canada “are ineffective and largely symbolic.”
“It’s as if Canada passed a law and then walked away,” Ross oberved.
Having made her thoughts on hate laws here quite clear to the audience, Ross asked Matas the first of her series of questions: “What more can be done?”
Matas responded that we can “increase the sentences for hate crimes, but we can’t look at hate crimes alone.” Matas added that one of the defenses often offered by individuals charged with hate crimes is that what they had said was “the truth.” He explained that Section 319 (3) of the Criminal Code says, among other things, that “No person shall be convicted of an an offence… if he establishes that the statements communicated were true,” but Matas suggested that “truth is a problematic defense.” (One might think, for instance, of the contention that saying Israelis are guilty of “genocide” could be considered hate speech, but the most commonly heard rebuttal to that argument is that genocide can have various interpretations and therefore, it might be true.)
Further, Matas alluded to the difficulty even in initiating a hate crime charge under the Criminal Code of Canada (which added hate crimes to the list of criminal offences in 1985). According to Section 319 (6), “no proceeding for (a hate crime) offence shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General of the province in which the hate crime is alleged to have occurred.” (That difficulty was also cited by Prof. Bryan Schwartz in a talk he gave about antisemitism on university campuses in the Berney Theate on Thursday, November 30. My report on that talk can still be read on our website.)
Notwithstanding the difficulty in getting a hate crime charge laid, Matas did suggest that, if one were sufficiently motivated to do so, one could launch a private prosecution against an individual for a hate crime.
Matas also added that, “We’re not so much interested in how to make the (hate crime) laws better, it’s how to make the laws work” in the first place. For instance, he suggested, “you could use other offences in the criminal code that don’t require the consent of the attorney general.”
He brought up a recent instance in which a man in BC was charged with “indecent communication” for making threats against an Ottawa Jewish doctor in a phone call made to that doctor.
Ross brought up a section of the criminal code hate laws that refer specifically to “promoting anti-Semitism.” Section 319 (2.1) says: “Everyone who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, willfully promotes anti-Semitism by condoning, denying, or downplaying the Holocaust” is guilty of an offense. Ross wondered whether that section ought to be “broadened to target conspiracy theories” beyond the Holocaust?
She then brought up the hornet’s nest known as the internet, asking Matas what he thought could be done to better control the explosion of anti-Semitism on the internet?
Matas responded that “the first recourse shouldn’t be to the police, it should be to the internet providers…If hate speech violates the terms of service (of a particular provider), then they can cut them off.” (Matas also said he actually has read many of those interminable “terms of service” documents that are included in so many websites and apps. That in itself should get him some kind of special award.)
Now, lest one think that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees, among other guarantees, “freedom of expression,” Matas noted that “the Canadian Charter doesn’t apply to private companies.”
“France and Germany hold internet companies liable for what’s posted,” Matas pointed out.
Further to the issue of what constitutes antisemitic expression, Ross referred to the expression, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” noting that both Austria and the Netherlands have moved to have that expression banned. She wondered whether “Jews should move to have it banned in Canada” as well?
Again, Matas responded that the Charter’s right to free expression wouldn’t pertain to someone mouthing that expression on a university campus, as “the Charter doesn’t apply to universities.”
Thus, “if the (Federal) government were to ban it, it would be subject to the Charter, but if universities and private companies were to ban it,” the Charter wouldn’t apply, so it is conceivable that a university could act to prevent a student or students from voicing that expression. (At the end of this article I refer specifically of the case in which a University of Manitoba Nursing student was suspended for sharing anti-Semitic posts on Instagram.)
Yet, Matas wondered, “Do we start legislating expressions?”
Ross asked: “What can we do to better protect our youth from hate speech?”
Matas drew upon his own experience as a youth, when he saw a film about “stereotypes,” saying that film had a lasting impact upon him – and suggested that showing a film of that sort to students would be of great benefit.
Ross brought up the question of competing rights: The right to freedom of expression and the importance of protecting vulnerable groups. She wondered how we can maintain a balance? (Interestingly, in this same issue, we have two different articles, by Michael Posner and by Henry Srebrnik, both of whom explore the issue of how far the pendulum has swung in protecting so called “vulnerable groups,” which apparently doesn’t include Jews.)
Matas said: “Academic freedom has gone wild, but very often you’re dealing with conflicting rights. The balance lies in determining where the greater harm lies,” but right now, “the balance is totally tilted” in favour of those so called vulnerable groups.
Ross asked whether “we should ever go to human rights commissions” when it comes to trying to protect against hate speech?
Matas responded that “human rights commissions (which are products of provincial legislation) don’t deal with incitement to hatred.”
Speaking of provincial legislation, Matas further explained that “the Defamation Act (also a Manitoba statute) which refers to a “libel against a race, religious creed or sexual orientation” doesn’t allow for damages, which is why it’s almost never used.”
Yet, Matas added, “it’s not as if we have nothing now. What we have to do is make better use of existing laws.”
One could sue for libel under the Defamation Act if one believes they were libeled as an individual; however, there is no such thing as “group libel,” Matas observed.
When it came time for questions, I asked the same question of David Matas that I had asked of Bryan Schwartz when he spoke about anti-Semitism on university campuses. I noted that the Faculty of Nursing at the University of Manitoba had suspended the Nursing Association’s president for what were described as antisemitic posts on Instagram. (Apparently her suspension is still under appeal. At least that’s the only news I could find when I tried to search for an update on that story.)
Regardless whether the suspension is reversed or not, that student was suspended for what were described as “anti-Semitic posts.” I said to Bryan Schwartz and I said to David Matas: The Faculty of Nursing exhibited some intestinal fortitude. (And yes, I’m well aware that one might say, this was different. How would a Jewish patient feel knowing the nurse dealing with them might be an antisemite? Come on: There are all sorts of professions and positions about which we could say the same thing.) The fact is, as I said to David Matas: The surprise isn’t that more universities haven’t taken action in response to hate speech, the surprise is that one actually did.
Local News
Jewish Federation holds first ever “town hall”
By BERNIE BELLAN It was a relatively small turnout – maybe 70 people were at the Shaarey Zedek Sunday morning, June 14 – but it may have been the start of a new foray by the Jewish Federation of Winnipeg into community outreach when a “town hall” was held to which members of the Jewish community had been invited to attend.
I had broached the idea of the Federation’s holding a community town hall with Federation CEO Jeff Lieberman back in the fall on an evening when he and newly installed Federation President Carrie Shenkarow had invited members of the community to come meet them for some one on one conversations.
I was disappointed that evening how few individuals showed up, so I shouldn’t have been surprised that the turnout for the town hall itself was relatively low.
But, give full marks to Lieberman and the others who were on the panel with him on June 14 for coming out to an event where they were prepared to answer any and all questions from audience members, as well as respond to questions that had been sent in by members of the community prior to the actual town hall.
Now, I should make clear that I have a particular position when it comes to attending any type of forum of the sort the Jewish Federation held, which is that any and all questions should be allowed – even if those questions might anger both the respondents to the question and audience members as well.
Toward almost the very end of the town hall I did ask a question that did elicit a somewhat negative reaction from within the audience – about the uproar over the upcoming Nakba exhibit at the Canadian Museum for Human Rights, but I’ll save what I asked and the response I got for later. Suffice to say for the time being, it seems apparent the suggestion that some Palestinians were forcibly expelled from their homes and have a right to have their story told is anathema to many in the Jewish community.
The town hall was moderated by Neil Duboff. Accompanying Duboff on the podium at the Shaarey Zedek were four other individuals, each of whom was representing a particular Jewish organization: the aforesaid Jeff Lieberman, CEO of the Jewish Federation of Winnipeg; Dr. Ruth Ashrafi, Regional Director, B’nai Brith Canada; Gustavo Zentner, CIJA Vice-President, Manitoba and Saskatchewan; and Bellle Jarniewski, Executive Director, The Jewish Heritage Centre of Western Canada. Later in the program, they were joined on the podium by Rabbi Anibal Mass of Shaarey Zedek Congregation.
Each of the panellists gave what turned out to be fairly lengthy descriptions of what it is they do in their opening remarks, lasting a total of 20 minutes.
From time to time William Sagel, who is community security director for the Jewish Federation, but was not present in person, also joined in the discussion via a remote link.
Rather than report on how each of the panellists described what they do in their respective positions, I’ll jump right into the question and answer session that ensued. However, the initial question and answer segment of the program turned out to consist of questions that had been submitted beforehand and were read out by Neil Duboff, who took turns asking different panellists to respond to different questions.
Considering that a town hall is supposed to be a forum where, after opening remarks by whoever is going to respond to questions from audience members, the floor is supposed to be opened up to members of the audience to ask questions, having Neil Duboff read questions that had been submitted beforehand contradicted what is supposed to happen at a town hall, but hey: This was a first for our community, so I’ll give them a pass this town – but guys, next time – if there is a next time, how about having a real town hall?
What follows are snippets of what turned out to be a very long event that ran well past the allotted two hours that had originally been set aside. (If answers to questions posed, either by Duboff – reading from questions that had been submitted or by actual audience members themselves, seem exceptionally short, it’s for reasons of space, not because respondents gave abbreviated answers.)
The first question Duboff asked, and which was directed at Gustavo Zentner, was: “What is CIJA’s strategy for holding public officials accountable when current laws are not being enforced?”
Zentner responded that he prefers to meet one on one with officials – on a confidential basis, but he tries “to set a paper trail of accountability.”
One particular event that had a significant impact on the relationship CIJA (as well as other community organizations, other panellists noted) has had with politicians at various levels of government was the Bondi Beach attack in Australia last December during Chanukah, when 15 people were killed and 40 wounded by two gunmen who opened fire as members of the Sydney Jewish community were gathered to celebrate Chanukah on the beach.
Zentner noted that, following that attack, he met with the premier of Manitoba as well as the leader of the opposition, to discuss how the Manitoba government could bolster security for the Jewish community here.
Zentner said that, coming out of that discussion, the Manitoba government has now created a position of prosecutor specifically to deal with hate crimes and that the government “gave specific funds for security infrastructure for the community.”
He added that “two weeks ago” the Winnipeg Chief of Police released hate crime stats for the City of Winnipeg. “We were interviewed four times in 24 hours” about what the chief had said, Zentner added.
The next question Duboff asked was addressed to Jeff Lieberman: “What does the Federation do to prevent people from attending events who aren’t invited?”
Lieberman answered: “We pre-register” attendees.
He also said he wanted to add something to Zentner’s response to the question asked about holding public officials accountable.
He referred to Premier Wab Kinew’s controversial comment at the Federal NDP convention, held this past March, when Kinew said “Let the Epstein class fight the Epstein war” – a remark that was widely regarded as a dog whistle to antisemites.
Lieberman said that “Kinew said some things that were not favourable. We met with him and around one month later we got $1 million in new funding for security.”
Duboff asked Ruth Ashrafi to comment about the upcoming Nakba exhibit at the CMHR – which is scheduled to open June 27.
Ashrafi noted that in December 2023, in response to Israel’s incursion into Gaza following the October 7 massacre, there had been a “die-in” at the CMHR and word began to circulate that the CMHR was preparing to open an exhibit about the Nakba.
In April 2024, Ashrafi said, lawyer David Matas, acting on behalf of B’nai Brith Canada, sent a letter to the CMHR, in which he voiced reasons that such an exhibit should not be mounted.
In November 2025, Ashrafi added, Jewish organizations were supposed to be informed about the Nakba exhibit, “but B’nai Brith wasn’t informed.”
She also referred to “all that other nonsense you can be a very good Jew and a non-Zionist.”
Belle Jarniewski also spoke about the Nakba exhibit, saying “consultation has not taken place on the exhibit…The problematic title suggests that the very creation and ongoing existence of the State of Israel is an ongoing catastrophe…This exhibit is putting a target on the backs of Jews across Canada…They (the CMHR) consulted with six percent of Jews across Canada – who are not Zionists…Carla Compton (the newly elected MLA for Tuxedo) said that ‘a museum is supposed to be about facts, not feelings’…The museum refused to say who is on the advisory council for the exhibit.”
Gustavo Zentner added: “The moment we were advised of the exhibit in November we asked them (the CMHR) not to make any more announcements…It is the federal government’s responsibility to take action on this problem. It doesn’t matter whether the government appointed the board.”
Duboff asked Lieberman: “What security planning is underway for community events?”
Lieberman asked Williams Sagel to respond. Sagel said there are security enhancements being implemented across a wide swath of community institutions, but he didn’t want to get into details.
Duboff asked a follow-up question: “What do you say to the suggestion that community responses to security threats are inadequate?”
Lieberman responded that “We have to be very careful what we do.”
Questions from the audience then followed. As one might expect, given the opportunity to speak, once handed the microphone, most audience members would go on and on without asking a question.
Here, in capsule form, are some of the questions asked:
“Why is there no Israeli person on the panel?”
“Why not put on a counter exhibit to the CMHR exhibit at the Convention Centre?”
“Why do we have three different organizations dealing with antisemitism?” (Actually, the questioner could have asked “Why do we have four different organizations” doing that, because the Jewish Federation, B’nai Brith, CIJA, and the recently formed Manitoba Institute to Combat Antisemitism, which is part of the Jewish Heritage Centre of Western Canada, all deal with antisemitism in one way or another.)
“How is what Belle is doing different from what Ruth and Gustavo are doing?”
Jarniewski responded: “We all collaborate all the time.”
A questioner asked what can be done about the Winnipeg Free Press which, he suggested, rarely prints an op-ed defending Israel.
Lieberman said: “It is not our mandate to take a stand against that particular business.”
A questioner asked “Why isn’t ‘Shomrim’ incorporated into the community?”
For readers unfamiliar with who “Shomrim” are, here is something generated by AI about Shomrim: “Shomrim Toronto is a dedicated volunteer organization committed to ensuring the safety and security of the Jewish communities across the Greater Toronto Area. As guardians of peace (Shalom), we bridge the gap between the community and local law enforcement through vigilant community patrols, educational programs, and direct incident response.”
In Montreal, “This is the community safety and emergency response patrol operating primarily within the Hasidic and broader Jewish communities (particularly in the Tosh and Outremont areas).”
Lieberman responded: “The organizations in Toronto an Montreal have been operated for numerous years.”
William Sagel added: “We’re training volunteers for the future.”
Then, I asked my question, followed by angry muttering from the audience. I began by suggesting that the Jewish community is far more diffuse than the panelists would have us believe and the idea that there is unanimity about the Nakba is not right. I also said that speaking at this particular “town hall” was really nothing more than speaking in an ‘echo chamber’ since none of the questions asked dared to challenge accepted wisdoms about Israel and the Nakba. I asked: “Is it not possible to acknowledge the existence of what Palestinians refer to as the Nakba?” (And, for anyone who might think what I said was absolutely outrageous, I simply suggest you do some reading about what Israeli leaders, including David Ben Gurion, Chaim Weizman, and many others, said about the necessity of expelling large portions of the Palestinian population in order to create a viable State of Israel. I deal in reality, not mythology. And yes, I know that 800,000 Jews were also forced to leave their homes in Arab lands.)
Gustavo Zentner said: “The museum has not been transparent in its dealings….The (federal) government has a responsibility to step in and handle its responsibilities for corporate governance.”
A series of questions were asked by audience members about financial aid for members of the community, either to attend Gray Academy or Jewish camps. One audience member said that more parents are now sending their kids to Gray Academy or to Jewish camps as a result of antisemitism, but there was a need for more bursaries for those kids.
Jeff Lieberman agreed that “more and more kids” have left public schools and enrolled in Gray Academy after facing antisemitism in public school. He added that Gray Academy is giving out “$1 million in bursaries” each year. Lieberman pointed out that Gray Academy Head of School Lori Binder was in the audience and he asked her to come to the front to address the question of financial aid for parents wanting to send their kids to Gray Academy.
Binder said: “No one who comes to our door will ever be denied a Jewish education,” but in response to the suggestion from one audience member that non-Jewish families are receiving financial aid to send their kids to Gray Academy, Binder was unequivocal in saying that’s not true, saying that “non-Jewish families are not receiving financial assistance at all.”
Although this has been a long article to read (if you made it this far) I’ve really only attempted to give a flavour of what happened at the town hall. By the time it was nearing an end, Neil Duboff suggested that it would be a good idea to hold another such town hall. Yes, tempers may fray at a town hall (and I’m used to being criticized for daring to say things that don’t go over well with many others), but it was a very civil discussion, albeit with not enough time for questions from actual audience members. Full credit to Jeff Lieberman for following through on my suggestion to hold a town hall. And now that there’s been one – and the organizers may have learned where they can improve things, it would be a good idea to hold another one – but please, try to include members of the community who are either disaffected – which I would suggest is the majority of the Jewish community, or even those who are stridently opposed to the positions taken by our established Jewish organizations.
Local News
Temple Shalom suffers significant flood damage – rendered unusable for rest of the summer
The following notification was recently received from Temple Shalom:
Dear members and friends of Temple Shalom,
As you all know by now, Temple Shalom suffered significant damage when part of the building flooded during the intense storm last week. I wanted to take this opportunity to provide you with a quick update on the situation at this time.
The flood primarily affected the entryway, the stairs, the lobby outside the sanctuary and the lobby downstairs. There is also a smaller amount of damage to other areas of the building, including the kitchen, the music room and the sanctuary. The damage is extensive and we have now learned that asbestos is present in the flooded area of the building and that we will need to undertake a major abatement project before the actual repairs can begin.
Steve has been managing this project and is working with our insurance company, restoration company, roofers, electricians and other trades. Flynn Roofing was able to assess and make temporary repairs to the roof, and so far, there have been no further leaks. Steve and Bernie have been working tirelessly to remove water, clean up debris and move furnishings and other material out of areas that will need repair. Cynthia has been answering phone calls and emails and making arrangements for the next steps in this process.
It is now clear that we will not be able to use the building this summer. By next week, no unauthorized individuals will be permitted in the building, and our staff will be working from home. We are still working on a location for our services this summer and will let you know the arrangements as soon as they are finalized; we are grateful to the congregations and community organizations that have already reached out to us and offered space. Currently, our Torahs are safe at Shaarey Zedek. Until the location for in-person services is confirmed, we will hold our services on Zoom (details to follow).
We are planning ways to keep our community together during this time.
Judith
President, Temple Shalom
Local News
Chesed Shel Emes is hiring
Chesed Shel Emes is looking for a daytime “Shomer Plus” – an individual who understands and appreciates the depth and significance of Shmira, who is able to assume some of the day to day tasks managing our facility, and who can take on some of the administrative work – be it graphic design, social media management, Board support, or providing back up for our 24/7 on call staff.
This is a unique position which calls for a blend of the spiritual and the practical. We are offering a part time, salaried, daytime position, with employee benefits. The successful candidate will need to be flexible, patient and have a sense of humor.
For more information contact Rena Boroditsky, executive director of Chesed Shel Emes at chesedwinnipeg@gmail.com or phone 204-582-5088
