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
The enormous – but little known role that Sheldon Berney played in the building of the Asper Campus
By BERNIE BELLAN Sheldon Berney passed away on July 28 in Palm Beach, Florida.
While his name may not be all that familiar to many members of Winnipeg’s Jewish community – other than the campus’s theatre having being named for him, at one time Sheldon Berney played an indispensable role in the building of the Asper Community Campus.
Six years ago I interviewed Bob Freedman about how the Asper Campus came about. Bob is one great story teller and if you want to see the entire interview (which is over an hour long, you can see it on YouTube at Freedman 2020 interview.)
The reason I’m harkening back to that interview now is to remind readers of the vital part that Sheldon Berney played in the building of the campus.
In fact, he was the the first president of the Asper Jewish Community Campus Board and, while the Berney Theatre is named for him and his picture adorns the entrance of the campus – along with Marjorie Blankstein’s and Bob Freedman’s, the contribution Sheldon Berney made to the building of the Asper Campus deserves to be recounted.
The story begins in 1986 when Bob Freedman had agreed to become the new executive director of what was then the Winnipeg Jewish Community Council. At the time he was executive director of Legal Aid Manitoba.
As Bob told me during our 2020 interview, “I said: ‘Look the only way I would consider doing that is if there was a commitment by the leadership of the WJCC to move the community forward.’ I had no intention of being a caretaker on a sinking ship.”
At the time, it should be noted, Winnipeg had begun to descend into the kinds of problems that have only been magnified in more recent years, including a deteriorating downtown – where the old YMHA was located, on Hargave – and to where an increasing number of parents were hesitant to send their children. Further, many young people had been leaving the city for better opportunities elsewhere.
Bob wanted to bring together a coalition of partners whose goal would be to develop a strategic plan that would move the Jewish community forward and revitalize it.
The first person he approached to be a part of that group was Marjorie Blankstein. As Bob explained, “I approached her and said ‘Marjorie, you’d be the perfect chair of our long-range planning committee’ and she agreed right on the spot. She didn’t need any convincing and that was May 2nd, 1986.
We then started the process, but we didn’t recruit Sheldon Berney, by the way, until a few years later,” he noted.
As Bob explained, together with Marjorie Blankstein, the two of them set out to assess community support for what had still not been identified as the campus project per se; it was more of a “sounding out” of as many different factions within the community as possible to determine how strong the determination was to move forward with a project that would complete rewrite the Jewish community’s direction.
I asked him during that interview how Sheldon Berney was eventually brought on board as a key member of the team.
Bob said that he didn’t really know Sheldon well, saying “I only met Sheldon once or twice. He was busy running the business. It was called “Reliance Products.'”
Here’s a brief excerpt from Sheldon Berney’s obituary as it appeared in the Globe & Mail that gives some detail about his business career, and his commitment to community service and philanthropy :
“Born to Ada (Loban) and Martin Berney, Sheldon lived an extraordinary life in Winnipeg before retiring to Florida. He built a distinguished career in business, joining his father at Reliance Products, which he expanded into an internationally respected manufacturer of plastic containers and camping equipment, celebrated for design excellence.
“A pillar of Winnipeg’s Jewish community and dedicated philanthropist, Sheldon chaired the Society of the Plastics Industry, the Manitoba Institute of Management, and the Young Presidents’ Organization. He served on the boards of the YMHA, CJA, and Victoria Hospital and was a core donor to the Canadian Museum for Human Rights. In the 1990s, he chaired the Asper Jewish Community Campus Board, taking immense pride in helping to bring the project to life.”
It was around the time that the idea for the campus project was being formulated that Sheldon Berney had sold Reliance Products, Bob Freedman recounted.
“Sheldon, at that time, was in his 50s and was basically retired,” Bob said.
“Even though he was not well known in the community,” Bob continued, “he had good relationships with people.” Sheldon Berney also socialized with Izzy Asper; they both had properties near each other in Florida, Bob noted.
“They shmoozed around and socialized…and we figured also he had credibility and had time on his hands, so we approached him, we briefed him, and convinced him we would need someone like him to do a job…In terms of how it was done it was a small nucleus of people who were really the movers and shakers on this….We started what was called the long-range planning committee” and Sheldon Berney “started recruiting people to serve on the committee – so we had financial people who were business people – who were ordinary people in the community.” (In fact, the name of the committee evolved to become the “Implementation Committee.”)
“I think we recruited Sheldon around 1989,” Bob recalled.
“There were two things he (Sheldon) said to us (Marjorie and Bob): “He said if I understand how things work with committees and boards – I have no patience for that…I don’t want to come to a ton of meetings. I want to have the authority to move forward and do things…and perhaps we have to spend money and need board approval – I understand that, but I don’t want the politics. I’ve got no patience for that.
“The other thing he said was when the time comes to raise money,” Sheldon said he wanted to check with certain people to see whether they would give their support to the project.
As Bob said (in his own inimitable way): “He didn’t want them to say you’re out of your f….king mind” and Sheldon would have wasted a year or two of his time.
“And Sheldon came back,” Bob said, “and every last one” of the people he had approached, which were about “four or five or six people and all of them said ‘go for it’ – and Sheldon Berney was on board, not only as a key fundraiser, but as someone who was very involved with finding the right location for the campus.
Bob told this somewhat amusing story about what happened when the initial proposal to build a community campus was for it be built at Waverley and Wilkes.
“But there were hydro towers there…and we had a public meeting and the screaming and the yelling that was going on…” and, as Bob explained, someone approached Sheldon and told him to hire someone with a Geiger counter (to measure radiation levels at the proposed site) – and this was already (19)93.” (It’s hard to imagine that the Asper Campus opened only four years later.)
Even though whoever measured the radiation levels at Waverley and Wilkes ultimately reported that there was more radiation “in your kitchen with appliances” than there was radiation from the hydro lines, Sheldon Berney was warned by someone else that “all we need god forbid is one kid in the school gets cancer and you will be dead in the water, so we agreed to move off” the Waverley and Wilkes site.
Once the plan to build at Waverley and Wilkes was dropped the focus turned to the possibility of buying what had been the Fort Osborne Barracks from the province.
Later on, when the fundraising was in full scale, Bob said that Sheldon Berney again played a key role in convincing Izzy Asper to scale back his insistence on having more representatives on the campus board than anyone else. Asper argued that if he puts up “$500,000 he should have 500,000 votes.”
According to Bob, it was Gerry Gray who told Izzy Asper that, in order for the campus project to be a true community project, if someone were to give “$1,000 that could be a really good gift considering their income and that gift is as important, if not more important than your five hundred thousand.”
But, Aper was persistent, Bob said, and one day Sheldon Berney phoned Bob and said Asper “is driving me nuts…so I said ‘Sheldon, I’ll tell you what. Why don’t you suggest to Izzy” that he contribute two million and “at that time two million was a lot of money…and tell him (Asper) he can have two people on the board.” (Bob explained that they were planning a nine-person board so having two representatives on the board would be a significant number, but at the same time the board was envisioned as not having much responsibility: It “would make sure carpets were cleaned, that the taxes were paid, and all that stuff.”
The next day, Bob said, Sheldon Berney met with Izzy and said to him: “Look, we got to put this to bed because I’m not sleeping at night.” Sheldon said to Izzy: “Here’s the deal: Two million bucks – you get two people on the board. He (Asper) says ‘okay.'”
But, as Bob noted, Izzy Asper continued to be very hands-on with the building of the campus and “he would drive Sheldon nuts and he would drive me nuts and he would drive all of us nuts.”
Sheldon Berney continued to play a key role in the campus project throughout its planning and construction. But when you realize that the campus actually went from an idea on paper in as late as 1994 to a fully finished project when it opened in 1997 (although construction continued even after the official opening in the summer of 1997), it’s rather amazing to contemplate how it all came together in such a relatively short period of time.
In an article in The Jewish Post & News published in May 1995 here is what my late brother Matt wrote about the groundbreaking ceremony for what was to become the Asper Campus. Berney, who was master of ceremonies at the ceremony was quoted as saying ” ‘Over the past six years, we’ve talked to people about the campus many times.’ “
The article continued: “The ceremony ended with Berney taking the controls of a huge yellow track excavator and scooping out a big chunk of earth.
“The groundbreaking was a ‘very exciting step’, he added, noting that demolition of some Fort Osborne Barracks buildings and campus construction would start the next week. ‘You’re all here to dream with me about the day in the summer of 1997 when we’ll all be back again to cut the ribbon on a campus that will be a source of pleasure for all of us.’ “
In the photo, Sheldon Berney (left), president, Asper Jewish Community Campus, is with Larry Hurtig, Winnipeg Jewish Community Council president, who is about to present Berney with a certificate of appreciation.
Later, in our September 17, 1997 issue, Matt chronicled the opening ceremonies of the Asper Campus, which were held on Sunday, September 7 of that year.
Again, Sheldon Berney was front and centre, as Matt noted in his report: “Sheldon Berney gazed at the crowd sitting in bridge chairs on the front lawn of the Asper Jewish Community Campus on the warm, sunny day.
” ‘Many times over the past several years, I’ve painted a mental picture of exactly this scene … ‘ the campus president told the crowd.
” ‘… Standing here at the formal dedication ceremony for the Asper Jewish Community Campus, feeling an enormous sense of pride, an enormous sense of accomplishment.’ “
And, because Sheldon Berney was a behind the scenes kind of guy we never really heard a lot of, yet he’s one of three people (the others being Marjorie Blankstein and Bob Freedman himself) to have plaques with their faces on them greeting anyone who walks through the front entrance of the campus we thought it appropriate to pay Sheldon Berney his proper due.
As the inscription on Sheldon Berney’s plaque notes:
The Asper Jewish Community Campus of Winnipeg
The Centre of Life and Learning
Records its sincerest appreciation to
Sheldon Berney
in recognition of his very special efforts
first, as Chair of the Implementation Committee,
and latterly as Chair of the Board of Directors,
for his outstanding leadership in the conception,
fundraising and construction of these facilities
His dedication and style of leadership stand as an
example to all who would serve.
Local News
Scenes from Shalom Square 2026
Shalom Square – the Israel pavilion, is on until Saturday night, August 8. As usual, audiences have been packing the Rady JCC gym to watch entertainment provided by the Chai Folk Ensemble and Kadima Dance Troupe.
(All photos courtesy of Keith Levit)
Local News
Nakba exhbit at CMHR – you can see it right here and make your own assessment
By BERNIE BELLAN (Posted June 26, updated July 19) The Nakba exhibit at the Canadian Exhibit for Human Rights opened to the public June 27. The morning before the exhibit was set to open to the public, (it had a private opening for invited guests the evening of June 26) we received a press release from the CMHR. That press release gave a very detailed description of what was in the exhibit, along with photos (supplied by Annie Kierans of the CMHR).
There is also a link right at the beginning of the press release that will allow you to watch the same videos that anyone attending the exhibit can watch. We reprinted what was sent to us without making one edit. We leave it to you to form your own opinion as to whether the exhibit is fair in its presentation, and whether it is lacking “context” – which is an accusation that has been levelled at the exhibit’s organizers by some representatives of Jewish organizations.
We have received many emails in reaction to the exhibit. If you have an opinion and would like to see it published on this website, you can send it to jewishp@mymts.net, but please indicate whether you would be willing to have it published on this website.
Here is what we received the morning of June 26:
Winnipeg, MB — June 26, 2026 — The Canadian Museum for Human Rights (CMHR) will open a new exhibit tomorrow that explores human rights violations related to the ongoing forced displacement of Palestinian Canadians.
Palestine Uprooted: Nakba Past and Present will be on display in the Rights Today gallery on Level 5 until 2028. Featuring personal stories told through artifacts and video testimonies, the exhibit presents Palestinian Canadians reflecting on their ongoing struggle for human rights. The small exhibit reveals enduring patterns of loss and resilience, helping visitors understand more about this contemporary human rights story.
Palestinian Canadian stories are now included alongside many other stories of forced displacement and human rights violations featured in the Museum’s galleries. Each of these stories contribute to our visitors understanding of human rights and help the Museum fulfill its mandate to foster reflection and dialogue.
Exhibition highlights
Personal stories and artifacts: Experience firsthand accounts from Palestinian Canadians sharing their journeys of displacement and memory through a series of five artifacts. Cases display artifacts like property deeds, house keys, and a traditional Palestinian embroidered dress, accompanied by short videos that deepen understanding of the impacts of displacement.
Powerful artworks: In her painting Bound Together in Gaza, Malak Mattar, a Gazan artist, captures the struggles and resilience of her generation shaped by conflict. Her work pays homage to Guernica, Picasso’s powerful masterpiece depicting civilian suffering during war.
Curfews and Closures, by Rajie Cook, bears witness to life under military occupation during the 2000–2005 Palestinian uprising, when curfews and closures were expanded and further limited basic rights and freedoms.
Cultural heritage: Discover traditional Palestinian embroidery called tatreez. Tatreez motifs and colours are tied to place, family history and regional identity. Patterns are associated with particular towns, villages or areas of Palestine. In this way, tatreez is a form of storytelling: a way of preserving memory, sustaining identity and expressing resilience across displacement and exile.
Poetry and reflection: Engage with Mahmoud Darwish’s evocative verses, inspiring personal reflection on exile, voice, and responsibility. Visitors can take a card containing Darwish’s poem and add a personal note, fostering ongoing dialogue beyond the exhibit.
Contemporary context: Witness striking images of current events in Gaza and the West Bank, connecting past displacement to ongoing struggles.
Quotes:
“No force can silence the truth we carry. Growing up in Canada, my children lived the Nakba through our stories. And now we watch it happen again, live, on our phones. When I see the images coming out of Gaza, I am not watching the news. I am watching my history repeat itself.” -Fouad Sahyoun, a Palestinian Canadian featured in the exhibit
“We developed this exhibit with a clear awareness that Palestinian Canadian voices have too often been marginalized, silenced or spoken over — and that anti-Palestinian racism affects whose stories are heard and whose suffering is recognized. That is why we intentionally centred Palestinian Canadian voices throughout the exhibit.” -Isabelle Masson, Curator of Palestine Uprooted
“Human rights matter precisely when they are inconvenient, when the question of who deserves the dignity of having their rights recognized is genuinely contested. These are the moments where having a national museum for human rights is most important.
There are people who believe this exhibit should not exist in its current form. There are people who believe it should have existed sooner. There are people who will visit this exhibit and feel that it does not say enough, and others who will feel it says too much.
We have listened to every one of these voices. We have reflected. And we have renewed our resolve to continue the difficult, sometimes contested, and often controversial work of building understanding about human rights. We are a museum grounded in Canada’s human rights framework, whose mandate requires us to bear witness to the full complexity of the human story. We are proud to open this exhibit because the story it tells will help achieve that mandate, and because this story belongs in the collective memory of Canadians.”
- – Isha Khan, CEO
