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
Application filed by two former members of Etz Chayim Congregation against the congregation to have their memberships restored dismissed by judge
The following is taken from the Canadian Jewish News website: “Manitoba’s Court of King’s Bench has dismissed Hadass Eviatar and David Hoult’s application challenging the termination of their membership at Congregation Etz Chayim. In his decision, Justice Vic Toews noted that, although Hoult’s letter describing a hypothetical attack on the synagogue may have lacked sensitivity given the political climate, he did not intend to threaten violence against congregants. However, the judge ruled that the court did not have jurisdiction to intervene in the membership dispute under Manitoba’s Corporations Act, finding that the couple had no financial, proprietary or economic interest that would entitle them to the remedies they sought. The judge concluded that religious organizations are generally free to determine their own membership rules and ordered each side to bear its own legal costs.”
If you would like to read the original article that broke the story about the battle between Hadaass Eviatar and David Hoult with Etz Chayim Congregation you can go to Epic Court Battle.”
Local News
Jewish Federation now says Jewish population of Winnipeg in 2021 (according to the census) was 13,940 – not the 16,000 figure that the Federation had been touting for years
By BERNIE BELLAN (Posted Oct. 27, 2026) Longtime readers of The Jewish Post & News (and this website) would probably know that I have long had a very strong interest in establishing as accurate figures as possible when it has come to reporting the size of Winnipeg’s Jewish community.
For years I argued that our Jewish Federation was exaggerating the size of our Jewish population. I heard the figure of 16,000 bandied about by leaders in our community quite often when it came to reporting the size of our Jewish population – without any empirical evidence to back that figure up.
I had long maintained that the only reasonably accurate figures when it came to reporting the size of Winnipeg’s Jewish population were those produced by the late Evelyn Katz, when she was the unofficial demographer for the Jewish Federation – over 30 years ago. What Evelyn would do is keep careful track of births, deaths, numbers of newcomers but, perhaps most important: the number of people who had left our community.
Thus, in August 2022 when I interviewed Faye Rosenberg Cohen who, at the time, was just about to retire as the Jewish Federation’s Chief Planning and Allocations Officer, I was somewhat astonished to hear Faye say, when I asked her what proportion of our Jewish community was made up of immigrants, she answered that “I can honestly say when I look at those numbers it’s somewhere around 1/3 of the community.”
In response, I asked: “So you’d say it’s somewhere between 4-5,000?”
Faye said: “I think it’s more than that.”
I wrote in that article, “I indicated my skepticism at that time, saying ‘You know that I’ve always been skeptical about the numbers that have been used by the Federation for the population of the Jewish community. I think though that it’s always been more of a case of identification – who identifies as Jewish.’ ”
Later, after the results of the 2021 census were released, I wrote that “if you take into account the results of the 2021 census, the Jewish community cannot be larger than 14,270 at a maximum. But that figure would also include anyone who had either said either their ethnic origin was Jewish or their religion was Jewish.”
Since many of the individuals who had said on the 2021 census that their ethnic origin was Jewish, but their religion was something else, I maintained that ascertaining the real size of our Jewish community was highly problematic.
Still, for the sake of argument I was willing to accept that, realistically, it was somewhere between 13,000-14,000 – but nowhere close to the figure of 16,000 that had come to be suggested by our then president of the Jewish Federation or by other leading figures in our community.
So, it was with a sense of satisfaction that I heard Sharon Graham, who is now the Jewish Federation’s Community Planning and Allocations Lead say to an audience of over 50 people who were at the Gwen Secter Centre on Thursday, October 22, that the Jewish community in 2021 was – at a maximum: 13,940.
Sharon was at the Gwen Secter Centre to speak to Remis Lecture attendees. Her presentation preceded a presentation by Jewish Federation CEO Jeff Lieberman. Sharon used a PowerPoint presentation to provide some very interesting insights into where our Jewish community was at in 2021- and I’m offering some parts of her presentation here for you to read because I thought they were so interesting.
I had actually made many of the same observations about the results of the 2021 census in my own reporting back in 2022, but seeing what I had written confirmed by the Jewish Federation’s point person on planning told me that Sharon has a much more realistic view of our community than did Faye Rosenberg Cohen.
Here, for instance, is a slide that shows the proportion of our Jewish community that is made up of immigrants. It’s slightly under one fifth, not the one third percentage that Faye had suggested.
But, what really set Sharon’s presentation apart from anything else I’ve ever seen presented by someone from the Jewish Federation – other than the aforementioned Evelyn Katz, was the slide she projected which showed that, while there had been a large influx of newcomers to Winnipeg’s Jewish community between 2016-2021 there had also been a significantly high number of people who had left our Jewish community in those same years, as you can see in the following slide:
That is something we just don’t hear discussed by leaders of our Jewish organizations, but let’s be realistic: For many newcomers who came to Winnipeg and were counted as new members of our Jewish community, Winnipeg – for a variety of reasons, was a stepping stone to other communities. It may have been for reasons of better job opportunities, moving closer to other family members, or – the reason that we hear so often when it comes to people saying they want to leave Winnipeg: the weather.
But, whatever the reason, Sharon’s figures show that, as much as GrowWinnipeg may have been an abiding success when it’s come to attracting newcomers to our Jewish community here, getting them to stay long term is a different story.
And, while there were other aspects of Sharon’s presentation that certainly merit discussion, especially the figures she produced about intermarriage, rather than delving into them here, I thought it useful simply to insert them for you, the reader, to see – and draw your own conclusions.
Local News
Marty Green expands his protest against extremist Jewish settlers to two more venues – and is arrested twice more
(Tuesday, October 27) We received the following press release about Marty Green being arrested again, both at the University of Manitoba and at Shaarey Zedek Synagogue:
Both sides came to blows on Saturday, October 24, at the Shaarey Zedek Synagogue as security personnel sought to prevent Marty Green from interfering with synagogue traffic as he protested just outside synagogue grounds against the actions of religious settlers in Israel’s occupied West Bank territory. Synagogue Executive Director Rena Secter Elbaze quickly intervened to prevent further escalation. Police arrived shorty thereafter and detained Green for 45 minutes before driving him home and releasing him. It is not clear whether their decision not to lay charges was the result of their own onsite investigation or whether it was at the request of the synagogue executive.
Green has now been arrested four times in the last month and faces multiple charges for disturbing the peace, including two episodes at the Asper Campus and one more this past Friday (Oct. 23) at the University of Manitoba. While Green says initially he was merely handing out leaflets (at the Asper Campus), since his first arrest on September 23, he has returned to the campus with a large placard and an acccordion, accompanying himself while singing songs with lyrics that include such phrases as “The Jews Are Bananas….B-A-N-A-N-A-S”. In addition to listing actions of the religious settlers as including arson, vandalism, and theft, he pointedly alleges that the IDF has been backing up the settlers in their actions.
Green had earlier notified the Shaarey Zedek that he was contemplating bringing his protest to the synagogue. He was told that if he attempted to enter the grounds he would be prevented from doing so. At that time, Secter Elbaze told Green that his intentions were inappropriate, declaring the synagogue to be “a house of worship dedicated to prayer, learning, community, and spiritual engagement.” Green responded that if the synagogue were willing to contact the Crown and inform them that “that there was never any legal basis for their claims that I was conducting myself inappropriately at the Asper Campus” (with regard to his earlier arrests) that he would “voluntarily refrain from carrying his informational campaign to the synagogue(s).”
Green further argues that the recent “psak” (religious ruling) by leading Israeli rabbi Rov Dov Lior, in which Lior declares that it is not merely permissible but praiseworthy for Jews to steal olives from Arab orchards….that this ruling brings his protest within the proper realm of religious discourse. He says further that if the local rabbis were willing to speak out to their congregations against the aforesaid psak, that he might have refrained from taking his campaign to their grounds.
Although Green was released on Saturday without charges, police confiscated his placard. They explained that it was being held as evidence pending an investigation by Major Crimes as to whether it constituted hate literature.
There was no further information given as to what happened at the University of Manitoba.
