Local News
Jake Tapper reflects on his role as a CNN anchor and his search in vain for a connection to any Winnipeg Tappers
By BERNIE BELLAN Jake Tapper is a very well-known CNN anchor (and chief Washington correspondent) whose manner is totally opposite from the firebrands who populate Fox News.
Whereas individuals such as Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson thrive on inflaming their audiences, Tapper’s soothing tone and low-key style serves to calm his audience. However, while Tapper may appeal to the type of liberal audience that attended the most recent Kanee lecture on June 2nd, according to a recent report in Forbes magazine, Fox is trouncing CNN in the ratings. After listening to Tapper deliver what was, in essence, a review of the way in which Donald Trump was responsible for the assault on the US Capitol for on January 6, 2021, which was undoubtedly totally familiar to members of the audience who might have expected him to offer a more illuminating or stimulating talk than he did – it’s not hard to understand why viewers have been tuning CNN out.
To be fair though, when it comes to delivering a lecture, an individual like Tapper, who no doubt is quite mindful of not straying too far afield from a moderate position, is not the kind of person who is likely going to offer great insight into the issues of the day.
Such was the case on Wednesday evening, June 2nd, when approximately 350 individuals attended this year’s Sol & Florence Kanee lecture at the Shaarey Zedek Synagogue. (It was the first live in-person Kanee lecture in three years, with everyone in attendance required to produce proof of vaccination and remain fully masked for the entire evening.)
Prior to Tapper’s talk, Jewish Heritage Centre of Western Canada President Mark Kantor gave a brief rundown of the current state of the JHCWC. Kantor noted that the JHCWC has now achieved its goal of having raised $1 million for what is known as the Norman and Florence Vickar Archival Fund at the Jewish Foundation of Manitoba.
Jake Tapper is first and foremost a reporter, and what he proceeded to do during his 45-minute talk was give a summary of the events that had led up to the current situation the very moment he was speaking – when, he said, the fact that the Congressional hearings into the January 6 insurrection were going to be televised live the next night meant that he was unable to be in Winnipeg in person.
Before moving on to a discussion of the events of January 6 and the fallout thereafter, Tapper amused the audience with stories of his ancestry, including having had a great-grandfather who, for a very short time (four days) served as mayor of Winnipeg. It was in his quest to find out more about his roots that, Tapper explained, he actually got in touch with the Jewish Heritage Centre. One thing led to another and JHCWC Executive Director Belle Jarniewski ended up inviting Tapper to deliver this year’s Kanee lecture.
Tapper noted that he became interested in exploring his ancestry during the first year of the Covid pandemic, when he had more time on his hands than usual, and he became involved in doing a story about ancestry.com. He went on to explain that he had been told that he might be related to some Tappers in Winnipeg, but after researching the subject – partly with the assistance of the JHCWC, he realized that what he had been told was wrong.
Thus, he declared to the audience: “I’m talking to you tonight entirely because of a mistake.”
Further, Tapper explained that while his father is Jewish, his mother had converted to Judaism. It turns out that members of his mother’s family had actually fought in the American Revolution, Tapper discovered in doing research on his ancestry.
“They did fight in the Revolutionary War – but on the ‘wrong’ side,” he disclosed. As a result, “they fled to Canada,” hence his Winnipeg connection through his mother’s grandfather (whose name, by the way, was David Dyson).
An anchor with CNN since 2013, Tapper also serves as CNN’s Chief Washington Correspondent. In that capacity he’s been deeply involved in reporting on the incredible story of an incumbent president trying to overturn the results of a democratic election – which we’re now witnessing unraveling in prime time.
Yet, unlike a historian such as Margaret MacMillan, who offered profound insights into the chaos ensuing in the aftermath of World War I four years ago during her own Kanee lecture, someone like Tapper is perhaps too closely enmeshed in the day to day events as they unfurl to offer the kind of perspective on events that perhaps a historian might have been able to deliver.
What he gave to the audience on June 2nd instead was a fairly long overview of how we got to where we are, but without offering any analysis of what the longterm consequences will be of having had a scoundrel of such epic proportions as Donald J. Trump in the White House for four years.
Tapper noted that early on in his presidency Trump declared that “journalists are the enemy of the people,” but in saying that, Tapper suggested, Trump “put people’s lives at risk.”
“I’m amazed that no journalists were killed during Trump’s presidency,” he admitted, with the exception of Ahmad Khashoggi, who was likely killed by the Saudis because Mohammed Bin Salman knew that Trump could care less about the murder of a Saudi journalist.
“Something else was lost” during the Trump presidency, Tapper observed: “facts and the truth.”
Tapper noted that Trump had a specific purpose in attacking journalists, which Trump revealed when he said to a group of journalists, “I do it to discredit you all, so that when you write critically about me, you’ll be discredited.”
During an interview with CBS’s “60 Minutes” correspondent Leslie Stahl, Trump delved deeper into his methods (but after the cameras were turned off), Tapper said. Trump told Stahl that he was going to treat “any negative polls as ‘fake news’,” adding that “if it’s bad I say it’s fake, but if it’s good I say that it’s the most accurate poll ever.”
For Tapper, the ongoing war between Democrats and Republicans in the United States is “not about Republicans versus Democrats, it’s about truth versus lies.”
Yet, Trump did accomplish some good things during his presidency, Tapper acknowledged, including helping to bring about the “Abraham Accords” and pushing for the rapid development of vaccines to combat Covid-19 with a plan that was labeled “Operation Warp Speed.”
“It’s ironic that Operation Warp Speed saved millions of lives,” Tapper noted, so “Why didn’t he (Trump) fully embrace the vaccination program then?”
“He was vaccinated in secret before he left office,” Tapper added. “It was his handling of Covid that cost him the election.”
At that point in his talk Tapper delved into a very detailed review of events immediately preceding the January 6 insurrection. I continued to take copious notes but, in reviewing them I’ve said to myself: “Who doesn’t know the details of what happened immediately following the US election on November 3, 2020?” I suppose someone totally indifferent to world events might not know that Trump tried to claim that the election was “stolen”, but, in any event, there’s no need to regurgitate Tapper’s detailed chronology of those events here. (I do have them in my notes, though. If you want to hear what Tapper had to say give me a call and I’ll read you my notes about that part of his talk.)
Tapper did offer some suggestions as to why it’s important to continue to examine those fateful days between November 2, 2020 and January 6, 2021, saying: “It’s important to have clarity, it’s important to say lying is not good.”
Tapper quoted the very brave Republican Congresswoman Liz Cheney, who said that the lie Trump told – and has continued to tell “is a lie that’s going to be deployed in the future.”
“We must stand up for the facts,” Tapper declared. “Facts are messy and inconvenient…but in order to push a narrative you have to have facts….News media should be committed to facts and ignore the narratives.”
As an illustration of how people commit to a certain narrative – such as that Joe Biden has to be supported no matter what, Tapper said that he’s been told that “if you ask tough questions about Biden’s handling of the economy, you must be for Trump.”
There was one point in Tapper’s lecture when he actually mentioned a term which I, along with most others in the audience, had probably never heard before, when he referred to something known as the “Overton Window.”
That term, he explained, refers to “the range of policies that are acceptable to discuss” at a certain point in time. It was inconceivable to discuss the emancipation of the slaves until a certain period in American history, Tapper noted.
Now, it is possible to discuss “reparations for slaves”, “defunding the police” and, perhaps most alarmingly, “disenfranchising the voters of Pennsalvania and Wisconsin” by disallowing huge numbers of perfectly legal ballots, which is something “two-thirds of House Republicans voted to do,” Tapper observed.
“Trump’s plan is to overturn the results of the 2024 election if he or his chosen successor fails,” Tapper predicted. Consequently, “democracy in the US is at risk when so many voters have proven to be susceptible to lies.”
Tapper ended his lecture by quoting Thomas Jefferson, who had this to say about the importance of newspapers to democracy: “If I had to choose between government without newspapers or newspapers without government, I would choose the latter.”
Following Tapper’s remarks, he fielded questions from audience members. (I took notes until both the pens I had brought with me ran out of ink. At that point I left. I apologize if I’m omitting some good questions which I may have missed as a result. Honestly, the question and answer session was more illuminating than hearing Tapper’s remarks to that point, especially when he found himself squirming talking about his disgraced colleague, Chris Cuomo.)
By the way, that was the first question asked of Tapper: “What have you learned about integrity and honesty with what’s gone on at CNN?”
Tapper: “You have to learn to recuse yourself or be fully transparent. Nobody in journalism wants to be the story. You don’t want to have to answer questions like that” (the one just posed to him).
Question: “As bad as Trump is are we going to see worse?”
Tapper: “I am more afraid that there are Republicans who have been going on with the ‘big lie’.”
Question: “How can you remain objective?”
Tapper: “The question is: ‘Are you aware of your biases?’ Do you try to understand points of view other than your own?”
Question: “How does a reporter handle what you’ve seen in Ukraine?” (Tapper spent two weeks in May reporting from Ukraine.)
Answer: “A lot of news organizations remind us that if we need to talk to people (about what we’ve seen), we have people there for you – but let’s remember first responders face the same problem.”
Tapper was then asked a question about a possible connection to some Jewish Tappers from Winnipeg.
He responded that “I looked for months to try to find a connection with the Jewish Tappers of Winnipeg. We even went so far as to try to get someone (from Winnipeg) to take a DNA test.” (Apparently that endeavour was aborted when it became clear that it was fruitless.)
Question: “What do you think is going to happen in the mid-term elections?” (Afterwards, someone suggested to me that it would likely be impossible to find an American audience anywhere that would want to hear from a Canadian journalist about Canadian politics.)
Tapper: “We haven’t lost our democracy yet. The guardrails buckled, but they’ve held. We have to remain vigilant…but I’m not applying for Canadian citizenship. I don’t know that things are going to get worse.”
Question: “Have you felt any anti-Semitism at CNN?”
Tapper answered that he’s experienced anti-Semitism most pronouncedly on social media – from “both the right and the left.” He noted, however, that his colleague Ben Shapiro, who presents quite clearly as a conservative on most issues, has also been subjected to anti-Semitic attacks from both the right and the left.
Tapper added thought that the roughest period for him as a Jewish reporter was when he was covering the Israel-Gaza war (I’m not sure to which one he was referring. It was probably the war in 2014, which lasted almost seven weeks – one which I also personally experienced.) when he came under attack for both being too critical of Israel and too supportive.
Yet he added, with reference to any anti-Semitism he may have experienced, “compared to what my female colleagues who are Latino or Asian go through, it’s nothing.”
In retrospect, thinking about how I began this report of Jake Tapper’s lecture, perhaps I was a shad too dismissive of what he had to say. It would have been unfair to expect him to offer the kind of learned wisdom that a Margaret MacMillan was able to impart – 100 years after the end of World War I, about the long term effects of that war.
Still, there are commentators out there, including on CNN – such as Fareed Zakaria, who specialize in offering deep insight into the issues of the day. And maybe next year whoever is invited won’t have to use the excuse that he was called upon to anchor his network’s coverage of congressional hearings as a reason not to appear in person. Say Jake, when did you actually decide you weren’t going to be coming to Winnipeg? I dare say it was long before you knew you were going to be anchoring CNN’s coverage of the congressional hearings, wasn’t it?
Local News
Epic court battle shaping up between Etz Chayim Congregation and two former members who are now barred from setting foot in Etz Chayim
By BERNIE BELLAN Introduction: This story had originally been posted Friday morning, August 14, with a photo of Etz Chayim Synagogue. Then we received an email from Morissa Granove, COO of Etz Chayim Congregation:
“Hi Bernie.
“This request is not about the article itself but the safety of our shul. We have been advised not to post the address or photos of our Jewish organizations publicly for some time for security reasons. Can I please ask that you change the image posted online (and planned for print if needed) and that in this be kept in mind for the future?
“Thank you so much for your understanding,
“Morissa”
We replied:
“Gee Morissa – I’ll do that but maybe you better ask Google to remove any mention of any Winnipeg synagogue because all anyone has to do is do a Google search and they’ll come up with a complete list of Winnipeg synagogues and their addresses – also photos! Do you want me to contact Google for you? Can’t be too careful, can we?
Now, here’s the story as it was originally posted:
The date October 7 carries a huge amount of significance for Jews around the world: It was the date that members of Hamas and other terrorist groups launched a murderous attack on innocent Israelis (and members of other nationalities) that resulted in the deaths of more than 1200 people and the abduction of 251 others.
But it is also a date that may have a significance of a different sort come this October 7 when a Winnipeg courtroom will be the scene of a court case in what is shaping up to be a momentous legal battle between Congregation Etz Chayim and two former members of the congregation who have been barred from attending services – or even setting foot inside the building that houses Congregation Etz Chayim.
Before publishing this article I had sent copies to both sides in the dispute – and offered both sides the opportunity to correct any mistakes they might have found in what I had written. I did receive responses from both sides and have incorporated their suggested corrections into what follows.
The two individuals involved at the heart of this dispute are both former longstanding members of Etz Chayim – and before that, Rosh Pina Congregation: Dr. Emet Eviatar (previously known as Hadass), who had been the Torah reader at Etz Chayim for many years, and who had also led Sunday services; and her husband, well known scientist Dr. David Hoult (who played a leading role in the development of MRI technology and was also very active in the congregation). Drs. Eviatar and Hoult have filed suit against CEC over what they claim was the illegal termination of their membership.
In response, however, Congregation Etz Chayim asserts that it was not a question of membership when CEC exercised its right to refuse entry on the advise of the WPS and security experts who were consulted after a deeply concerning letter was received from one of the plaintiffs by the synagogue.
The filings in this particular case are in the hundreds of pages. I spent two recent afternoons at the Law Courts poring over the filings, and photographed pages of what I thought were some of the most relevant issues at hand so that I could quote accurately from those filings.
While the case may seem hugely complicated, given the number of pages of documents that have already been filed, it seems that it boils down to two essential issues: Did CEC violate its own bylaws (or its own constitution, as the case may be, because at the time of the events in question a bylaw which would have governed who might be excluded from belonging to the congregation had not yet been passed) by terminating the memberships of Dr. Emet Eviatar and Dr. David Hoult? The argument advanced by the plaintiffs is not that a congregation cannot decide who can belong to that congregation. Rather, it is an argument that CEC did not properly adhere to its own bylaws in the manner in which it has excluded the plaintiffs from attending – or even setting foot inside Etz Chayim.
But, a second issue in play – and one which is argued forcefully by CEC in one of its briefs is that the argument Emet Eviatar and David Hoult are advancing has no place in the courts in the first place. As is noted in one of the briefs filed on behalf of CEC: “The dispute is, at its core, about the internal governance of a religious congregation. It concerns who may participate in communal worship, who may participate in communal religious life, and how a synagogue governs itself in response to legitimate security concerns. If it is accepted that the dispute was about ideological differences, as alleged by the Applicants, then these are fundamentally religious questions. The court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate such matters, and ought not to intervene.”
How the parties arrived at this situation is a complicated – but very interesting story.
I, myself was first made aware that something unusual was going on between CEC and David Hoult when I received this email from Dr. Hoult on Friday afternoon May 30, 2025, at 12:42 pm:
“Hi Bernie,
“I have just had a pair of police officers at the door telling me that we are now banned from Etz Chayim and if we show up the police will be called, no reasons given. I suspect it was an accumulation of things, including a letter I sent.
“Shabbat shalom,
“David.”
Later that afternoon I received another email, this time from a member of CEC, who forwarded me an email that had been sent to congregation members by Morissa Granove, Chief Operating Officer of CEC. That email had a letter attached, which said, in part:
“On Tuesday, May 27th, we received deeply troubling correspondence from a member of our community. The nature of this communication raised serious concerns about the safety of our congregants and staff. After careful and deliberate consultation with our Board of Directors, Clergy, the Winnipeg Police Service, the Jewish Security Network, and the Secure Community Network (in partnership with the USCJ), and on their recommendations we have made the difficult but necessary decision to terminate the membership of this individual and all members of their household, effective immediately.
“These individuals are no longer permitted on the premises of Congregation Etz Chayim, nor may they participate in any of our synagogue’s programs or activities.”
The letter was signed by Morissa Granove, Chief Operating Officer of CEC, and Allan Cogan, President of CEC.
What the heck was going on? I wondered. So, I emailed Morissa Granove that same afternoon:
“Hi,
“I received an email from David Hoult telling me that he is now banned from the Etz Chayim. I assume Emet Eviatar is also banned too, judging by the way your email is worded.
“I don’t know David at all – other than having received a piece he wrote about Israel and Gaza that I published to my website. I can’t begin to imagine what he might have written, but in the interest of fair reporting and fuller disclosure, can you say anything more about what he wrote in his letter?
“-Bernie Bellan
“Publisher,
“jewishpostandnews.ca
“also Associate Editor,
“The Jewish Post Winnipeg”
But, Morissa Granove did not offer any more information as to what might have been contained in that “troubling correspondence” which was received by CEC.
It was only when I went down to the Law Courts on August 10 that I was actually able to see what was in that “troubling correspondence.”
But, before I get into what was in that particular communication, even more background to this strange case is necessary.
In an email I received from CEC COO Morissa Granove following my having sent her a draft of this article, she wrote: “Congregation Etz Chayim …has never taken action based on political views. Further, CEC argues that other members, congregants, and guests share Dr. Eviatar’s views and yet there has never been an issue with their behaviour and as such, Congregation Etz Chayim has never taken action against anyone, revoked a membership, or refused entry to anyone based on their political stance.” Dr. Eviatar, in her own words, notes that she had already provoked the displeasure of some members of CEC, including staff members, by certain of her behaviours while, according to Morissa Granove, “volunteering in a leadership role and officially representing Congregation Etz Chayim. CEC …is ‘a Zionist organization’.”
Yet, according to CEC, Dr. Eviatar’s family’s attendance at Etz Chayim was never in question – until a letter was received from Dr. Eviatar’s husband.
As is noted in a brief for the plaintiffs, the following is taken from an affidavit given by Emet Eviatar, which might suggest that her membership in CEC had been called into question long before May 2025:
“In July 2024, I co-founded Manitoba Friends of Standing Together, a chapter of the international support network created by Standing Together. Standing Together is a grassroots joint Jewish and Palestinian organization in Israel which was originally created in 2015 to fight for equal rights for Palestinian citizens of Israel. Since the October 7, 2023 attack by Hamas they have pivoted to protesting the war in Gaza.
“On October 6, 2024, I appeared as a guest on the local CBC Radio Weekend Morning Show, together with Mr. Ramsey Zeid, president of the Canadian Palestinian Association of Manitoba to discuss the importance of having local conversations between Jews and Palestinians…
“Later that week, I received a phone call from CEC Rabbi Kliel Rose and Cantor Tracy Kasner. They informed me that I would no longer be allowed to lead Sunday services. The rabbi also suggested that ‘for my own peace of mind’ I might want to consider finding another congregation (that aligns with my views.”)
“On November 4, 2024, I received an unsigned letter from CEC which was provided to me by the then executive director, Jonathan Buchwald…
“While the letter contains various false statements, and is clearly a reference to my having contact with Mr. Zeid and others in the local Palestinian community, the assertion that I was aligned with an ‘ideology which is mutually exclusive and contrary to the existence of the Jewish people and the state of Israel’ was extremely offensive and hurtful to my being an Israeli citizen, having family who live in Israel, and having served in the Israel Defence Forces.”
Later, on March 3, 2025, Emet Eviatar appeared a second time on the CBC morning weekend radio show, again with Mr. Zeid.
In an affidavit taken from Morissa Granove, Ms. Granove explained the CEC’s objection to Emet Eviatar’s publicly associating with certain individuals while officially representing Congregation Etz Chayim (noting that CEC’s objection bore no consequence to Dr.Eviatar’s or her the family’s membership.)
“This public alignment with parties opposed to Israel raised concern within CEC about potential risks surrounding the Synagogue, especially in times of heightened safety risks and awareness of antisemitic vitriol. These concerns were brought to the attention of Dr. Eviatar. She took no action to mitigate these concerns. As a result, she was removed from a volunteer leadership position she held with CEC. CEC took no action regarding either of the Applicants’ ability to attend the Synagogue as congregants.” In the email I received from Morissa Granove in response to a draft of this article, Ms. Granove added: “Still, her family’s membership was never in question.”
But, in May 2025 something happened that led the CEC to take drastic action against Emet Eviatar, David Hoult and the other members of their household. It should be explained that, according to an affidavit taken from Morissa Granove, who had stepped into the role of Chief Operations Officer of CEC in January 2025, in May 2025 CEC announced it would be adding new security measures, based on a “site security assessment from the Winnipeg Police Service. Officer Constable Justin Remillard (who) attended the Synagogue and provided guidance on improving security.
“Among other things, he advised:
“a) access to the Synagogue should be controlled;
“b) registration and entry lists should be used for programs and services at the Synagogue;”
On May 5, 2025 CEC held its Annual General Meeting. According to an affidavit taken from Ms. Granove, “During discussion relating to security protocols…David Hoult expressed opposition to security procedures such as locked doors at the Synagogue, registration requirements, and screening of visitors.”
The following is taken from an affidavit taken from Ms. Granove: “On May 22, 2025, CEC received a letter from Dr. Hoult. The most significant concern with the letter was that it stated:
‘If, G-d forbid, I wanted to attack the shul on Shabbat morning it would be trivial. A stolen motorbike, onto the lawn, Kalashnikov to shatter the windows, gun down the congregation, drive away, ditch the bike, gun, mask and clothes…” (Emphasis added)
The same affidavit states that, “In that correspondence, he again expressed opposition to security measures and described them as ‘hysteria,’ ‘paranoia,’ and ‘psychologically stupid.’ “
According to an affidavit taken from David Hoult, “My wife and I received no direct communication from CEC advising of the termination of our membership until a cheque with no accompanying letter was received in the mail on June 9, 2025.”
In an email received from Morissa Granove after I sent her a draft of this story she asked that this sentence be inserted: “Congregation Etz Chayim was interviewed extensively by the WPS before going to the home of Dr. Hoult for the service call and had all of the details which were required in order to qualify their actions.”
On September 16, 2025, Hadass (Emet) Eviatar and David Hoult filed an application in Court of King’s Bench to have the termination of their membership declared “null and void,” also seeking an “order to comply with bye-laws” (of the CEC).
In response, CEC asserts that it “has never terminated the Applicants’ membership. Rather the applicants were advised they were no longer permitted to attend the synagogue.” Morissa Granove asked that this be added: CEC “exercised its right to refuse entry on the advice of the WPS and security experts.’
Did it boil down to semantics? I wondered. CEC was saying that it hadn’t “terminated the Applicants’ membership,” yet it returned the cheque they had sent in to pay for renewal of their membership.
However, if it is the CEC’s position that, based on the plaintiffs’ claims as written, this matter is not one that should even be considered by the courts – as is noted at the beginning of this article, then arguments over whether CEC abided by its own bylaws would be moot.
Yet, if the courts might be willing to consider the issue whether CEC did not properly follow its own rules – as set out in its bylaws, then the Eviatar-Hoult case becomes more compelling.
For instance, the issue whether CEC “terminated” the memberships of Dr. Eviatar and Dr. Hoult might take on added importance.
As is noted in a brief for the plaintiffs, the letter sent out by Morissa Granove to members of CEC on May 30, 2025 states quite clearly that “We have made the difficult but necessary decision to terminate the memberships of this individual (Dr. Hoult) and all members of their household effective immediately.”
In this case the plaintiffs (Drs. Eviatar and Hoult) are arguing the nowhere within CEC’s governing constitution (which was adopted in 2014) were there “provisions for the termination of membership.” Therefore, their argument goes, “CEC had no authority to terminate their membership.”
Morissa Granove asked that this be added: “The defendant (CEC), however, argues that the CEC’s governing constitution says that “directors ‘may pass by-laws’ regulating, among other things, ‘the suspension and termination of membership by the corporation and by a member.’ The word ‘may’ is permissive.”
“Thus, CEC is arguing, therefore, that it had no obligation to actually pass a by-law governing the termination of a membership.”
As it was, the by-law was never voted upon, as, according to an affidavit given by Dr. Eviatar, CEC leadership “had not complied with the correct procedure, including giving proper notice.,
However, in her email to me Morissa Granove wrote that “the very same bylaw was passed at a Special General Meeting of the members when Congregation Etz Chayim and its lawyers provided clarity on the proposed changes, which was requested by the members at the conclusion of the AGM to clear up any issue or confusion.”
Further, the letter to CEC members that was sent on May 30, 2025, which said that “These individuals (i.e., Dr. Hoult and any members of his family) are no longer permitted on the premises of Congregation Etz Chayim, nor may they participate in any of our synagogue’s programs or activities” was signed only by the COO and President of CEC.
Whether or not CEC followed proper procedure in whatever happened to Dr. Hoult, Dr. Eviatar, and their other family members will be up to the courts to decide.
But, there is a larger issue at hand. Are there are any rules that might govern how a private organization such as a synagogue should govern itself? And, perhaps even more important, can the courts intervene at all in such a situation?
This case is shaping up to have some fascinating implications.
Local News
Ami Hassan returning as owner of Falafel Place
By BERNIE BELLAN In a surprise move – and after more than a six-year absence as owner of Falafel Place (Corydon at Wilton) the legendary Ami Hassan has decided to return as owner of one of Winnipeg’s most famous eateries.
Long known for his sometimes irreverent attitude to his customers, e.g., “If you’re finished, get out!”, Ami decided to return to running Falafel Place after having retired years ago (or so he thought) from running the Corydon Avenue restaurant.
We asked Ami whether he’ll be sending a special invitation to Julia Roberts to come visit him at Falafel Place. He asked again: “Who’s Julia Roberts?” (Just kidding – he really does know how Julia Roberts is.) Read the story how Ami told her to leave the restaurant and come back later at Julia Roberts turned away from Falafel Place
Ami did note that when customers saw him inside the restaurant one recent day as he was getting it ready for the reopening Monday, August 10, over 20 of them came in asking him if he was open already.
We asked Ami whether the menu will be the same as it was when he last ran the place and he said everything will be the same.
Falafel Place will be open 7 days a week from 7 am – 2 pm. Remember, if you’re finished – get out!
Local News
Bark Mitzvah at the Simkin Centre August 13, 2026
By BERNIE BELLAN On a beautiful summer day at the Simkin Centre residents and family members – along with staff, were treated to a delightful “dog day afternoon” when scores of dogs were brought to the front courtyard outside the centre to celebrate what was titled a “Bark Mitzvah.”
Now, no dogs were called up to the podium to read from the Torah – or even to bark out a blessing, although as I canvassed many owners of dogs that were there – inquiring as to whether their dogs had received any special training for the day, I was pleased to hear that many dogs came from good “Jewish homes” and were good “Jewish” dogs. (I would suppose, in the case of our own dog that would mean that she’s been spoiled rotten.)
Some owners though maintained that their dogs had been brought up quite disciplined – although to be honest none of the dogs that I saw seemed to be be rigorously paying attention to any commands. Most were of the Goldedoodle, Yorkie variety. There was one rescue dog in the midst. It seemed quite confused, surrounded as it was by all those lap dogs.
The entire event was presided over – with great humour, but also a certain amount of seriousness, by Rabbi Matthew Leibl, who explained to the very large audience why having a special day celebrating dogs was entirely consistent with Jewish tradition.
Following is part of the transcription of an interview I conducted with Rabbi Lebil following his remarks explaining why he thought holding a “Bark Mitzvah” would be a good event to have. (You can watch the entire video at the end of this story. But where there was a great deal of laughter coming from people who were listening to my interview YouTube inserted the word “laughter” – which should give you an idea how fun an interview it was.)
As Rabbi Leibl explained to me, “I’ll tell you a serious story. When I was training – and I trained with Rabbi Annabal Mass… our teacher, Rabbi Steven Glade, encouraged everyone to consider a blessing of the animals ceremony because he said it’s a monster event. Just look around. It brought out so many people. It’s one of those events you can tie in loosely to a Jewish event – which it is. I mean we did it on Rosh Chodesh Elul- the new year of the animals and this whole idea it’s very similar to Tu B’Shvat- reimagining something old from Mishna to do it like this – but look at the attendance. I mean everyone wants to bring their dog and at a personal care home they say that music, babies, and dogs are the three biggest things that get through to everyone.”
I had to ask about kashrut, however (as I’ve been told repeatedly that kashrut is an essential element of the Simkin Centre – no matter how few residents may care about kashrut. Look – if I’m sent to cover something as frivolous as a “Bark Mitzvah” you can hardly expect me to refrain from going after my pet bugaboo at the Simkin Centre – and how ridiculous it is to require that the centre remain kosher when most of the residents could care less about kashrut), so I said to Rabbi Leibl: “No milk bones here, I hope. I expect that this is a strictly kosher event.”
His response: “I’m not sure. I wasn’t put in charge of that, so I can’t say. But no one’s going to be serving them any of the food that we eat. I can tell [laughter] you that.”
I said: “I’m not sure how to read that. [laughter].”
I asked whether there were Jewish dogs mixed in with non-Jewish dogs? (Dog assimilation is a serious issue.)
Rabbi Leibl replied: It’s inter denominational. [laughter] . I guess I don’t think we check to see if the dogs were uh circumcised. “
I asked: “Are we… [laughter] Are we mixing Jewish and non-Jewish dogs?”
Rabbi Leibl: “I don’t know that dogs have a faith. I’m not sure. I think they do. I think they’re of all faiths. ”
I asked: “Okay. And you know where bark mitzvahs originated?”
Rabbi Leibl: I’m sure it’s probably something silly.
Me: “It was gay guys in New York.”
Rabbi Leibl: ” Really?”
Me: ” Yes. Because they didn’t have kids. They started having bark mitzvahs.”
Rabbi Leibl: “That was probably more of an individual dog thing. This is a communal thing. It’s just a catchy title for publicity, Bernie. It’s the blessing of the animals. That’s the real thing.”
Me: “I was told that some of these dogs are on medication – as are many of the residents.”
Rabbi Leibl: “That’s low hanging fruit, Bellan. Low hanging fruit.”
Here’s the complete video of my interview:
