Local News
Jewish Federation holds mayoralty election forum in front of packed audience at Berney Theatre, October 3rd
By BERNIE BELLAN On Monday, October 3 the Jewish Federation of Winnipeg sponsored an election forum in which six of the leading mayoralty candidates were invited to participate.
As was explained by moderator Jason Gisser, the rules were that each candidate would be invited to give an introductory statement, after which he would pose a series of eight questions to the candidates.
Each candidate would be given one and a half minutes to respond to the question. Once all the candidates had responded to the question, Jason would invite two of the six candidates to add a further 20 seconds to what they had said initially.
While the format was conducive to what turned out to be a relatively genteel event, the fact that the candidates were not allowed to enter into any sort of exchanges with each other no doubt removed any opportunity for a livelier debate. Also, five other candidates for mayor were not even invited to participate.
What follows is my impression of the evening. I want to make clear that I do not support any particular candidate and have not made up my mind how I will vote. Reports that I have read to date either tend to focus on individual candidates or, when they do report on a particular election forum, are relatively truncated. Instead, as is my usual style in reporting on a fairly lengthy event, I like to offer the reader snippets of what occurred so as to give more of a flavour of what went on – without intending it to be a comprehensive repetition of what was said.
Looming over the entire evening, it must be noted, however, given the news story that the CBC had recently broken which raised questions about Glen Murray’s behaviour while he was the executive director of the Pembina Institute, was the possibility that one or another of the candidates would want to launch into some sort of attack on Murray, who is the clear front-runner according to the most recent poll.
The fact is that the only reference to that news story came at the very end of the evening when Robert-Falcon Ouellette made an obvious allusion to the story – when he told of his experience having served in the Canadian Armed Forces for 27 years. During that time, he noted, there was a strong emphasis placed on maintaining the utmost respect for moral behaviour within the armed forces.
Ouelllette went on to say that “No matter what you do at the end of the day, you need a moral leader who will stand up for what is right in our city, that there are certain actions which are unacceptable in our city and there are times as a leader you must say the truth and speak that truth.”
“And so I speak it here today and I hope people understand what it is I’m talking about because it’s certainly unacceptable for us to be here on this stage all together.” (Interestingly, the CBC story that quoted Ouellette had the spelling of that last word as “altogether.” I would suggest that would impart quite a different meaning to what he meant.)
But, that remark came late in the evening, when the candidates were invited to give closing remarks for two minutes each, and – after moderator Jason Gisser had finished posing questions to the candidates.
Prior to that time though each of the candidates certainly came across as articulate and passionate. Perhaps the one candidate who decided to try to separate herself from the pack most distinctly was Jennie Motkaluk, who took a more strident approach when, for instance, she referred at different times to “critical race theory” and “woke” attitudes. She also brought a few smiles from the other candidates when she said she really likes “growth and money.”
The first two questions that Jason Gisser posed, however, might have seemed somewhat parochial to any non-Jews in the audience (and probably a good many Jews as well). The first had to do with anti-Semitism and what each of the candidates would do to combat it if they were mayor. Would they be willing to attend a planned mayors’ conference on combating anti-Semitism? they were asked. Not surprisingly, none of the candidates came out with a position defending antisemitism.
The second question – and one that evidently caught some of the candidates off guard, was whether they would want the city to adopt the “IHRA” definition of anti-Semitism. It was clear that not all the candidates were up to speed on what the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism is. I’m not quite sure what bringing it up had to do with a mayoralty contest in Winnipeg. It reminded me of the effort some years back – not just in Winnipeg, but throughout the world, to declare cities “nuclear free zones” – an interesting proposal, no doubt, but what relevance does it have to urban issues?
The next question though was very much one that has elicited a huge amount of discussion during this election: What would the candidates propose to do about poverty and homelessness?
Glen Murray said that he had practical experience combating homelessness – even prior to serving as mayor of this city, when he helped to foster a neighbourhood housing project in the Spence neighbourhood where, he said, 300 houses were built.
Shaun Loney demonstrated an especially keen knowledge of this file, citing his own background as what he described as a “social entrepreneur,” placing a strong emphasis on creating jobs. “I would add add 1,000 social enterprise jobs to Winnipeg,” he said.
As far as housing is concerned, Loney said he would create a “$100 million land trust.”
“It’s not a money problem,” he added; “it’s a system problem.”
Robert-Falcon Ouellette was somewhat dismissive of candidates’ promises to alleviate homelessness and poverty, asking whether “any of the politicians here are going to do anything but check off all the right boxes? Politicians are great at discussing things,” Ouellette suggested, but when it comes to actually doing things –well, that’s a different matter.
Later he added this observation: “Seventy-five percent of homeless people are aboriginal. They don’t need a home; they need a friend.”
Kevin Klein related his own experience growing up in poverty. His mother was actually killed by his abusive father when he was a kid, he told the audience and “I’ve lived under the poverty line a good part of my life,” he said.
As for politicians not ever doing anything but discuss things, Klein said that he personally brought forward a motion at City Hall to create “Homes for Heroes” – a project that saw a small number of homes allocated to war veterans in Winnipeg.
Scott Gillingham said that he was proud to have been involved in the effort to create a certain amount of “modular housing” for people living below the poverty line. He also said that City Council is implementing a “poverty reduction plan” that he was involved in crafting.
As for Jenny Motkaluk – she said that “the solution for poverty is a really nice job.”
“I want to bring 16,000 high paying jobs” to Winnipeg, she added.
As for homelessness, Motkaluk said “there are 780 derelict houses in this city. I want to auction them off.”
Shaun Loney added that “we need to realize that governments and not-for-profits need to work together.”
Jason Gisser asked each of the candidates to describe their “bold vision” for the future.
Jenny Motkaluk said that “the single biggest impediment to growth and investment in this city is our political leaders.”
Glen Murray said “We need to spend money on things that will make this city more beautiful.” He noted that when he was mayor three of the projects that were built during his time in office included: Waterfront Drive, the Esplanade Riel, and the Canadian Museum for Human Rights. (He observed as well that the CMHR was a great example of all three levels of government working together.)
In contrast, he noted that the single largest project undertaken by the city since his time in office was “$200 million spent of refurbishing the Post Office.”
Shaun Loney pointed to the deterioration of Winnipeg’s “green canopy”, saying that there are 30 different organizations devoted to protecting and expanding the number of trees in the city. He said he would like to consolidate all those efforts and work hard to protect our imperiled urban canopy.
Robert-Falcon Ouellette proposed the creation of an “urban national park” within Winnipeg to add green space to the city.
Kevin Klein said that his bold vision is to make Winnipeg “safe”, noting that “We can’t attract more people here if they don’t feel safe. People won’t ride the bus if they don’t feel safe.”
The next question was about infrastructure.
Jenny Motkaluk said “We’re going to end the corruption” associated with infrastructure projects.
Glen Murray said “We need more value planning to determine whether a project will return in value what it cost to build.” He cited Waterfront Drive as a project that has paid back many times over what it cost the city to create the infrastructure for that development.
Kevin Klein did comment later though that residents of Waterfront Drive are now having to deal with a huge upsurge in break-ins.
Shaun Loney said that rather than think about expanding infrastructure we ought “to focus on the infrastructure we’ve already built.”
Robert-Falcon Ouellette cited the example of Quebec City and its transit system as something Winnipeg could emulate, saying that in that city “People really enjoy taking the bus.”
In response to that suggestion, Kevin Klein said that currently “Seven thousand people a day in Winnipeg don’t even pay for the bus.”
Scott Gillingham proposed extending the Peguis Trail and widening Kenaston Boulevard.
Jason Gisser asked about public safety and what each of the candidates would do to make Winnipeg safer.
Scott Gillingham said that as mayor he would sit on the police board. He also said that he would split up police calls so that police don’t respond to every call for service, with other personnel used in situations that would be better served by another type of emergency responder.
Shaun Loney called for a return to community based policing – with “more cops walking the beat,” adding that “people are going to continue to commit crimes unless they get the intervention they need.” He also observed that we need to “address homelessness” before we can make inroads in enhancing public safety.
After the final question was answered the candidates were allowed one final opportunity to sum up their platforms. As noted, it was then that Robert-Falcon Ouellette was the only candidate even to obliquely refer to the controversy that had recently surfaced about Glen Murray.
And, while five of the six candidates hung around afterwards to schmooze with audience members, Glen Murray took off immediately after the forum was over. I offer that not as an editorial comment – merely an observation.
Local News
Interviews with the curator of the Nakba exhibit and the CEO of the Human Rights Museum
By BERNIE BELLAN On June 26, I was invited to attend the Canadian Museum for Human Right to see the Nakba exhibit prior to its being opened to the public. While I was there I was given the opportunity to interview the curator for the exhibit, Isabelle Masson, along with CMHR CEO Isha Khan. What follows are the transcripts of those interviews (edited only to remove pause words like “uh” and phrases the were repeated). The first interview was with Isabelle Masson:
Jewish Post: Several representatives of Winnipeg Jewish community organization say that they weren’t fairly consulted on this exhibit. How do you respond to that?
Masson: We came to this project with an awareness that Palestinian voices are often marginalized, even silenced, and an awareness that Islamophobia and anti-Palestinian racism have an impact on whose voice is heard and whose suffering is recognized. And so we intentionally chose to centre Palestinian voices with this exhibition.
JP: But to the point that many Jewish representatives of organizations and people within the community at large feel that the Jewish community should have been consulted on an issue that had such a direct impact on the Jewish community – did you not feel an obligation to consult with the Jewish community?
Masson: I think the best person to talk further about this issue is our CEO, Isha.
JP: In terms of the exhibit itself, I must say it really stresses the suffering that Palestinians have endured. But, in looking at other refugee situations around the world, the Palestinian situation seems to me to be unique in that there has never been an effort to resettle Palestinians within the countries to which they were forced to flee.
Do you not think that separates their situation (from other refugee situations) and, in some ways, it has made their situation worse than it could have been?
Masson: Well, the exhibit not only centres that experience of forced displacement and disposition as a longstanding experience across five generation that you know is tied to human rights violations that are ongoing today, but it also I want to point out, you know, foregrounds beauty, foregrounds resilience, foregrounds the maintenance of identity and belonging across time and across that experience. So there’s also these elements about this exhibition because it was also about humanizing Palestinians – about people with families with stories, with creativity – and coming back to some of the videos what interviewees say, right, we hope that Palestinians can be seen as fully human and hope that they can see Palestinians as having human rights and this this story today in this gallery is is a story about human rights.
JP: If I can focus on one particular aspect of the exhibit that I read this morning when I was sent the preview, it referred to what happened between the years 2000 and 2005 as a Palestinian uprising. But the Israeli term would be the Intifada which for them meant large-scale attacks – terrorist bombings by some Palestinians. Did you not think it necessary to include that in a larger context?
Masson: Well, we use uprising because it’s the most more accessible term in the exhibition and we, you know, we’re focusing really here on an artwork by artists – Palestinian American artist Reggie Cook and with an artwork that was trying to translate the experience of of occupation into what is created. So that’s the context in which we talk about that.
JP: But to ignore what happened during the uprising seems to me to leave out a major part of the context.
Masson: I don’t think that we are ignoring that. This exhibit is not about the full story of what has happened in Palestine, in Israel. It’s not, you know, the scope of this small exhibition. This small exhibition has a scope and the scope was really to create an opportunity and a place for Canadians to be able to encounter Palestinian Canadians and hear their voices.
JP: Given the current mood in the Middle East and the ongoing tensions between Israel and various other actors, the concern among many in the Jewish community that this is going to lead to a heightening of antisemitism and an exhibit like this seems that it it’s not going to do much to improve relations between Jews and Palestinians when it focuses on only one side of the story. How do you respond to that?
Masson: Well, this is only one exhibit of of many, of many stories that we have.
Following is my interview with Isha Khan. Khan began by explaining that she is “the CEO at the Canadian Museum for Human Rights and I’ve been here as CEO of the museum since August of 2020. So almost six years.”
JP: So let’s get right down to discussing (the exhibit). I spoke to the curator. I asked a lot of questions about the exhibit itself. I’m more interested in asking (you) about the general context and the atmosphere in the community. The accusation has been made repeatedly by various leaders of Jewish organizations that you have not been willing to consult on this exhibit. How do you respond to that?
Khan: I think the word consult can mean many things. We have a community engagement practice. So for us that means that depending on the scope of the exhibit and this exhibit is about Palestinian Canadians and their experiences, the impacts of the human rights impacts, of forced displacement, which means we engage with that community as we share their stories. Many folks in the Jewish community will say we haven’t consulted with them and yet we have met with leaders of Jewish organizations from across Canada, main uh, major federations, foundations, local Jewish organization representatives many times to talk about this exhibit, to explain what its scope is, what it’s about, what it’s intended to do, and most importantly, what it isn’t. And unfortunately there continues to be misconceptions about what it is. So we hope people will come and see it.
JP: I think the fear in the community – and I think it’s well founded is that this will foment an increase in antisemitism. Can you understand that concern?
Khan: Absolutely. I personally and any member of our team who’s talked to folks about this has said that we unequivocally share the concern about antisemitism in Canada today. That is part of our mandate. And we will continue to do that work and we can also share these stories of Palestinian Canadians – you know, telling the story of one community’s human rights violation in no way should negate or minimize the experience of another community. That’s what this museum was designed to do….designed to build understanding of shared humanity and that’s what we believe we’re doing responsibly.
JP: Just before I began this interview, I was taken (down to the fourth floor; the Nakba exhibit is on the fifth floor) to see the gallery of other human rights violations. I’m not sure what it’s called. (It’s where there is a ) recitation of various human rights violations, including what happened in 1947 and 1948 (in Palestine). They offer passing reference to the displacement of both Jewish and Palestinian refugees. Would you consider ever having an exhibit about the displacement of Jewish refugees from Arab lands in 1948 and subsequent years?
Khan: We would absolutely consider it and in fact have shared with leaders of the Jewish organizations months ago that yes, these are important stories that need to be told (and) invited them to work constructively with us on developing that content. Unfortunately we didn’t really receive much response.
JP: How long is this exhibit supposed to be on for?
Khan: So this exhibit right now we’re saying is a minimum of two years. That’s because it is an exhibit in a standing gallery and so it also depends on our updating of our other galleries and, you know, exhibits take a bit of time. This one is four years in the making and so we’ve just committed that it’ll be a minimum of two years and we’ll see where things go.
JP: There are a lot of other refugee situations in the world – (for instance) South Sudan, and just this morning I was saying to Isabelle that I received an email about the situation for people from Burundi in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
I didn’t realize that was a problem. I know that the Congo has had ongoing problems with displacement of populations. It it seems to me it’s not an unlimited number of stories like this you could tell, but there are a lot of others. How do you decide which ones take priority?
Khan: We’re often asked the question of how we decide, and it comes back to how this museum is designed. Each gallery is intended to tell a different story. It has an objective. So this exhibit, Palestine Uprooted, is in our Rights Today gallery. It’s to talk about global human rights issues. And we know that people want to better understand human rights of Palestinians. There’s no question. It’s being talked about, debated, discussed all over the world. And so we’re being responsive there to that need. And we know that Palestinian experiences were under represented in our galleries and have heard that for years. To your point though that there are other stories – the design of this museum is that you ought to be able to feel something, understand something about the forced displacement of one community and apply it to another. So now this story stands along the forced displacement of the Rwanda people, indigenous peoples, Ukrainian people, the Igbo people. You’ve named a number of others that we do need to develop content on over time, but it’s done depending on what gallery it is, what we are trying to invoke…because we’ll never be the encyclopedia of all human rights atrocities in the world. That’s actually why we’re called the Canadian Museum for Human Rights rather than the Canadian Museum of Human Rights.
We’re here to to develop an understanding through the stories that will impact people.
JP: Okay. I want to ask a politically loaded question.
Khan: Okay.
JP: The Jewish population of Canada is at best 450,000. In that range, Jews don’t have the political impact that they used to. At most, there are 12 to 16 ridings where the Jewish vote can make a difference. The Muslim population has grown substantially. It has a much larger political impact. Did that factor in to this exhibit being mounted in any way?
Khan: Absolutely not.
JP: So, I’ll ask the question that I asked the curator of the exhibit. Where did the impetus for this come from? Did it come from Palestinian Canadians?
Khan: The this exhibit came from a recognition, our decision. I hold responsibility ultimately for the decisions made by my team. It was made based on the recognition that Palestinian experiences were under represented in this museum. We absolutely heard from the Palestinian community organizations in Canada and had heard for many years that their stories were underrepresented. Ultimately, the decision was ours. And as we look at this gallery and updating our content, this is ‘rights today’ – global human rights. We know that the world is talking about Palestinian human rights and the stories of Palestinian Canadians naturally belong in our collective memory alongside many other stories that are told here.
JP: There was one particular aspect on one of the panels when I was sent a preview this morning and it referred to the Palestinian uprising from 2000 to 2005 which led to a lot of Israeli deaths that we generally refer to as the Intifada. There’s no mention of Israeli deaths on that panel. Would you agree that might have been an oversight?
Khan: I mean I know that there the factual point is absolutely accurate. The decisions on the curation of the exhibit are not ones that I make, but certainly if that is a concern that we will look at.
Local News
Nakba exhbit at CMHR now open – here’s what it looks like
By BERNIE BELLAN (Posted June 26)The following press release was sent to me early Friday morning June 26 (Photos supplied by Annie Kierans, CMHR) Nothing that follows has been edited. I leave it to you to form your own opinion:
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
Local News
Nakba exhibit at human rights museum set to open despite mounting criticism
By NOAH STRAUSS (posted June 25) The Canadian Museum for Human Rights’ Nakba exhibit is scheduled to open this Saturday, June 27, despite growing criticism and calls for it to be delayed or revised. The exhibit has sparked public debate in Winnipeg and beyond regarding how it presents the history surrounding the creation of the State of Israel.
Earlier this week, Mark Berlin resigned from the museum’s board. In his resignation letter, he expressed concern that the exhibit presents a one-sided narrative and does not adequately address the experiences of Jewish communities affected by the events surrounding Israel’s independence.
The Nakba, an Arabic word meaning “catastrophe,” refers to the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians during the 1947–1949 conflict that followed the creation of the State of Israel. Critics of the exhibit argue that it focuses primarily on Palestinian displacement without sufficiently acknowledging the broader regional consequences of the period.
Some Jewish advocacy groups also point to the experiences of Jews who left or were expelled from several Arab and Muslim-majority countries in the decades surrounding Israel’s creation. Estimates suggest that between 850,000 and 950,000 Jews left or were displaced from countries including Iraq, Egypt, and Yemen, under a range of circumstances including persecution, expulsion, and confiscation of property.
In his resignation letter, Berlin, a faculty member at McGill University specializing in human rights law, wrote, “Telling the story with a one-sided perspective chosen by the museum serves to deepen division and contributes to further hostility toward Jews in Canada.”
Following his resignation, CIJA President Noah Shack released a statement saying, “The resignation of the museum’s only Jewish board member is a clear indictment of the museum’s handling of the controversial ‘Nakba’ exhibit.”
The exhibit’s VIP opening is expected to include invitations to representatives from all three levels of government. Winnipeg Mayor Scott Gillingham had initially been invited but later declined following discussions with representatives from the Jewish community, including CIJA Manitoba Vice President Gustavo Zentner and Jeff Lieberman, President and CEO of the Jewish Federation of Winnipeg.
Members of Winnipeg’s Jewish community are also planning a peaceful rally outside the museum on Friday at 5 p.m., according to organizers.
The Canadian Museum for Human Rights is expected to release a formal statement ahead of the exhibit’s opening.
(added June 26) To see interviews that Bernie Bellan conducted with Isabelle Masson, curator of the “Palestine Uprooted: Nakba Past and Present” exhibition at the Canadian Museum for Human Rights (CMHR) in Winnipeg and Isha Khan, CEO, CMHR about the exhibit go to curator of exhibit and CEO interviewed
