Local News
Professor who fought back against rampant antisemitism at Columbia University speaks to large audience at Shaarey Zedek Synagogue
By BERNIE BELLAN Shai Davidai has established a reputation as a university professor who isn’t afraid to challenge what he perceives as unmitigated antisemitism – whether it’s coming from students, fellow professors or university administrators. A Management professor at Columbia University in New York City, Davidai, now 41, was in Winnipeg recently to speak to a crowd of around 300 at the Shaarey Zedek Synagogue on October 22.
Last year, Davidai gained renown for a video that was posted to Youtube on October 19 in which he railed against the administrators of major US universities, including Columbia, Harvard, and Stanford, for allowing anti-Israel protests to be held unchecked.
It was still in the early stages of what would eventually become a trend sweeping campuses across both the US and Canada, during which students (often joined by non-students) held rallies denouncing Israeli “genocide” in Gaza, almost always employing the usual epithets in describing Israel as “settler-colonialist,” guilty of “apartheid” and “ethnic cleansing.” Those rallies would soon transform into encampments, striking fear into the hearts of many Jewish students.
During his speech to Jewish students gathered in the Columbia University courtyard on October 19, 2023, Davidai denounced the hypocrisy of university administrators, saying: “they won’t allow a pro-ISIS rally or a pro-KKK rally, yet, when it comes to Israeli and Jewish lives, they allow a pro-terrorist Hamas=ISIS rally… US prestige universities allow pro-terror rallies on their campuses; will not call Hamas a terror organization…American parents, your kids are no longer safe on ANY university campus. Jewish students on any US campus are not safe because the undercurrent on US campus is anti-Semitic and the presidents of US campuses give a hand to bigotry-Antisemitism and allow terrorist Hamas supporters to rally for violence and terror.”
From that point on, Davidai became a symbol of hope for Jews as a professor who refused to remain silent in the face of university administrators who remained passive while antisemitism was being allowed to run rampant on university campuses – or who even abetted antisemitic behaviour in some cases.
Most recently, although he has not been fired (and Davdai noted that he does not have tenure), Columbia University is refusing to allow him to appear on campus in person.
Davidai’s talk in Winnipeg was facilitated by several organizations, most prominently one called “Tafsik,” about which you can read here: Tafsik
The evening got off to a rocky start, however, when the person who served as moderator – but who never introduced herself to the crowd, asked her son to come up to the podium and recite the standard acknowledgment that the Shaarey Zedek is situated on the “ancestral lands of” various indigenous groups. Unfortunately, her son said, he didn’t know the words – and neither did his mother. Fortunately, Shaarey Zedek Executive Director Rena Secter-Elbaze stepped up to the podium and read the acknowledgment herself.
After Amir Epstein, the founder of Tafsik, gave some remarks in which he explained how he came to start that organization, he introduced Shai Davidai. Epstein said he had no problem if anyone wanted to record Davidai’s remarks, but the person who was apparently the moderator immediately contradicted Epstein, insisting that no recordings would be allowed.
(In fact, aware of the prohibition on recording the event that had been included in emails sent out to attendees beforehand, I had contacted Epstein in advance, asking him whether I could be granted an exception to the rule. He responded that he had no problem with me recording Davidai’s remarks and, based on that, I did record Davidai’s entire speech. What you are about to read is taken verbatim from a transcript of Davidai’s remarks.)
Early on in his remarks Davidai explained that, until recently, he had never heard of Winnipeg but, when his son was born, he and his wife became involved in a “mom and daddy group,” among whose members was a former Winnipegger by the name of Marley Book.
Davidai said he asked Marley where she was from, and she answered “Canada.”
“I said, oh, are you from Toronto? No? Are you from Montreal? She said ‘no.’ I said, oh, are you from Vancouver? So now I’m like, running out of cities. And then she said, I’m from Winnie Peg.
“And I’ve never heard of Winnie Peg. And I said, ‘I’ve never heard of Winnie Peg.’ And – she said, ‘I’m Jewish.’ And I was like, we are literally everywhere…and throughout the years, she’s described to me what it’s like being Jewish in Winnie Peg and, and in a small community. But I never really got it until I showed up here.There’s something unique about a community where it feels like everybody knows everybody.”
Davidai went on to describe the exact moment when he and his wife were first informed about what was happening in Israel on October 7. He said that the last video he had on his phone before his wife received a WhatsApp message from her sister in Israel shortly after the attack began was a video in which he was saying to his wife that “our lives are boring.”
“I wish I can go back to having a boring life,” Davidai told the audience. “I wish we could all go back to having a boring life. But one thing I don’t wish for is going back to the way things were for many, many, many months…And now I say, never, we’re never going back to the way things were, because the way things were were not good.”
“The only difference between what’s happening now in universities and city streets and in Parliament and in the media and everywhere, is that the hatred (that) was underground, is now above the surface.”
Davidai explained to the audience how he went from being a passive observer of events to an activist who has now become a lighting rod, both for critics and defenders of Israel. It was while watching an angry group of kaffiayh-wearing students at Columbia University on October 12, 2023 who were gathered opposite a group of 50 Jewish students who were holding a silent vigil for the hostages who had been taken to Gaza, he said, that a fellow Israeli academic, “leaned over and whispers in my ear and says, this is the anti semitism that our parents and grandparents warned us about, the moment he said that something changed inside my mind. And once it changed, I can never go back to seeing things the way they were.”
“Now, I had an explanation of what I was seeing. This was Jew hatred.”
Soon after, Davidai said, he posted what he was feeling to Instagram – where, until that point, he had only 900 followers. That soon changed, however, as he explained: “The next day, I wake up and I notice that all of a sudden I have more than 900 followers, and none of them are academics. And people are sharing what I wrote, and people are texting me, thank you for writing. And people are saying, if you want to know what it feels like to be a Jew in North America right now, read this.”
As the days passed, and as Davidai became increasingly prominent on social media – for his Instagram posts and Youtube video of October 19 (to which he later added more videos), as much as Davidai was being lauded for how brave he was to confront the kind of antisemitism that was becoming thoroughly pervasive on so many university campuses, he admits now that he was “afraid” then and he’s still afraid, saying: “You may not see it. It may not seem like I’m afraid. I am very afraid. When I confront protesters – waving Hamas flags…I saw today in the Canadian news, with a Taliban flag being waved…My knees tremble, but I’m not a Jew who will let his trembling knees control him. And I think that that is where we all need to be. We are refusing to simply hide and let them slaughter us.”
So, how do we fight back, Davidai asked? He gave three suggestions:
“We all have to understand, including myself, none of us are doing enough.”
Secondly – “no one is coming to save us.”
As for his third suggestion, Davidai said it was more complicated because we have “outsourced our ability to protect ourselves” to Jewish “organizations.”
And, while he had nothing bad to say about Jewish organizations, especially their ability to raise massive amounts of money at a time of immediate peril to Israel, he noted that “Jewish organizations are built to fundraise They are built to lobby. They are built to teach and educate, and are built to deal with the media. And they have been doing that work amazing in the past year, in a few weeks,” yet what they are not built to do, Davidai suggested, is to “mobilize people.”
It’s up to us, Davidai insisted, “to get out in the streets. It’s our job to save ourselves.”
If you are “waiting for someone else,” he said, “do you really believe that someone else exists?”
“It’s not enough to write a letter or an email. It’s not enough to cite a petition. Those are good things, but they are not moving the needle. What we need to do is show up. Show up publicly….You need to be focusing on one thing today. Did I throw a pebble into the water or not? And that’s it.”
There was much more to Davidai’s talk, including not being afraid to be “publicly Jewish” by wearing, for instance, a Star of David, a kippah, or a dog tag since, as he insisted, “because when they come for us and tell us to hide, the best response is never hiding, because hiding has never worked for us in our history.”
“But the other thing we want to do is being there,” he added. “And it’s scary. Protesting. Protesting does not come natural to most people.”
Davidai suggested though, something he called the “rule of minyan” (ten). As he explained, “When there’s one person shouting, that person gets targeted. When there are ten people shouting, those people get heard.”
At the end of his remarks Davidai posed a series of questions to the audience: “We have people that are walking around and openly supporting terrorist organizations. And the decision that’s facing each and every one of us is a simple decision: Do you stand with the people that believe in democracy, or do you stand with the people that believe in terrorism?
“Do you stand with the victim, or do you stand with the rapist?
“Do you stand with Western values, or do you stand with those that want to burn it all down?
“That’s not a complicated decision. How we solve this problem is complex.
“There is no one silver bullet. But where you stand on this issue is very, very simple.
“That is the message that I want to send, not to all of you here because you get it.
“But that’s the message that I want to send to every non Jewish comedian, every non Jewish American and every non Jewish person around the world, show up one time to our rallies, show up one time to their protests.
“And you tell me, where, which world do you want your kids to grow up in?”
Local News
Chesed Shel Emes is hiring
Chesed Shel Emes is looking for a daytime “Shomer Plus” – an individual who understands and appreciates the depth and significance of Shmira, who is able to assume some of the day to day tasks managing our facility, and who can take on some of the administrative work – be it graphic design, social media management, Board support, or providing back up for our 24/7 on call staff.
This is a unique position which calls for a blend of the spiritual and the practical. We are offering a part time, salaried, daytime position, with employee benefits. The successful candidate will need to be flexible, patient and have a sense of humor.
For more information contact Rena Boroditsky, executive director of Chesed Shel Emes at chesedwinnipeg@gmail.com or phone 204-582-5088
Local News
Thoughts on Sid Green
By GRANT MITCHELL (Grant Mitchell is a well-known lawyer in Winnipeg whose father, Leon Mitchell, was Sid Green’s law partner for many years.
Following are remarks Grant delivered at the meal of remembrance which was held following Sid Green’s funeral on June 9:
Sid was a Gold medallist in law in the class of 1955.
He knew that my Dad, Leon Mitchell, was in sole practice in the Confederation Building. Leon was 13 years older than Sid but graduated just the year before. Leon had been the business agent for the Civic Employees Union of the City of Winnipeg before and during law school, and his union connections gave him a client base to start a practice.
After obtaining his call to the Bar, Sid attended Leon’s office and informed him, “You need me.”
Leon was taken aback. He was physically disabled from a major bout of Guillen-Barre syndrome, but felt fully capable of practising solo. He told Sid he didn’t need anyone.
Sid told Leon, “You don’t understand. I don’t mean you need me to advise clients, I mean I can do the physical side for you, attending court and hearings and other functions that require mobility.”
With that understanding, they became Mitchell & Green, and later Mitchell, Green and Minuk when Sam Minuk joined the firm. They were the only labour firm in Winnipeg at that time that acted exclusively on the Union side.
In around 1960, a Mitchell & Green client did not have the money to pay for his legal fees and offered the partially constructed cottage he was building at Big Whiteshell Lake to the firm as payment, with the excess to be refunded to the client. Sid and Leon became co-owners of that cottage. For years it had no plumbing and an incomplete ceiling. When Leon died in 1987, Sid got the cottage.
When Sid went into politics, Leon supported the move, and in fact delivered the nomination speech for Sid to be leader of the NDP when he ran against Russ Paulley and then Ed Schreyer.
When Sid was made a Cabinet Minister in the Schreyer government in 1969, Leon also left practice to go into public service, as Chair of the Municipal Board, Chair of the Mental Review Board and Commissioner in the Churchill Forest Industries inquiry. Sam Minuk became a Provincial Judge. It was the end of Mitchell Green and Minuk. That practice was the foundation of what has become the Myers firm.
Sid and Leon’s paths would cross again when Leon was mediator of the Northern Flood Agreement and Sid was the Minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro.
They had been professional partners with profound mutual respect, but they were also personal friends and remained so for the rest of Leon’s life.
Leon had a huge admiration for people he thought were unusually intelligent. Sid was at or near the top of that list.
At the funeral, I spoke of Sid’s relationship with my father, Leon Mitchell.
I will just add that during their years at the Confederation Building and then in the Crown Trust Building, they hired an articling student named Bill Rachman, who made Sid and Leon nervous about everything he did. When the articling period ended, Sid told Leon that notwithstanding their reservations about Bill’s ethics and practicing skills, Bill would be far more financially successful than either Sid or Leon. Leon agreed. They were correct.
When Sid returned to private practice after his time in government, the unions and he had a falling out and he found himself acting against unions rather than on their behalf
Sid’s philosophy on unions was that protective labour laws produced weak unions, who would not represent their members’ interests effectively. He felt that Wagner Act type labour legislation, now universal in North America, was a tragic compromise by unions. He believed that the recognition strike and the wildcat strike were fundamental weapons for successful trade unions, and that certification of unions, the duty to bargain in good faith and mandatory grievance arbitration were the poor cousins of the recognition and wildcat strikes. This was opposite to the position of the union movement at that time, which lobbied strenuously for union-friendly legislation in the form of greater and greater regulation of the union employer relationship.
In fact, Sid said that the only labour laws that unions should need were to protect the right to picket, and to take away a court’s power to order a person to work. These 2 provisions are found in sections 56 and 57 of the King’s Bench Act to this day, more than 50 years later, and still known to people of my generation as the “Sid Green amendments”. No injunction to enforce a personal services contract. No injunction to restrict assembly on a public thoroughfare to communicate accurate information, that is, a picket sign.
Sid supplemented professors at the law school, Robson Hall, by delivering several lectures in each term about the fundamentals of labour law. I taught that course for 22 years and I had Sid come for a guest lecture, as he had done in the labour law class when I was a student.
He had a powerful and persuasive way of making his points. For example, he felt that a legislated duty to bargain in good faith was a mistake – let the parties fight it out, and let the stronger survive. If employers don’t bargain genuinely, the response is to hold a strike, not run to the labour board.
“If I offer $1, $2, $3, $5, $10 then I’m bargaining in good faith. If I offer $10, $10, $10, $10, then I’m bargaining in bad faith. But it’s still $10!”
He didn’t like certification and preferred the recognition strike. Settle disputes through battle, not argument. Conflict rather than compromise. He particularly objected to certifying unions by card count as opposed to secret ballot vote. A card signer had no meaningful way of revoking their support for the union if they changed their mind after the union applied for certification.
Sid said, “If I buy a vacuum cleaner from a door to door salesman, under the CPA I have a month to change my mind and get my money back. But if I sign a union card, the next day may be too late to change my mind. Which is more important, having a union take over my bargaining rights, or buying a vacuum cleaner?”
Apart from representing employees against unions, Sid also built a practice of representing lawyers who faced disciplinary action from the Law Society. When he ran to be a bencher, he received more votes than any other candidate, even though he was not affiliated with any of the larger law firms. As a bencher, he would send out a “Report from a Bencher” after each Bencher meeting, giving his analysis on the decisions the Society was making, often critical of the majority.
In so many ways, he believed in a “survival of the fittest” approach to human differences. He did not care for protectionist legislation like Human Rights laws. He particularly objected to affirmative action or any other form of “reverse discrimination”.
In one case I had with him, he was acting for Nabila Malik, an economist in the Cabinet secretariat who had been laid off. I was acting for the employer. He called me to tell me that he wished to amend his statement of claim. “I want to add a paragraph to the claim to say that in letting my client go, the government violated its own affirmative action policy because the policy said that there should be more women in senior civil service positions and yet my client, a woman, was let go when many men in senior civil service positions had remained employed.
“Do you object to my amendment?” “No.”
“You don’t think I believe in that affirmative action bullshit do you?” “I don’t know.”
“I DON’T!” But I say, ‘If you are going to preach bullshit, you have to practice bullshit.’”
Sid took up hockey when he was 50. As a young man, he had been a good athlete, quarterbacking the law school football team. It was a late stage of life to learn to skate and join a new sport but Sid approached it with the same gusto he applied to everything else. When he awoke after cardiac surgery a few years later, his first question was, “Will I still be able to play hockey?” You don’t have to be great at something to love it, as I well know. And Sid loved to play hockey, indoors or out.
An employer client of mine had one of its managers vilified in the union newsletter – the “Golden Turkey Award”. My client said, “We want a lawyer for the manager, and we want that lawyer be one with the kind of reputation that when the other side sees who is threatening to sue them, they will involuntarily cringe uncontrollably.” I gave them 2 names, with Sid’s being the second one. “Sid Green, that name sounds familiar. Who is he?” “Oh, he was once the Minister of Labour in the NDP government, but after he left politics, the unions treated him as a pariah, and now he fights them regularly.” “That’s the guy we want.” Sid took the case. He got a settlement offer so generous that the manager desperately wanted to accept it: full page retraction, apology, substantial payment. He may have been a turkey, but he was not foolish. Sid said it was not enough. He got more, before yielding to the client’s wish to settle. And oh, yeah, there were no more golden turkeys awarded.
Sid loved to litigate. He would rather fight than settle. His adversaries knew that, and as a result, he achieved great settlements. Sid’s rejection of an offer was never a bluff.
He had a fundamental belief in democracy, that the rules should be made by people who were elected, not appointed. If he had the choice, he would prefer to be a law maker rather than a lawyer or judge. He also felt that if a matter was worth taking on, it was worth taking all the way. I doubt that any private lawyer has been involved in more appeals.
Others know more about Sid’s career as a politician than I do. He did love to tell one story about his time in government. In 1975, Bob “Junior” Wilson had just been elected in a Wolseley by-election, narrowly defeating Sid’s friend, D’Arcy McCaffrey. In his first appearance in the Legislative Assembly, Wilson stood up to make his maiden speech. The protocol had long been that when a member speaks for the first time, they give a benign speech about how honoured they are to serve their constituents and how they look forward to working with everyone in the house. Instead, Wilson launched into an attack on the governing Schreyer government, accusing them of every misdeed known to politics, and demanding that they immediately resign and call a general election. It fell to Sid to respond on behalf of the NDP majority.
“The Honourable Member has ignored the usual protocol for new members. I don’t mind that. I have no particular affinity for protocols. I think members should say what they genuinely feel. So I commend the Member for being so frank. I have some difficulty with his message, however. He says that we should resign and cease to govern. But that would be undemocratic. A majority of Manitobans have elected us to run the Province. That is our duty. He may not like it, but the fact is that we are his government. But if he feels badly about that, he should imagine how I feel. He is my member!!”
I’ll close by saying that in Sid’s pre-politics practising days, there were many colourful lawyers that made being a lawyer a fascinating profession. By the time he returned to practice, there were only a few of the wild ones left. The profession needed a gadfly like Sid to make practice fun. The reason he got so many votes from the profession is that Manitoba lawyers recognized that in Sid there was a fearlessness mixed with skill, humour, joy and a profound understanding of the policy reasoning behind the letter of the law. There was no one like him, and I doubt that there will be one. I will miss him.
Local News
Sid Green – famed lawyer, one of the first Jewish provincial cabinet ministers, and first director of BB Camp – passes at age 96
By BERNIE BELLAN Sid Green, whose name was well known in so many different circles in Manitoba, passed away on Sunday, June 7, at the age of 96.
Green was perhaps best known as one of three Jewish Members of the Legislature who became cabinet ministers in the first ever NDP government in Manitoba, which came to power in 1969 under the leadership of Ed Schreyer. (The other two Jewish members who became cabinet ministers were the late Saul Cherniack and the late Saul Miller.)
Green, who had first been elected as an MLA in 1966 representing the riding of Inkster, led a challenge to then-NDP leader Russ Paulley in 1968, which eventually led to Paulley resigning as leader. The subsequent leadership race saw Green, who was only 39 at the time, facing off against a 32-year-old Ed Schreyer.
Although Green and Schreyer were later to part ways over a number of issues – especially over the issue of aid to private schools, Green and Schreyer were actually good friends.
In fact, Ed Schreyer, who is now 90, spoke at Green’s funeral, which was held Tuesday, June 9, at the Chesed Shel Emes (with interment following at the Hebrew Sick Benefit Cemetery).
Schreyer told some humourous stories about his and Sid’s competition for the NDP leadership back in 1969. Although the two were rivals they agreed occasionally to share expenses along the way as they toured various Manitoba locations, including one night in a hotel in Flin Flon (or it may have been somewhere else; I wasn’t taking notes at the funeral.) Regardless, they agreed to share a room that night but, as Schreyer recalled, it had to have “two beds.”
Another time during that race, when they were somewhere in western Manitoba, they both received a call from someone in a place on the eastern shore of Lake Manitoba. (Again, I don’t remember which location Schreyer said it was.) The caller said they both had to get there soon because there was going to be a crowd of several hundred people gathered for some other event – and it would have been a perfect time to do some politicking.
But, as they pointed out to the caller, that location was 250 kilometres away and they couldn’t possibly drive there on time – so they both agreed to hire a float plane to fly them there. Unfortunately, that was a very windy day, Schreyer noted, and the plane wasn’t able to land close enough to shore for the both of them to wade in. Instead they decided to jump off the plane’s pontoon – landing up to their armpits in water. They bravely went to meet the assembled crowd – in their soaking wet suits.
Green had a long career as an MLA, being elected to the Manitoba Legislature four times: in 1966, 1969, 1973, and 1977. Eventually he broke completely with the NDP and, along with fellow NDP MLA Ben Hanuschak, started a new party, called the Manitoba Progressive Party, in 1981, which failed abysmally.
I remember well how captivating a speaker Sid Green was when he was campaigning in 1981. One story that he told several times to different audiences went along these lines: After the NDP first formed government in 1969 – much to the surprise of almost everyone back then, Green was often called upon to speak at different venues because he was such a powerful orator.
One time he was somewhere in rural Manitoba and before he was called up to the podium to deliver his remarks, the person who was introducing Green said to the audience: “Ladies and gentlemen, I’d like to introduce to you the ‘Green Minister.'”
Not missing a beat, Sid took to the podium and said something along the following lines to the audience: “My first appointment to Cabinet was as Minister of Energy, Mines, and Natural Resources. Well, I little knew about energy, even less about mines, and nothing at all about natural resources. So the title “the Green Minister” is an apt one.”
In his early years, Sid Green was a very active member of the YMHA on Albert Street, serving as president of the house council for several years. A dedicated athlete, Green competed in basketball and volleyball at the Y. At the age 50 he took up ice hockey – and was known for his fierce competitiveness. He was to serve on the board of directors of the YMHA for many years, right up until its closing in 1997.
Green was also the quarterback for the University of Manitoba law school football team during the early 1950s – and led them to two school championships. In a 2019 interview I conducted with Green about his early years at the YMHA, he noted that he was the only 5’6″ 150 pound quarterback in the inter-faculty league.
In 1954 Green became the first director of BB Camp, which had just moved to Town Island from Sandy Hook.
In 1955, Green graduated from the U of M law school, winning the gold medal in law that year.
He went on to become one of Manitoba’s most successful labour lawyers, subsequently pairing withfamed labour lawyer, Leon Mitchell, later to be joined by Sam Minuk (who was to become a provincial court judge) in what became the firm of Mitchell, Green & Minuk.
During his time as a lawyer, Green often represented employers – which might seem a little surprising for someone who such a staunch NDPer. But Green was staunchly opposed to entrenching laws such as anti-scab legislation or secret ballot voting to unionize. He thought it important to represent any client, including employers engaged in disputes with unions, no matter how much he might have disagreed with that client’s position, and because he was so skilful in arguing a case, he was much sought after by employers to represent them in labour disputes.
He was so respected as a lawyer, moreover, that he was often asked to represent other lawyers in cases before the courts.
Green was also very pro-Israel and extremely proud of his Jewish roots. Although not a religious man, during his many years at the Y – first on Albert Street, then later on Hargrave, Green was involved in developing many Jewish cultural programs.
In days to come we will have much more about the life of Sid Green. In the meantime, if you want to watch a video interview I did with Sid about his experiences at the Y on Albert Street, you can go to Sid Green reminisces.
Sid Green was predeceased by his wife Shleema in 2009 and is survived by his five children: Arthur, MIndy, Cathy, Sharon, and Marty, as well as 15 grandchildren.
For more about Sid Green’s career, read Grant Mitchell’s eulogy, which was delivered at the Meal of Remembrance following Sid Green’s funeral on June 9: Grant Mitchell on Sid Green
