Local News
University of Manitoba Faculty Association’s proposed motion opposing adoption of IHRA definition of antisemitism leads to furor within some groups in Jewish community
By BERNIE BELLAN In what became a somewhat confusing sequence of events, after much consternation expressed by various parties representing different sections of the Jewish community, a motion that had been introduced by the University of Manitoba Faculty Association to “oppose the adoption or use of the IHRA definition at the University of Manitoba and elsewhere” has apparently been put on hold for the time being.
Here is an overview of what transpired:
In an email sent to various individuals by Haskell Greenfield, head of Judaic Studies at the University of Manitoba, on March 16, Haskell wrote: “Hi. I would like to ensure that you are aware of this motion (opposing the adoption of the IHRA definition of antisemitism) that is coming before UMFA on Thursday afternoon (March 18) at 2:30. Only Board Representatives can vote, but all UMFA members are allowed to attend the meeting and speak.”
Subsequently, the (online) meeting of the UMFA board that was to have been convened March 18 to consider the motion opposing the adoption of the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism was put off until March 25.
According to Haskell, the motion opposing the “adoption or use of the IHRA definition at the University of Manitoba” had already been passed by the UMFA Executive Council (which consists of 12 members).
Upon receiving Haskell’s email I attempted to contact Greg Flemming, who is executive director of the University of Manitoba Faculty Association, to inquire as to the origin of this motion. (Apparently, according to a notice issued by UMFA, the wording of the motion came from something called AASUA – The Association of Academic Staff of the University of Alberta.)
In the header to the actual motion, the name “Academic Alliance Against Antisemitism, Racism, Colonialism & Censorship in Canada (ARC) Campaign” was also given.
It appears, therefore, that the move to oppose the adoption of the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism had been spearheaded by certain academic groups. However, when I asked Greg Flemming whether there was a particular individual in UMFA who had brought the motion forward here he did not respond.
In our last issue (March 17) we published a lengthy article by Simone Cohen Scott about the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism. In it, Simone listed the 11 examples that the definition uses to illustrate what should be considered anti-Semitic. While five of the 11 examples have not aroused any particular controversy, the six examples mentioning Israel have led to a certain amount of organized opposition to the definition, especially within academic groups.
As Jewish Telegraphic Agency writer Ben Sales noted in an article reporting on the heated debate that has been taking place with regard to the IHRA definition, especially on some university campuses, “its provisions on rhetoric around Israel have sparked contentious debate, which was heightened last year when President Donald Trump signed an executive order essentially adopting the working definition as a reference for adjudicating civil rights complaints on campus. This debate has continued even as the IHRA has emphasized that the definition is not legally binding.”
Sales’ article listed the six examples having to do with Israel:
• Accusing Jews of being more loyal to Israel or to a global Jewish agenda than to their home countries.
• Denying Jews the right to self-determination or calling Israel a “racist endeavor.”
• Applying a double standard to Israel that isn’t applied to other countries.
• Applying classic antisemitic smears, like the blood libel, to Israel.
• Comparing Israel to the Nazis.
• Holding Jews collectively responsible for Israel’s actions.
As Sales notes in his article, “The definition’s opponents say its clauses on Israel will have a chilling effect on debate around the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They worry that in condemning some forms of anti-Israel speech, the definition will serve to label all critics of Israel, or pro-Palestinian activists, as antisemites.”
In December 2020 the University of Manitoba Students’ Union passed a resolution endorsing the IHRA definition of antisemitism.
What has happened, as Sales noted, is that the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism has sparked a heated debate, especially among academics. Subsequently, that debate has led to certain Jewish groups labeling opposition to the IHRA definition itself as anti-Semitic.
Thus, when UMFA announced to its members that a vote was to take place March 25 on a motion opposing the use or adoption of the IHRA definition of antisemitism, certain organizations, including the Jewish Federation of Winnipeg, began lobbying to have the motion dropped from UMFA’s agenda.
B’nai Brith Canada, however, was more strident in condemning UMFA for having brought the motion forward. In a press release dated March 24, which was titled “B’nai Brith Condemns Absurd Motion by University of Manitoba Faculty Association”, B’nai Brith Canada urged “the University of Manitoba’s Faculty Association (UMFA) executive to abandon a motion opposing “the adoption and/or use of the IHRA definition at the University of Manitoba and elsewhere.”
Certain individuals who are not part of UMFA, however, were invited to address members of the UMFA board, including Belle Jarniewski, who had played an instrumental role in developing the IHRA definition.
Apparently though, when the meeting of the UMFA board was convened at 2:30 on Thursday, March 25, according to Belle, “A majority of people voted in opposition to the agenda, including those from the equity and diversity committee, and so the meeting was adjourned without moving forward.”
It is not clear, therefore, where the motion by UMFA to oppose the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism now lies.
In a statement issued by the Jewish Federation following the March 25 meeting of the UMFA board, Federation spokesperson Elaine Goldstine and Joel Lazer wrote that “We are pleased to advise that today, the majority of the board of representatives of UMFA did not approve the agenda, and the meeting was adjourned. A number of concerns were raised about insufficient information and lack of consultation with broader UMFA membership on the issue.”
B’nai Brith Canada, however, took a more strident approach in condemning UMFA. In a press release issued March 26, the B’nai Brith press release was headlined: “University of Manitoba Shuts Down Absurd Motion to Ban IHRA Definition”.
The press release went on to say that “B’nai Brith Canada is pleased that a motion opposing the IHRA definition of antisemitism was defeated yesterday, on procedural grounds, at a meeting of the University of Manitoba Faculty Association (UMFA).”
Apparently though, saying the motion was defeated is incorrect, since the motion was not actually brought to a vote as members of the board did not approve the agenda for the day’s meeting.
I asked Greg Flemming though, what might lie next for UMFA insofar as the motion opposing the adoption of the IHRA definition is concerned.
He responded to me, following the March 25 meeting, saying: “No statement will be released tonight as the meeting has again been delayed.” It would seem, therefore, that there is a possibility the motion will be brought before the board again at a later date.
It should be noted that a similar motion to the one that had been brought before the UMFA board had previously been adopted by the Association of Professors of the University of Ottawa (APUO) who, in announcing the move against the IHRA definition to its members, cited “academic freedom” as its motivation.
Local News
Jewish Foundation Endowment Book Of Life program Sunday, November 1st
By BERNIE BELLAN The Jewish Foundation of Manitoba first launched its Endowment Book of Life legacy programme in 1998.
This charitable initiative allows donors to promise a future bequest to the foundation in exchange for having their personal history, family experiences, and philanthropic values permanently inscribed in a physical and digital archive.
On Sunday morning, November 1, the Jewish Foundation held its most recent Endowment Book of Life event followed by a brunch at the Shaarey Zedek Synagogue. There were five new entries into the Book of Life, from: Brownie Fleishman – in memory of her parents, Beryl and Esther Pierce; Marilyn Goldberg – in memory of her husband, Dr. Norman Goldberg; Melissa Rice – in memory of her husband, Richard Rice; Sharon Wolchock, in memory of her husband, Sid Wolchock; and Anna and Lyle Silverman.
The signers were introduced by Jewish Foundation CEO John Diamond, who, in addressing the signers, said: “Your stories, your generosity, and your commitment to the future of our community will continue to inspire others for generations to come. Thank you for making this meaningful commitment.”
Diamond read excerpts from what the signers had written in the Book of Life or described what had led some of them to be motivated to want to be part of the Book of Life.
From Brownie Fleishman’s inscription about her parents, Beryl and Esther Pierce, Diamond read: “The story of the Pierce family began in Winnipeg in the early 20th century, when Beryl and Esther Pierce came to Canada to establish a new life for themselves and their children.
“Beryl Benjamin Pierce was born in 1883 in Poltova, then part of the Russian Empire, and now Ukraine. He immigrated to Canada in 1912 and settled in Winnipeg, where he became a pioneer in the fur industry. A skilled designer and cutter, he established Pierce Fur Company in the Exchange District. The building that housed that business was later designated a municipal historic building.”
From Marilyn Goldberg’s inscription about her late husband, Norman: “Norman had a deep connection to Judaism and to the Jewish community. He attended synagogue regularly and served on the boards of both the Rosh Pina and the Shaarey Zedek synagogues. He was a leader in the efforts to change the Shaarey Zedek cemetery rules to allow interfaith couples to be buried together. His commitment to Tikun Olam extended to reaching out to the larger world. He helped lead the community’s efforts to settle refugees from Darfur.
“Our children characterized his faith this way: ‘His was a Judaism that was not orthodox in practice, but deeply rooted in Jewish values, tradition, and faith. This led him to good deeds, good words, a good life.’ “
From Melissa Rice’s inscription about her late husband, Richard: “Richard was immensely proud of his Jewish faith and heritage. He celebrated his bar mitzvah, participated in Kadima and AZA, and formed friendships that would last a lifetime.
“His close friend circle included and many who shared countless adventures, misadventures, and laughs over the years. Their friendships endured because Richard understood something important. Relationships require time, loyalty, and commitment.”
John Diamond spoke about Anna and Lyle Silverman’s long commitment to the Jewish community: “Both Anna and Lyle have always been strong philanthropic supporters of the local Jewish community, of Israel, and of Holocaust education.
“A commitment that was reinforced a few years ago after they had participated in an emotionally draining and unforgettable March of the Living trip that took them to the gates of Auschwitz. Their ongoing support of the Jewish community is also inspired by Anna’s memory of the tremendous help that her family received from the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society when they landed in Montreal as refugees. Their story goes on to say they have been lucky in love and in business, and now as they continue to enjoy a long, comfortable, and well deserved retirement, they are eager to share their good fortune with others. ‘We have a wonderful life and couldn’t ask for anything more,’ Lyle says, ‘so now it is time to give back.’
“Through hard work, a commitment to education, and a strong connection to their Jewish community, they built a family whose succeeding generations continue to benefit from the opportunities they created.”
Diamond said this about Sharon Wolchock’s inscription about her late husband, Sid: “Sid was Sharon’s biggest supporter. Her volunteer work with the National Council of Jewish Women and the Jewish Federation mattered as much to him as his own legal career, and he backed it fully. He wanted Sharon and their daughters rooted in the Jewish community in whatever way suited each of them. In 1983, on Sid and Sharon’s first trip to Israel, Sid’s lifelong connection with the Jewish state was born.
“Sid’s love of aviation and history and his pride in being a Jew emerged during that trip. He became a passionate supporter of Israel’s soldiers and donated club rooms on two Air Force bases named for his brothers Harvey and Bernie so that the hardworking and often underappreciated technical crews had somewhere pleasant to relax.”
Following the ceremonial signing ceremony, guests in attendance were treated to entertainment by a quartet of talented singers: Julia Kroft, Josh Bellan, Alyssa Crockett, and Vinnie Alberto.
Closing out the day’s programme, current Jewish Foundation Board Chair Dafna Shore paid tribute to this year’s signers – and to the more than 800 signers of the Book of Life who had preceded them:
Shore said: “What makes this program so extraordinary and why it continues to resonate with so many people is the opportunity it gives us to share the stories that shape who we are, stories that might not otherwise have been told.
“Through the Endowment Book of Life, these stories are given a permanent home. Together, they form a living history of Jewish life in Manitoba, one filled with resilience, compassion, humor, and hope. These stories are more than a record of the past. They offer lessons for the future, showing generations to come, what it means to belong, to give, and to take responsibility for the strength of our community. Thank you for adding your voice and your vision.
“To this collection and for making a legacy commitment to the Jewish Foundation of Manitoba, your generation helps ensure that the programs, schools, and organizations that sustain Jewish life here will continue to thrive for generations to come.
“One of the great privileges of serving as chair is helping advance the Foundation’s mission, securing our community’s future while supporting its growth today. The Endowment Book of Life embodies that mission beautifully. It reminds us that each of us in our own way has the power to make a lasting difference.
“As we reflect on the importance of leaving a lasting legacy, I’d also like to take a moment to remember two valued members of the Jewish Foundation and Manitoba family who we lost this past year, Sheldon Berney and Lillian Neaman.
“Both served as governors of the Foundation, demonstrating their commitment to our community through their leadership and service. We are grateful for their contributions and the role they played in helping strengthen the foundation. Their memories remind us that a lasting legacy is built through the generosity, dedication, and commitment of those that came before us. May their memories be a blessing.
“As long as members of our community continue to invest in tomorrow, through their generosity, their readership, and their willingness to share their stories, Jewish life in Manitoba will continue to flourish. Thank you all for being part of that story.”
Local News
Application filed by two former members of Etz Chayim Congregation against the congregation to have their memberships restored dismissed by judge
The following is taken from the Canadian Jewish News website: “Manitoba’s Court of King’s Bench has dismissed Hadass Eviatar and David Hoult’s application challenging the termination of their membership at Congregation Etz Chayim. In his decision, Justice Vic Toews noted that, although Hoult’s letter describing a hypothetical attack on the synagogue may have lacked sensitivity given the political climate, he did not intend to threaten violence against congregants. However, the judge ruled that the court did not have jurisdiction to intervene in the membership dispute under Manitoba’s Corporations Act, finding that the couple had no financial, proprietary or economic interest that would entitle them to the remedies they sought. The judge concluded that religious organizations are generally free to determine their own membership rules and ordered each side to bear its own legal costs.”
If you would like to read the original article that broke the story about the battle between Hadaass Eviatar and David Hoult with Etz Chayim Congregation you can go to Epic Court Battle.”
Local News
Jewish Federation now says Jewish population of Winnipeg in 2021 (according to the census) was 13,940 – not the 16,000 figure that the Federation had been touting for years
By BERNIE BELLAN (Posted Oct. 27, 2026) Longtime readers of The Jewish Post & News (and this website) would probably know that I have long had a very strong interest in establishing as accurate figures as possible when it has come to reporting the size of Winnipeg’s Jewish community.
For years I argued that our Jewish Federation was exaggerating the size of our Jewish population. I heard the figure of 16,000 bandied about by leaders in our community quite often when it came to reporting the size of our Jewish population – without any empirical evidence to back that figure up.
I had long maintained that the only reasonably accurate figures when it came to reporting the size of Winnipeg’s Jewish population were those produced by the late Evelyn Katz, when she was the unofficial demographer for the Jewish Federation – over 30 years ago. What Evelyn would do is keep careful track of births, deaths, numbers of newcomers but, perhaps most important: the number of people who had left our community.
Thus, in August 2022 when I interviewed Faye Rosenberg Cohen who, at the time, was just about to retire as the Jewish Federation’s Chief Planning and Allocations Officer, I was somewhat astonished to hear Faye say, when I asked her what proportion of our Jewish community was made up of immigrants, she answered that “I can honestly say when I look at those numbers it’s somewhere around 1/3 of the community.”
In response, I asked: “So you’d say it’s somewhere between 4-5,000?”
Faye said: “I think it’s more than that.”
I wrote in that article, “I indicated my skepticism at that time, saying ‘You know that I’ve always been skeptical about the numbers that have been used by the Federation for the population of the Jewish community. I think though that it’s always been more of a case of identification – who identifies as Jewish.’ ”
Later, after the results of the 2021 census were released, I wrote that “if you take into account the results of the 2021 census, the Jewish community cannot be larger than 14,270 at a maximum. But that figure would also include anyone who had either said either their ethnic origin was Jewish or their religion was Jewish.”
Since many of the individuals who had said on the 2021 census that their ethnic origin was Jewish, but their religion was something else, I maintained that ascertaining the real size of our Jewish community was highly problematic.
Still, for the sake of argument I was willing to accept that, realistically, it was somewhere between 13,000-14,000 – but nowhere close to the figure of 16,000 that had come to be suggested by our then president of the Jewish Federation or by other leading figures in our community.
So, it was with a sense of satisfaction that I heard Sharon Graham, who is now the Jewish Federation’s Community Planning and Allocations Lead say to an audience of over 50 people who were at the Gwen Secter Centre on Thursday, October 22, that the Jewish community in 2021 was – at a maximum: 13,940.
Sharon was at the Gwen Secter Centre to speak to Remis Lecture attendees. Her presentation preceded a presentation by Jewish Federation CEO Jeff Lieberman. Sharon used a PowerPoint presentation to provide some very interesting insights into where our Jewish community was at in 2021- and I’m offering some parts of her presentation here for you to read because I thought they were so interesting.
I had actually made many of the same observations about the results of the 2021 census in my own reporting back in 2022, but seeing what I had written confirmed by the Jewish Federation’s point person on planning told me that Sharon has a much more realistic view of our community than did Faye Rosenberg Cohen.
Here, for instance, is a slide that shows the proportion of our Jewish community that is made up of immigrants. It’s slightly under one fifth, not the one third percentage that Faye had suggested.
But, what really set Sharon’s presentation apart from anything else I’ve ever seen presented by someone from the Jewish Federation – other than the aforementioned Evelyn Katz, was the slide she projected which showed that, while there had been a large influx of newcomers to Winnipeg’s Jewish community between 2016-2021 there had also been a significantly high number of people who had left our Jewish community in those same years, as you can see in the following slide:
That is something we just don’t hear discussed by leaders of our Jewish organizations, but let’s be realistic: For many newcomers who came to Winnipeg and were counted as new members of our Jewish community, Winnipeg – for a variety of reasons, was a stepping stone to other communities. It may have been for reasons of better job opportunities, moving closer to other family members, or – the reason that we hear so often when it comes to people saying they want to leave Winnipeg: the weather.
But, whatever the reason, Sharon’s figures show that, as much as GrowWinnipeg may have been an abiding success when it’s come to attracting newcomers to our Jewish community here, getting them to stay long term is a different story.
And, while there were other aspects of Sharon’s presentation that certainly merit discussion, especially the figures she produced about intermarriage, rather than delving into them here, I thought it useful simply to insert them for you, the reader, to see – and draw your own conclusions.
