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
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:
Local News
Nakba exhbit at CMHR – you can see it right here and make your own assessment
By BERNIE BELLAN (Posted June 26, updated July 19) The Nakba exhibit at the Canadian Exhibit for Human Rights opened to the public June 27. The morning before the exhibit was set to open to the public, (it had a private opening for invited guests the evening of June 26) we received a press release from the CMHR. That press release gave a very detailed description of what was in the exhibit, along with photos (supplied by Annie Kierans of the CMHR).
There is also a link right at the beginning of the press release that will allow you to watch the same videos that anyone attending the exhibit can watch. We reprinted what was sent to us without making one edit. We leave it to you to form your own opinion as to whether the exhibit is fair in its presentation, and whether it is lacking “context” – which is an accusation that has been levelled at the exhibit’s organizers by some representatives of Jewish organizations.
We have received many emails in reaction to the exhibit. If you have an opinion and would like to see it published on this website, you can send it to jewishp@mymts.net, but please indicate whether you would be willing to have it published on this website.
Here is what we received the morning of June 26:
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
A photo that’s being circulated on the internet about me
For those of you not familiar with nutjob Michael Kalo – the psycho who created the notorious “$hitler’s List” years ago and the same psycho who went after Ben Carr, well – now he’s obviously taken a strong disliking to the stance I’ve taken on the Nakba exhibit at the Canadian Museum for Human Rights. (You can read elsewhere on this website how I simply posted the entire exhibit as it is – and asked readers to form their own opinions.)
Kalo likes to send out emails to various individual using phony names – such as Frank Ostrowski. When people ask me (or asked Ben Carr) why we don’t take action against him, my answer is: What’s the use? He only basks in the attention.
So Michael – enjoy the attention you’re receiving. I know how much of an embarrassment you are to your wonderfully talented daughters.
