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
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.
Local News
Marty Green expands his protest against extremist Jewish settlers to two more venues – and is arrested twice more
(Tuesday, October 27) We received the following press release about Marty Green being arrested again, both at the University of Manitoba and at Shaarey Zedek Synagogue:
Both sides came to blows on Saturday, October 24, at the Shaarey Zedek Synagogue as security personnel sought to prevent Marty Green from interfering with synagogue traffic as he protested just outside synagogue grounds against the actions of religious settlers in Israel’s occupied West Bank territory. Synagogue Executive Director Rena Secter Elbaze quickly intervened to prevent further escalation. Police arrived shorty thereafter and detained Green for 45 minutes before driving him home and releasing him. It is not clear whether their decision not to lay charges was the result of their own onsite investigation or whether it was at the request of the synagogue executive.
Green has now been arrested four times in the last month and faces multiple charges for disturbing the peace, including two episodes at the Asper Campus and one more this past Friday (Oct. 23) at the University of Manitoba. While Green says initially he was merely handing out leaflets (at the Asper Campus), since his first arrest on September 23, he has returned to the campus with a large placard and an acccordion, accompanying himself while singing songs with lyrics that include such phrases as “The Jews Are Bananas….B-A-N-A-N-A-S”. In addition to listing actions of the religious settlers as including arson, vandalism, and theft, he pointedly alleges that the IDF has been backing up the settlers in their actions.
Green had earlier notified the Shaarey Zedek that he was contemplating bringing his protest to the synagogue. He was told that if he attempted to enter the grounds he would be prevented from doing so. At that time, Secter Elbaze told Green that his intentions were inappropriate, declaring the synagogue to be “a house of worship dedicated to prayer, learning, community, and spiritual engagement.” Green responded that if the synagogue were willing to contact the Crown and inform them that “that there was never any legal basis for their claims that I was conducting myself inappropriately at the Asper Campus” (with regard to his earlier arrests) that he would “voluntarily refrain from carrying his informational campaign to the synagogue(s).”
Green further argues that the recent “psak” (religious ruling) by leading Israeli rabbi Rov Dov Lior, in which Lior declares that it is not merely permissible but praiseworthy for Jews to steal olives from Arab orchards….that this ruling brings his protest within the proper realm of religious discourse. He says further that if the local rabbis were willing to speak out to their congregations against the aforesaid psak, that he might have refrained from taking his campaign to their grounds.
Although Green was released on Saturday without charges, police confiscated his placard. They explained that it was being held as evidence pending an investigation by Major Crimes as to whether it constituted hate literature.
There was no further information given as to what happened at the University of Manitoba.
