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
Cheryl Hirsch Katz, Jewish Child and Family Service’s longest serving staffer, set to retire at end of the month
By MYRON LOVE “I loved working at Jewish Child and Family Service,” says Cheryl Hirsh Katz, who is due to retire at the end of June. “I have always appreciated the warm and welcoming atmosphere here. I feel that the people working here are my extended family. I am going to miss my colleagues”.
“I have derived great satisfaction over the years to have been able to help many people in our community of all ages through my work at JCFS,” she continues.
After 44 years at the agency, Katz, the longest-serving member of the staff, was given an appreciative send-off at the JCFS’s recent (June 23) Annual General Meeting at the Shaarey Zedek Synagogue.
The daughter of Art and Bess Hirsh, Cheryl grew up in Garden City. She attended Peretz School, then Jefferson Junior High and Garden City Collegiate. She joined the staff of JCFS in 1981, shortly after receiving her Bachelor of Social Work degree.
She earned an MSW in 1990.
“I chose to become a social worker,” she recalls, “because I always wanted to be able to help people.”
Katz was originally hired by JCFS to work with newcomers. After a couple of years, she was given responsibility for looking after the needs of older adults.
“I really enjoyed working in older adult services,” she says. “That is where I spent the bulk of my time at JCFS.”
After ten years as a case worker, she was promoted to a supervisory role. Later, she was also given responsibility for mental health and addictions programming and settlement services, while keeping the older adult files under her purview.
“As a supervisor, I wasn’t directly involved with individual clients,” she points out. “I was more involved with programming. Among the programs for seniors we organized were – for example – sessions on elder abuse, digital storytelling and memory loss.”
She notes that one of the trends she has seen over the last 44 years is that people are living longer and living in their homes longer. A lot more of our clients are living well into their 90s,” she observes. “We have had to continually expand our staff and the services we provide in order to accommodate the growing demands of an aging population.”
She also spoke of the mental health needs of seniors and aging Holocaust survivors.
She says that she has mixed feelings about leaving JCFS. “After so many years working full time, I am going to have to create a new routine,” she comments.
She notes that, now that she is retired, she will have more time to spend with her parents – who are in their 90s.
And then, there are the two dogs to look after. “I will have time now to try new activities,” she says. “ I might learn to play mah-jong.”
She speaks about maybe doing some traveling – although her husband, Murray, is still working full time.
(She and Murray have one daughter, Farah.)
“Retirement may also include some volunteering,” she adds.
It is quite likely, she will be continuing her association with JCFS but in a volunteer capacity.
Local News
Gray Academy students shine in provincial, national debating competitions
By MYRON LOVE It has been another good year for Gray Academy’s high school students who participated in provincial and national debating competitions. The best results were recorded by Grade 9 student Noa Mednikov, who finished fourth overall nationally, fourth in interpretive reading, and fifth in persuasive speaking at the junior National Public Speaking Championship in early May in Vancouver.
Last October, in the Junior Provincial British Parliamentary Championship – which was held at St. John’s-Ravenscourt – Noa and her partner, Raya Braunstein, finished third as a team while Raya placed third in individual debating.
Their fellow Grade 9 student Maxim Moscalenkov tied for first in persuasive speaking in Vancouver, while the Gray Academy team of Gabe Tapper and Aaron Koplovich finished fifth. Aaron also finished fifth in his individual debate.
Earlier, in March, Maxim finished fifth in the Provincial Juniors debating competition, which was held at Balmoral Hall He and his debate partner, Nate Shenkarow, finished seventh among the teams entered. Last November, he and partner, Ethan Tenenbein, finished seventh in the Junior Prepared Tournament – just behind the Gray Academy team of Nate Shenkarow and Jack Kay.
At the senior high level in that competition, the team of Jacob Tenenbein and Jonah Novoseller finished fourth and Jacob was recognized as fifth best in an individual capacity. Jonah and Jacob also paired up to win the Asper Cup, which was held at their home school.
Jacob represented Manitoba at the Junior National Speech Championship in Vancouver in May and, last October, he and Grade 12 Gray Academy students Julie Krozkin and Daniel Bokser represented Canada at an international debating tournament in Bermuda.
Gray Academy’s debating program was introduced by Linda Martin in 2003. She also led the debating teams at Balmoral Hall. In 2011, Martin was succeeded by Gray Academy high school English teacher Andrew Kaplan.
“Andrew has done a wonderful job with the debating program” says Martin, who has a debating trophy at Gray Academy named in her honour, as well as a provincial trophy for best individual junior debater. “Over the years, Gray Academy students have done very well in many local, national and international competitions,” she adds.
About three weeks ago, this writer had the opportunity to sit down with Andrew Kaplan and six of the school’s top debaters while they discussed the benefits of learning how to debate. According to Noah Strauss – who competed in the Junior Provincials at Balmoral Hall in March, public speaking leaves him with a feeling of accomplishment.
“It’s a good skill set to have,” he observes. “It builds confidence.”
“A benefit of being able to debate is that you learn how to convince people that you know what you are talking about,” adds Maxim Moscolenkov.
Raya Braunstein notes that being able to debate is a skill that she expects to be helpful in many university courses which she may choose to take.
As Andrew Kaplan notes, the ability to express yourself has a great impact in whatever career you choose to pursue.
He points out that debating is compulsory at Gray Academy for all Grade 7 and 8 students – and students can continue debating as an option in the higher grades
Of course, competitive debating is not for everyone. For those students who opt to take that path, the journey begins with internal school debate competition – with the top debating teams and individuals qualifying for local tournaments and – potentially – beyond.
Andrew Kaplan reports that a small number of high schools in Winnipeg and southern Manitoba have active debating programs – including St. Johns Ravenscourt, St. Paul’s High School, St. Mary’s Academy, Garden City and Maples Collegiates in the Seven Oaks School Division, St. Maurice (a Catholic School), as well as Morden Collegiate and Dasmesh, a Sikh private school.
Kaplan expresses his appreciation to the Asper Foundation and an endowment spearheaded by the Kives Family for providing funding for the Gray Academy debating program – as well as the Andrew Slough Foundation – which was established by his friends in memory of the outstanding former Ravenscourt student debater and lawyer who passed away suddenly two years ago at the still young age of 38.
I am confident that our Jewish community can look forward to the continued success of Gray Academy’s star debaters and to the continual emergence of future stars as the times goes by.
Local News
Antisemitism has crept into grade school in Canada
Antisemitism in Canada has moved beyond protests and politics; it is now entering classrooms and altering how Jewish children see themselves functioning within them.
A a university student I have observed the experience of my younger brother in grade eight as a Jewish student. Over the past few months, his school has been at the center of several deeply troubling incidents that have made him feel unsafe in our parks, community, and even his school. Swastikas were drawn around the community, in parks and ponds. Additionally, an older man, who claims to be a pro-Palestinian influencer, stood outside his predominantly Jewish school wearing a keffiyeh, filming a video which then circulated between students on TikTok.
This same man later showed up to our local Jewish community center in keffiyeh to allegedly watch his son play basketball where my brother and many of his classmates go for their lessons, basketball games, and Jewish events. These moments made him and his peers feel watched and targeted just for being Jewish. Local political representatives condemned the incidents and raised awareness about antisemitism, but the fear among students didn’t go away. The feeling of being targeted for simply existing has been taught to my brother, something my parents had tried their hardest to escape from.
Most recently, my brother was chosen to represent his school at a regional science fair. When one of the judges arrived wearing a keffiyeh, he froze. For many, including my brother after the incidents he has faced, the keffiyeh represents a political message. But even more so for my younger brother, it is tied to the fear and intimidation he had already experienced. He felt nervous, distracted, and unsure of how to act.
This is not about silencing political expression. It is about a child who came to share his ideas and left feeling uncertain and afraid. It is about the atmosphere forming in Canadian schools, where Jewish students are being made to feel targeted and unwelcome.
His school made an effort to address the incidents, but the impact is lasting. Posts on social media, much can be very vague at times about inclusion cannot fully undo the feeling of being singled out. A kind word from a teacher does not erase the fear that builds when threats are left unspoken but deeply felt.
I am writing this as a sister who watched her younger brother lose a moment that should have been filled with confidence and pride. He deserved to feel safe. So do all Jewish students in this country.
Moving forward, schools must take concrete steps to protect all students. Antisemitism cannot only be addressed when it becomes violent or overt. It must also be recognized when it appears as intimidation, symbolic targeting, or political messaging that creates fear among students. Children should never have to question whether they are safe in their own classrooms or community spaces.
Events that are meant to support and celebrate students must remain focused on them. Individuals who feel the need to bring political symbols or messages into school grounds or children’s events should not be welcomed in those spaces. Schools must make it clear that their environments exist to support learning, safety, and inclusion, not to host agendas that can intimidate or isolate students.
Administrators and educators must develop clear guidelines for identifying and responding to antisemitic behavior in all its forms. This includes strengthening security measures, offering ongoing staff training, and engaging directly with Jewish families to understand their concerns. Inclusion is not a one-time statement. It is a responsibility that must be reflected in everyday decisions and actions. No child should ever feel unsafe or unwelcome because of their identity.
The author is a Campus Media Fellow with HonestReporting Canada and Allied Voices for Israel who lives in Toronto.