Local News
John Spencer: World’s “leading urban warfare expert” gives talk at Berney Theatre on September 11
By BERNIE BELLAN On Wednesday, September 11 an event was held at the Berney Theatre featuring John Spencer. The event was billed as “Hamas’ War: Truth and Consequences.”
Spencer, who retired from the US Army as a major, was described on the poster advertising the event as “the world’s leading urban warfare expert” and a “strategic adviser to world leaders.”
According to the website of the Modern Warfare Institute, which Spencer says he helped to create, “John W. Spencer currently serves as the chair of urban warfare studies at the Modern War Institute, codirector of the Urban Warfare Project, and host of the Urban Warfare Project Podcast. He is also a founding member of the International Working Group on Subterranean Warfare.
“He served over twenty-five years in the Army as an infantry soldier having held ranks from private to sergeant first class and second lieutenant to major. His assignments as an active duty Army officer included two combat deployments to Iraq as both an infantry platoon leader and company commander, Ranger instructor with the Army’s Ranger School, Joint Chiefs of Staff and Army Staff intern, fellow with the chief of staff of the Army’s Strategic Studies Group, and strategic planner and then deputy director of the Modern War Institute where he was instrumental in the design and formation of the institute.”
The email advertising the event that we received came from an organization known as “TAFSIK.” We have attempted to obtain more information about TAFSIK – and who’s behind it, but in response to two emails we sent to them asking them to describe who’s behind the organization, we simply got back a response that was a regurgitation of material already available on their website: “Tafsik organization emerged resolutely from the tragedy of October 7th, dedicated to combating Jew Hatred in Canada and beyond. By forging alliances with diverse communities—including Iranian, Indian, Christian, Yazidi, Venezuelan, and many other groups—Tafsik is uniting voices against Jew hatred on a global scale. The organization hosts significant events featuring prominent figures such as Douglas Murray, Gad Saad, Hillel Fuld, and Colonel John Spencer, to illuminate the challenges faced by Israel and the Jewish community worldwide. Additionally, Tafsik is leveraging cutting-edge AI technology to combat Jew Hate more effectively. As one of the fastest-growing grassroots organizations in Canada, Tafsik is committed to fostering understanding and solidarity in the fight against hatred.”
There were also names of three other organizations that were listed as sponsoring the Spencer event on the email received from TAFSIK: The Jewish Federation of Winnipeg; another organization called “Blue &”…something (the logo is unintelligible); and a third organization called Manitoba Israeli Coalition.
As well, during the event two other organizations were mentioned as having had some involvement: Winnipeg Friends of Israel and Bridges for Peace.
This event had an inordinate amount of security surrounding it. Registrants were told in advance that the actual venue would not be disclosed until shortly before the event. Here is what the email said: “Given recent threats and security events across Canada and elsewhere, we ask that you please keep this information confidential for security purposes…Filming and other recording will not be permitted.”
As it was, the venue turned out to be the Berney Theatre in the Asper Campus. When attendees arrived they might have seen one lonely protester, whose face was fully covered in a kaffiyah, holding a Palestinian flag. But there were also at least 20 Winnipeg Police Service members there – and at least five police cars. (There seemed to be even more police by the time attendees left the campus between 9:30-10:00 pm. The cost to hire all those police must have been exorbitant.)
Wow! We wondered what might be said that would be so sensitive as to prohibit recording – and how much money was spent in holding an event that was limited to only 200 individuals (the maximum capacity of the Berney Theatre), yet required a huge turnout of police.
To be honest, we didn’t hear anything from Spencer that one would think would have required a prohibition on recording the event – no discussion of military tactics or anything that he hasn’t already gone on the record as having written or said previously.
Spencer (who completed a 25-year period of service in the US Army infantry with the rank of “major,” but later was promoted to the rank of “colonel” in something called the “California State Guard”) focused largely on defending the IDF from accusations that its tactics merit criticism as, for instance, that they have been “disproportionate” to the level of threat posed by Hamas.
Interestingly, Spencer gave a full length interview to the Canadian Jewish News two days prior to the September 11 event in Winnipeg during which he went into a great more detail about Israeli military operations in Gaza than he did in the Berney Theatre on September 11. (You can read that entire interview at https://jewishpostandnews.ca/faqs/rokmicronews-fp-1/u-s-military-expert-john-spencer-to-speak-in-winnipeg-sept-11-argues-israel-isnt-committing-genocide-in-gaza/.)
As noted, the major point of Spencer’s talk, rather than being an analysis of military tactics employed by the Israel Defence Forces – which, I was rather hoping to hear, was a rebuttal of the accusation that has been levelled against Israel that what it is has been doing in Gaza amounts to “genocide.”
Here is some of what Spencer had to say during what was almost an hour-long talk:
“Just about everything that has been said about Israel and Gaza is a lie.”
There is a “global deficiency in understanding urban combat…There has been a long history of urban combat” but, until quite recently, urban combat has been about “fighting for cities, not in cities.”
Later, Spencer expounded upon this theme when he examined in some detail battles that took place in Manila (1945), and in Mosul (2016-17), in which cities were ravaged as a result of opposing forces trying to defend positions on the one hand, while other forces were trying to take those positions on the other – but in both cases, while there was a certain amount of underground fighting, the forces attempting to defend their positions were largely above ground and their ostensible purpose was to prevent the enemy from overtaking their positions. He contrasted those situations with what Hamas’s only goal throughout this war has been, which is “to survive the conflict.”
As for how to assess the current war in Gaza, Spencer suggested that “historians take about 20 years to write about combat,” so he was reluctant to weigh in on how successful Israel has been in achieving its goals.
He did say that he has been to Israel three times since October 7 and has been inside different Hamas tunnels on two different occasions. He did agree that the extent of Hamas’s preparations for this war – which were over “15 years” in the making, were quite impressive, but when it comes down to taking a position on whether Israel is actually winning the war, it was in his interview with the CJN that he was far more decisive in his opinion than he was during his talk in the Berney Theatre, when he didn’t take a clear position on that question. Here’s what he said during that September 10 interview:
“I wrote a Foreign Affairs article countering actually four major articles that have been published on ‘Israel isn’t winning. Israel is actually creating more terrorists than it’s killing’. All of these wrong frameworks.
“Israel absolutely is winning its war against Hamas in Gaza, because I taught strategy at West Point. Wars have a start, they have an end. They have political goals, which can change, although Israel hasn’t changed its three primary goals for the war against Hamas. Those are: number one, return the hostages. Number two, destroy Hamas, its political and military power in the Gaza Strip. And number three, secure the borders.
“There’s different wording for them, but those are the three goals. And Israel is absolutely [winning] all three of those. Especially with the hostages. They brought home over half the hostages to include over a hundred living hostages. But there is the myth that Israel could have brought them home a different way. It could have been negotiated in the beginning.”
In fact, during his talk Spencer paid scant attention to the situation regarding the hostages. It would have been interesting to hear from an urban warfare expert what he makes of the challenge presented by Hamas likely holding the remaining hostages in its network of tunnels. There have been several articles written – especially in the New York Times, detailing the enormous difficulties the IDF has had in going into Hamas tunnels. Like many other commentators though, Spencer noted that the number of tunnels Hamas had built came as a major surprise to the IDF.
A major part of Spencer’s talk, however, was given over to a rejection of various arguments that have been used against Israel, including that its response to the Hamas attack on October 7 has been “disproportionate,” and the suggestion that Israel has been engaged in “genocide.” Again – it would have been nice to be able to record Spencer’s talk so as to give you a more precise account of what he said, but during that September 10 interview with the CJN he made the exact same points in response to criticisms of Israel’s conduct of the war:
“Well, at the macro level, it seems for Israel, Gaza is where the truth dies. The accusation that Israel has been disproportionate, indiscriminate, excessive, or starving the population. While none of those are true, there’s actually a counterfactual huge body of evidence, actually real and physical. Like the “starvation”. I went to the Netzarim corridor, saw where the (U.S. humanitarian) pier used to be, and there were just mountains, a whole field of humanitarian aid that just hadn’t been picked up. But from the actual execution of war, like you said, for the IDF, there’s no comparison. So the IDF was being compared to other operations where just this tunnel challenge of being able to find and operate with an entire world underneath the urban areas.
“Hamas built this world underneath their civilians for the sole purpose of using everything on the surface to cause [criticism from] the international community. the destruction, the civilian casualties, everything, but all these lies about being disproportionate, proportionality–nobody’s faced this challenge in modern history. No military has.
“And then the other thing, which is what the prime minister and other Israeli officials or government use, which is backed up by data, is that in this execution of this war against Hamas, a defender who’s had 15 years to prepare for the attack of the IDF, Israel has done more and has implemented more civilian harm-mitigation measures than any military in the history of war, to include the U. S., Canada, the coalitions, to prevent civilian casualties and destruction. Like evacuating cities, like dropping [leaflets], the use of daily pauses, the use of certain munitions. There’s a long list that I go through. There’s actually over 10 civilian harm-mitigation measures that Israel has implemented, some that have never been created before in the history of war, like tracking civilian populations with their cell phones on or off and then restricting them. This is what I saw in Khan Younis, restricting the IDF operations because of that overriding aspect of preventing civilian harm, trying to get the civilians out of harm’s way, even though Egypt, which owns a lot of the destruction, the civilian casualties, and [took in] not a single refugee. So even that aspect of fighting a war against a military who’s trying to get their civilians killed without a complete area to move civilians to, into the Sinai, which would be really realistic. So the idea of how to find a way to create a safer zone within Gaza while still moving against Hamas.”
Spencer cited the claim that over 40,000 civilians have been killed during this war. He countered with the claim that, even if that figure is close to being correct – which he didn’t concede, over 13,000 of the deaths have been of Hamas fighters. (What Spencer didn’t do though, is offer an assessment of how strong Hamas remains. Recent reports that Hamas has been resurfacing in the north – which the IDF had previously claimed to have been rid of Hamas fighters, would tend to indicate just how difficult it will be to subdue Hamas militarily.)
Still, even if one were to accept the notion that there have been a large number of civilians killed during this war, Spencer suggested that one must take into account various criteria in evaluating to what extent a military force engaged in warfare with an enemy that is not only willing to use innocent civilians as human shields, it actually wants to see large number of casualties among its own population.
He offered these criteria for determining the level of responsibility one might attach to a military force when it is engaged in urban warfare where civilians are present:
• military necessity
• proportionality
• distinction (between civilians and combatants)
• humanity
• honor
Spencer noted that in the annals of warfare, even when tens of thousands of civilians have been killed as the result of urban warfare (or, as was the case in Manila in 1945 when the US Army fought to liberate that city from the Japanese and over 100,000 civilians died), the defending force did not deliberately want to see civilians die in order to turn world opinion against the enemy force – which is what he said, Hamas has been doing. Even ISIS, Spencer claimed, as brutal and savage as it was, was willing to surrender control of cities in situations where it was clear it was about to be defeated, rather than see entire civilian populations killed in order to enflame world opinion against the attacking forces. Hamas, he said, has as its clear goal, to survive – and if it can pressure Israel into accepting a ceasefire that will allow them to do that – even at the cost of seeing thousands of its fellow Palestinians killed as a result, then it will have achieved its aim, Spencer said.
And, as he said during the CJN interview, Hamas will want to pursue its goal of survival by having the international community exert pressure on Israel to accept a ceasefire that will allow Hamas to regroup only to attack Israel yet again – and again.
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
Local News
The Jewish Post Ltd.’s brand new website
Click here to be taken to our new website featuring foods you can find on Facebook Marketplace
