Features
Defining antisemitism – a history of the “IHRA” definition
By SIMONE COHEN SCOTT Late last year I was asked by The Jerusalem Report to interview the Hon. Irwin Cotler, upon his appointment by Prime Minister Trudeau as Special Envoy for Preserving Holocaust Remembrance and Combating Antisemitism. His responsibilities will cover domestic and international antisemitism, and Holocaust education at every level.
His first assignment was to head the Canadian Delegation to the plenary of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, or IHRA, (pronounced eera). The meeting, hosted in Leipzig, Germany, was already in progress, but being virtual it was easy to jump in, except for the time difference. Until that assignment, the plethora of acronyms signifying organizations studying antisemitism and Holocaust had formed a sort of alphabet soup in my head. Ever since, like with a word you’ve just looked up, I notice references to IHRA all over the place, especially in connection with its definition of antisemitism. This is causing a lot of consternation among even more groups, with and without acronyms.
More about that later; first I’d like to focus on the two Winnipeg delegates at the plenary. When I spoke to Prof. Cotler, the meeting had just wound up, and when he learned I was from Winnipeg he mentioned how impressed he had been with Belle Jarniewski and David Matas. I made up my mind right then to pitch this article idea to Bernie; I believed it would be interesting to learn through these members of our community, what IHRA, the plenary, the definition, and the work, is all about.
David Matas, senior legal counsel at Bnai B’brith Canada, was one of the Canadian delegates at the original meeting in Stockholm in 2000, which drafted the founding document (Stockholm Declaration) that became IHRA. He attended again in 2007, 2008, 2018 and every year since. This recent plenary ran from November 24th to December 3rd, which meant attending a couple of weeks of meetings at 5:30 am Winnipeg time, 12:30 pm Leipzig time. Cotler joined the second week, from Montreal. Meeting electronically with the Canadian delegates was his first task as special envoy.
Belle Jarniewski, Executive Director of the Jewish Heritage Centre of Western Canada, was part of the national group bringing Canada into the International Task Force for Cooperation on Holocaust Education, Remembrance and Research, (which evolved to become IHRA). When Canada became the 27th member of IHRA, (on June 24th, 2009, according to the Canada and the IHRA websites), she became a member of that delegation.
When a country joins IHRA, among other criteria, it must establish a Holocaust Memorial Day, and commit to Holocaust education at a senior political level. Its archives for the years 1933-1950 must be open for research, allowing academic, educational, and public access to the examination of those years of the country’s history. IHRA currently has 34 Members, one Liaison country, seven Observer Countries and eight Permanent International Partners, studying the latest developments in the field of Holocaust education, remembrance and research. According to IHRA’s own report on the plenary, there were 250 delegates at the meeting.
I asked Jarniewski how she saw IHRA differing from all those other organizations (the alphabet soup). She explained “…IHRA is the only intergovernmental organization mandated to focus solely on Holocaust-related issues, bringing together government representatives as well as experts. In addition to the definitions on antisemitism, Holocaust denial and distortion, and anti-Roma discrimination, the IHRA’s academic research publications have contributed greatly to the field of Holocaust Studies. IHRA’s pedagogical experts continue to develop detailed resources in order to help educators keep abreast of the latest best practices in education on the Holocaust and antisemitism. IHRA also supports and helps fund projects and conferences in the fields of Holocaust remembrance, research, and education. This in turn provides guidance to policy-makers, educators, civil society, and researchers.”
Part of Cotler’s mandate in his new position will be to address Holocaust denial and distortion, together with enhancing the adoption and implementation of the IHRA definition. Anyone who has experienced antisemitism, even in a mild form, recognizes it and doesn’t need a definition, but so that scholarly folk can study and deal with it empirically, and so it can be applied in a practical sense, a working definition is necessary. The definition was first developed in 2005 by the European Union Monitoring Centre. After careful study and adaptation it was adopted by IHRA in 2016.
It consists of two parts. The first part reads as follows: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
The second part, accompanying the statement and forming an integral part of it, are 11 indicators of antisemitism. In total, the definition is meant to be a working tool, not legally binding, and it is gradually being adopted by governments, parliaments and communities at all levels, in efforts to combat this oldest hatred which irrationally metastasizes wherever it infects.
Recently in the JP&N, Jarniewski wrote an effective rebuttal to a complaint someone had sent the newspaper regarding some of the definition’s examples, which he said made it inconvenient for him to express certain of his ideas. In her rebuttal she stated… “The definition must be adopted holus bolus along with the examples”…a stipulation that she says has been “….repeated over and over again by the IHRA.” Here are the 11 examples, as stated on IHRA’s website:
—Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
—Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
—Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
—Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality, of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
—Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
—Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
—Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
—Applying double standards by requiring of Israel a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
—Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
—Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
-Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
There they are! Taken together with the earlier section, they define antisemitism. It must have been an emotionally wrenching exercise, putting this list together.
In November 2019, Matas presented a paper entitled “The IHRA definition of antisemitism: criticisms and responses” for a seminar at the Kantor Centre on Contemporary Antisemitism, wherein he methodically set out the extent of official acceptance of the definition, criticism of that acceptance, and proposed responses to the critics. In it he urges member states of the European Union to encourages its members that have not done so yet to “…endorse the non legally binding working definition of antisemitism employed by the IHRA, as a useful guidance tool in education and training, including for law enforcement authorities in their efforts to identify and investigate antisemitic attacks efficiently and effectively.”
Several EU members have indeed done so, and in fact the EU has recently put out a handbook for practical use of the IHRA working definition. I further asked Matas if the United Nations had endorsed the definition. He referred me to the remarks in November 2020 of Miguel Moratinos, High Representative for the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations: “I plan to work on having an agreement on a definition of anti-Semitism within the UN, based on the IHRA definition which constitutes a basis to start from.” (I suppose it would be too much to ask that he incorporate the part about Israel?)
According to Matas, any organization can accept the definition of antisemitism. He told me that Bnai B’rith is proactive in getting organizations to endorse the effort, but any association can introduce discussion and begin the procedure…. sports organizations, service clubs like Kiwanis and Rotary, Police Departments, Community Clubs, synagogues, community newspapers. Jarniewski pointed out municipalities in Quebec and Ontario that have endorsed the IHRA definition include: Westmount; Cote Saint-Luc; Aurora; Newmarket; Markham; and Richmond Hill.
Notably, one of the accomplishments of the plenary this year has been the definition of “anti-Roma”. Between 250,000 and 500,000 Roma perished in the Holocaust, out of a pre-war population of between 1 and 1.5 million. As special delegate Cotler never tires of pointing out “…while it begins with the Jews it doesn’t end with Jews, and antisemitism is the bloodied canary in the mineshaft of global evil today.” I asked if there were Roma delegates to IHRA and Jarniewski told me there were, including in the Canadian delegation.
Features
Cheap Weed In Canada: A Smart Shopper’s Guide
Since legalisation, cannabis has settled into Canadian life as an ordinary, regulated purchase. And like groceries or gas, the price can vary a surprising amount from one shop to the next once you start comparing.
For a lot of buyers, that has turned the focus to value. Affordable options like cheap weed prove a lower price and a tested, quality product can go together. This guide explains how to shop smart in Canada without cutting corners.
Why Has Affordable Cannabis Become So Popular?
Because the novelty has worn off, and buyers now shop like they do for anything else. In the early days, people paid whatever the new legal stores asked. That has changed.
A few things drove that shift:
- A maturing market, with more retailers competing on price.
- Online sellers, whose lower overhead keeps costs down.
- Savvier buyers, who now compare rather than grab the first option.
- A wider range of formats and budget-friendly bulk sizes.
The result is a real focus on getting value for money. Crowdsourced figures put the early average near $6.85 a gram, and cannabis price data from Statistics Canada shows how legal and illegal prices have differed since 2018.
That gap is exactly why shopping around pays off. A careful buyer can pay noticeably less than a careless one for a comparable product. The sticker price is only where the comparison starts.
How Do Canadians Shop for Cheaper Weed?
With the same care they bring to any regular expense. A handful of habits make the biggest difference. These are the ones worth adopting:
- Compare the per-gram price. It is the only fair way to weigh two options.
- Buy larger formats. Bigger quantities almost always lower the unit cost.
- Skip premium markups. Plain flower beats pricey pre-rolls for value.
- Watch for sales. Online retailers run them often, especially on holidays.
- Match potency to the plan. A stronger product means you use less each time.
None of these involve settling for a worse product. They simply put your money to better use, the same way you would stretch your money on any other purchase. The cheapest sticker is rarely the best value, and the priciest is seldom worth it.
The same logic applies whether you shop in person or online in Canada. Read the label, weigh the cost per gram, and let the numbers guide you rather than the branding.
Is There a Catch With Low-Priced Cannabis?
Not in the legal market, which is the part newcomers miss. In Canada, every legal product is tested and labelled to the same standard, whatever it costs.
That means a budget option from a licensed seller has cleared the same checks as a premium one. It is screened for contaminants, and its potency is verified. Price reflects branding, packaging, and store margins far more than basic safety.
The genuine differences are in the finer points. Premium flower might offer a better aroma or a richer flavour, and some formats simply cost more to make. For everyday use, though, a well-priced choice usually performs just fine.
The real catch is buying outside the legal system. Health Canada’s overview of the Cannabis Act is a sensible read on what legal really means. Buying legal protects you, not buying expensive.
What Makes a Cheap Purchase a Smart One?
A couple of quick checks, mostly. A real bargain holds up to a second look, while a false one does not. The table below shows what to weigh.
| Check | Why It Matters |
| Is the seller licensed? | Only legal retailers guarantee tested product |
| What is the per-gram cost? | The headline price can hide a weak deal |
| Is potency on the label? | Higher strength can stretch your money |
| Are there bulk or sale deals? | These usually beat single-unit pricing |
| What does delivery cost? | Shipping can erase an online saving |
Any shaky answer there is a reason to pause. A licensed seller with clear pricing and labelling is the safe choice, while a suspiciously cheap unlicensed source is not. The legal age applies regardless, at 18 or 19 depending on the province.
Treat cannabis like any other considered purchase. Compare, check the details, and let value rather than habit lead the decision. That is how modest savings add up across a whole year.
Before You Buy
- Cannabis prices vary widely by retailer, format, and store overhead.
- Comparing the per-gram cost is the fairest way to judge value.
- All legal Canadian cannabis is tested, so cheaper is not unsafe.
- Bulk buys, sales, and plain formats keep spending down.
- Always buy from a licensed source, and factor in delivery fees.
Photo by Jakub Zerdzicki on Pexels
Alt text: A shopper comparing prices online at home
Smart Savings, No Compromise
Buying affordable cannabis in Canada is not about chasing the lowest number you can find. It is about understanding what shapes the price and shopping with a little intention. Stick to licensed, tested products, compare the real cost per gram, and lean on bulk deals and online pricing. Do that, and an affordable choice stays a smart one, purchase after purchase.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Cheap Weed Safe to Buy In Canada?
Yes, provided it comes from a licensed retailer. All legal cannabis in Canada is tested for contaminants and labelled for potency, regardless of price. A lower cost usually reflects branding and overhead rather than weaker safety, so a budget option from a legal seller is still a safe one.
How Do I Find the Best Cannabis Deals?
Compare the per-gram price, buy larger formats, and watch for sales from online retailers. Checking potency against price helps too, since a stronger product can mean you use less. The key is shopping deliberately instead of defaulting to the same brand or store each time.
Why Is Cannabis Cheaper Online?
Online sellers usually carry lower overhead than physical stores, and they run sales and bulk deals more often. That lets them price competitively while still selling tested, legal product. Just remember to factor in shipping, which can offset the saving on a small order.
Does Paying More Mean Better Cannabis?
Not necessarily. Price reflects branding, format, and store margins as much as quality, and all legal product meets the same testing standards. Premium options may offer a better aroma or appearance, but a well-priced choice often works just as well day to day.
Features
Author and lifelong nurse Tilda Shalof’s new book a guide not only for young nurses but one that will appeal to a wider readership
By MYRON LOVE Tilda Shalof’s most recent book – “The Handover – a Nurse’s Last Shift” was, in the words of its author, “written for the general public, to understand nursing. Nursing is everyone’s concern, not just nurses. The general public has a stake in the matter,” she observes.
I can guarantee that there are plenty of stories and anecdotes that the author shares from her own experiences that will also be of interest to a wider readership. I certainly enjoyed the book.
The title – “The Handover,” she explains, is the regular exchange between nurses going off their shift and the nurses beginning the next shift, during which the outgoing nurses pass on all relevant information about the patients under their care to the incoming nurses. A recurring thread throughout the book – of close to 400 pages – is the retiring Shalof’s interaction with three student nurses whom she had recently befriended through one of her many speaking engagements. In particular, Shalof gives co-writing credit to one Lisa Mochrie – a nurse who the author acted as mentor to during Mochrie’s last period as a student and continuing through her early nursing career.
There is a tendency for many people to take for granted people I would describe as working in a service capacity such as nursing. One of the reasons that Shalof points out in her book for our ongoing nursing shortages is that young men and women are more likely to be encouraged to pursue a medical career (to be a doctor) than a nurse. This, she points out, despite the fact that hospitals can function without doctors – but not without nurses.
Some other factors, she notes, are the ever increasing demands of documentation – which detract from patient care – and regulations, which have taken much of the satisfaction out of the profession.
In an interview with this writer, she observes that Jewish nurses are few and far between because nursing is not a profession that most Jewish families encourage. (I can only name a handful of Jewish nurses that I have known or have come across.)
She spoke about how she became a nurse early in life to her aged and ailing parents – being the only daughter – (she has three older brothers) and the last of her siblings to leave home. In “The Handover”, she also makes frequent reference to fictional nurse Cherry Ames – the heroine of numerous books written between 1943 and 1968 – as inspiration for Shalof’s choice of career.
For the first 30 years as a nurse, Shalof worked in an intensive care ward at Toronto General Hospital. She subsequently worked for a short time at an HIV clinic and, later a hospital day clinic and a neurosurgery unit. She also spent several summers as a camp nurse at a Jewish camp while her kids were campers there.
“The Handover” is Shalof’s seventh book. Her first book, published in 2004, was “A Nurse’s Story,” chronicling her experiences over 30 years as an ICU nurse. Among her other books are:“Camp Nurse,” recounting anecdotes from her time working summers at her children’ summer camps, and “Opening My Heart” – an account of the profession from the point of view of a patient after she had open heart surgery.
Coincidently, she notes, she began her first book around the time of the SARS outbreak in Toronto in 2003. Shalof says she started writing her latest book at the height of the Covid lockdowns, which she references from time to time in the book. .
The approach Shalof has taken in writing “The Handover” – following a foreword and introduction – is literally an A to Z overview of everything there is to know about nursing – with each chapter focusing on one specific letter of the alphabet. Each chapter relates her thoughts and tells anecdotes from her own nursing experiences over 40 years in the profession, as well as her interactions with Lisa Mochrie and the other two student nurses as they transition from students to professionals.
In her conclusion, she observes that “nursing can be a path to making a difference – having an impact. It can be a front row seat at the theatre of life. Or it can be a job, a way to make a living and help support your family. “
Most importantly, she added, “make sure you try to have some fun. Do everything in your power to enjoy being a nurse”.
Although the now 67-yeear-old author is retired from the practice of nursing, she remains in demand as a speaker and advisor. She continues to get calls from throughout North America seeking her advice.“The Handover” is available from the University of Toronto Press.
Features
Michael Mitchell: His Labour of Love in Law
By GERRY POSNER The Mitchell name in Winnipeg has been around a long time and much of the the name recognition stems from the long connection of the family to a business known as Mitchell Fabrics, a mainstay on Main Street for many years. Established by Mendel Mitchell generations ago and not closed until 2017, many family members, including in-laws, worked there as managers, students and retirees. And yet, the family vocation was not limited to just the business, t it stretched out into the world of law, and more specifically the field of labour Law. One particular Mitchell reached the peak of all aspects of Labour Law. Three Mitchells: Leon, son Grant (a senior management side labour lawyer in Winnipeg), and daughter April Katz (an academic at the University of Victoria Law School), had stellar careers in that field. Yet another Mitchell, Michael, also achieved great acclaim as a labour lawyer. Michael, a product of the south end of Winnipeg, is the son of the late Harry and Gertrude (Sirluck) Mitchell, so he has some impressive genes going for him. But he has added to the story immeasurably.
Perhaps it all began for Michael Mitchell when he graduated from what was the first and only Grade 7 Hebrew school class at Herzlia Academy. He later was Regional Vice-President of AZA in his teenage years. After two years at Joseph Wolinsky Collegiate and two more at Grant Park High School, Mitchell went off to the University of Manitoba for his first year and then on to the University of Toronto, where he obtained a BA in Political Science. Then came law school, also at the University of Toronto, from where he graduated with an LLB in 1975. Along the way, he married the former Lynne Berman ( also from Winnipeg).That union produced three Mitchell daughters, two of whom are physicians – in psychiatry and neurology respectively, while the third is a pioneering pre-school educator. Michael and Lynne also have six grandchildren.
For a large part of his career as a lawyer, Michael Mitchell practiced law in Toronto as a senior partner in the firm of Sack Goldblatt Mitchell – from 1980 through 2014, having joined the firm in 1975 as a student. The firm was committed to the union side practice of Labour and Employment Law. Not so surprisingly, he had to appear at all levels of courts, also administrative tribunals.To his credit, his work and impressive track record was recognized by his peers as he was named a leading labour lawyer in Canadian Lexpert Directory and was frequently recommended in Best Lawyers in Canada. Between 1982- 2006, Mitchell was also the managing partner of the firm, which suggests to me an ability to manage people, not an insignificant skill. During his tenure as the managing partner, the law firm grew from just under ten lawyers to over fifty, with offices in both Toronto and Ottawa. His responsibilities were firm leadership, strategic decision making and financial management.
But, what a career Mitchell has had. For starters, aside from his time as a practicing lawyer in the field of labour law, he has, since his leaving the practice, just changed hats. From 2015 to 2018, he was part time Vice-Chair of the Ontario Labour Relations Board and, from 2018 as of this moment, he has become full time Vice-Chair at the same Ontario Labour Relations Board. Needless to say that, over the course of his administrative work since 2015, Mitchell has been at the centre of some significant decisions and, if you are interested, I can direct you to the selected substantive decisions in which Mitchell has been involved.
Moreover, Mitchell has worked and continues to work in the area of mediation and arbitration of both labour and indeed civil law. This is a large area, to put it mildly. For starters, there is the entire field of grievance arbitration. To be involved in cases of this kind, your name has to be put up by one of the parties and often agreed to by the other party. That means you have credibility with both of the protagonists. Mitchell clearly has that kind of reputation and draws support from both sides of the aisles – as it is referred to in some circles. He has been an arbitrator/ referee in many cases, including the famous 1986-1990 Class Action settlement related to individuals who had contracted Hepatitis C. Further, he has conducted numerous civil mediations related to employment, contracts and human rights matters. Mitchell also mediates and arbitrates collective bargaining disputes.
One of Mitchell’s’ main achievements was that he was invited between 2015-2017 to be a Special Advisor (with capital letters, no less) to the Ontario Minister of Labour with regard to the Changing Workplace Review. This was a landmark review of the Ontario Employment Standards Act and the Labour Relations Act where he, together with Justice John Murray, recommended many legislative changes to protect workers from the negative impacts of precarious employment. The best part of his work was that many of th recommendations were actually adopted. Other recommendations remain for future governments across the country to consider.
If you really want to delve into the Michael Mitchell career, you should know that, over the span of his career there are many publications that he has authored. The main one is his textbook on the Ontario Labour Relations Board, which he co-authored with his early mentor, Jeffrey Sack, and which remains the leading authority on the Ontario Board.
Mitchell comes by his passion for labour law honestly. His uncle, Leon Mitchell, was an iconic force on the union side in his practice of law in Winnipeg and was the inspiration for Michael to enter law to become a labour lawyer in the first place. In fact, it was Leon who introduced Michael to a man in Toronto who recommended Michael to connect with an up and coming labour lawyer in Toronto named Jeffrey Sack K.C. That connection resulted in the Sack Goldblatt Mitchell law firm. As well, Michael was well known to Sid Green during the early years of Sid’s law career, also his early days as a Cabinet Minister in the Schreyer NDP government. Sid was a person who exerted a significant influence on Michael.
With all that on his plate, Mitchell found time to be the president of the Darchei Noam Synagogue in Toronto between 2004-2008. He has also been the president of the Jewish Reconstructionist Federation of North America. During his term, he led the merger negotiations which ultimately resulted in the current structure of that movement ,which is now referred to as Reconstructing Judaism. Its singular aspect is that it consists of a single organization combining congregations plus a Rabbinical School. That was enough to get Mitchell an invitation to attend one of President Obama’s Chanukah parties at the White House during the Obama term. As well, to this day, Mtchell sits as a Director of the New Israel Fund of Canada.
Mitchell has his feet still planted in Winnipeg. His two sisters live there, as well as Lynne’s sister. In fact, he just visited Winnipeg for his sister Ruth Ann’s and Paula’s 85th and 80th birthdays respectively. And to keep up to date, Michael and Lynne Mitchell have long had a subscription to the Jewish Post.
In short, at just under 80, Michael Mitchell is moving like he is eighteen. The longevity of his career may soon rival the longevity of the family business, Mitchell Fabrics.
