Rather than working toward a world in which everyone is treated with dignity based on their inherent human worth — not treated differently due to their religion or ethnic background — we are now locked in an arms race between groups seeking to define various forms of racism.
This process has been spurred on by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who seems to think that stuffy conferences and lengthy dissertations are the solution to the ever-growing levels of hate on Canadian streets.
Earlier this month, his government released a 54-page “handbook” on the definition of antisemitism that few will likely ever read. Days later, a statement by Canada’s Islamophobia czar, Amira Elghawaby, claimed that Trudeau committed to adopting “a definition of anti-Palestinian racism.”
The handbook on antisemitism, which expounds on the widely recognized International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism, was swiftly rebuked by anti-Israel groups and New Democrats.
In a statement, Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East claimed the IHRA definition “purposefully conflates criticism of Israeli policy with antisemitism and is frequently deployed by supporters of Israel to unfairly shut down Palestinians perspectives.” Which is rich coming from a group that frequently tries to silence pro-Israel voices in the media.
NDP MP Blake Desjarlais also issued a press release arguing that the “weaponization of the definition” threatens “free expression and the open exchange of constructive ideas.” Instead, he proposes alternate definitions backed by vehemently anti-Israel groups that allow them to continue to call for the destruction of the Jewish state without being labelled as racists.
Desjarlais went on to argue that even the watered-down definition shouldn’t be applied to “federal funding decisions and university campus policies.” And of course he ended with an acknowledgement of “anti-Palestinian racism,” lest he violate the left’s prohibition on discussing Jew-hate without conflating it with racism perpetrated against Muslims.
The main criticism of the IHRA definition is the examples it provides of what constitutes antisemitism, namely: “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour”; and “Applying double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.”
Criticism of these examples are certainly not without merit. As my colleague Chris Selley argued, “Raving antisemites are reliably obsessed with Israel over all other nations. But not everyone obsessed with Israel over all other nations can be presumed to be antisemitic.”
Moreover, “It’s not at all clear to me how one would even go about applying the IHRA’s double-standard test to other advanced democracies in the world, because no comparable situation springs to mind in any other advanced democracy.” According to Selley, “Any free-speech advocate worth their salt should have qualms about this. Double standards deserve to be called out, not banned.”
Agreed. But the IHRA clearly states its definition is “non-legally binding.” The double-standard test would be highly problematic if it were enshrined in law, akin to the “I know it when I see it” test used by the U.S. Supreme Court to distinguish between constitutionally protected obscenity and hard-core pornography.
The IHRA definition is not intended to be interpreted by the courts, but to be used as a guide for figuring out, say, what actions by those engaged in university encampments should be considered hateful, or why a certain anti-racism trainer probably shouldn’t be eligible for government grants. (Which makes Desjarlais’ suggestion that the definition not be applied to anything all the more ludicrous.)
In a perfect world, we wouldn’t need to define something like antisemitism — hateful words and actions would be apparent to practically everyone. But we don’t live in a perfect world.
We live in a world in which the Jewish state is constantly accused of committing “war crimes” and perpetrating a “genocide” despite the fact that the number of Arabs killed in all of Israel’s wars combined over the past 76 years is dwarfed by the number of civilians killed in Afghanistan during the 20-year war of which Canada was a part (double standard, anyone?).
We live in a world in which Israel’s enemies have adopted every vile antisemitic trope of the past but re-framed them as being anti-Zionist rather than anti-Jew. “Zionists” have been told they are not welcome on university campuses. A mob in New York went on a “Zionist” hunt. A protest sign claimed, “Zionists Are Not Humans! They Are the Evil of the World!”
A university professor kicked up a fuss over an Israeli flag displayed in an Ontario school during Jewish Heritage Month, something that wouldn’t be made into an issue if it were a Greek flag commemorating Greek Heritage Month. And the “Zionist state,” as the Jewish state is referred to by Iran and its minions, is blamed not just for all the trouble in the Middle East, but the world at large — just as the Jews were in past eras.
The list goes on and on. It’s little wonder that Jew-haters want to exempt criticism of Zionism and the Jewish state from any generally accepted definition of antisemitism. Yes, any definition that encompasses such examples of antisemitism is going to be somewhat subjective, because criticizing Israel or its government isn’t inherently antisemitic. Just like good porn, we know antisemitism when we see it.
Just because it’s become unfortunately necessary to have a common definition to antisemitism, however, doesn’t mean we need to go about defining novel forms of discrimination, such as “anti-Palestinian racism” — a term coined by the anti-Zionist crowd to silence pro-Israel voices.
I can already hear my critics accusing me of rank hypocrisy, but bear with me. The main issue is that we already have a term for racism espoused against Muslims: Islamophobia. There is no need to obfuscate the issue by creating separate forms of racism for Muslims or Arabs of different geographical origins.
The only reason to do so is to try to pretend that legitimate differences of opinion over the admittedly very complex Israeli-Palestinian conflict are somehow racist, or that criticizing the tactics of Palestinian terrorist groups should be verboten. And make no mistake: the definition put forth in a 2022 paper from the Arab Canadian Lawyers Association does just that.
It defines “anti-Palestinian racism,” in part, as “failing to acknowledge Palestinians as an indigenous people with a collective identity, belonging and rights in relation to occupied and historic Palestine,” and “defaming Palestinians and their allies with slander such as being inherently antisemitic, a terrorist threat/sympathizer or opposed to democratic values.”
This is far more specific than the double-standards test included in the IHRA definition and would seem to define as racist hard truths such as the fact that the Jews’ claim of indigeneity far predates that of the Palestinians, Israel’s borders are still subject to negotiation under the Oslo Accords, rates of antisemitism within the Palestinian territories are exceptionally high, terrorism has become a common tactic used by Palestinian political groups and elections have not been held in the West Bank or Gaza since 2006.
Having a definition of antisemitism that encompasses some criticism of the Jewish state is unfortunately necessary in a world in which large swaths of people try to pass off hate-filled conspiracy theories and genocidal chants as a critique of a political ideology — Zionism. But government must ensure that the definition is not used to silence opposing views — just as it should reject proposals expressly designed to limit free expression, such as “anti-Palestinian racism.”
National Post
[email protected]
Twitter.com/accessd