Friday, 03 February 2017
Quotes
Mr. Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister
Our esteemed Prime Minister, during the last federal election, ran an ad in the Canadian Jewish News which in part read:
“The Liberal Part of Canada believes that…..we must oppose Boycott, Divest and Sanction campaigns in our communities and continue to speak out forcefully against them.”
During the debate of the motion, Michael Levitt, (Liberal) quoted the Prime Minister’s following pronouncements:
I am opposed to the BDS movement. I think it is `s an example of the new form of anti-Semitism in the world…an example of the three “D’s”: demonization of Israel, deligimization of Israel, and a double standard applied toward Israel.”
“The BDS movement has no place on Canadian campuses.”
Mr. Levitt further asserted that the “Prime Minister said enough is enough repeatedly where BDS has been concerned.”
Mr. Thomas Mulcair, Leader of the NDP
During an exchange between Mr. Levitt and Alexandre Boulerice (NDP) Mr. Levitt quoted Mr. Mulcair:
“I think it’s absurd, and I disagree with it. Our focus is achieving real progress in the peace process.-lifting countries in this region up, not putting Israel down.”
“We take decisions together, parties formulate policies together, and to say that you are personally in favour of boycott, divestment and sanctions for the only democracy in the Middle East is, as far as I am concerned, grossly unacceptable”(emphasis mine).
The motion
And so it was that two Conservative members of the House of Commons supported by their parliamentary caucus that shares the views expressed and the positions taken by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the NDP, decided that it was time to do something about the BDS movement in Canada and tabled their anti-BDS motion fully expecting that the leaders of both parties would put their money where their mouths are and vote swiftly for the motion. They were in for a big surprise.
The motion debated on February 18, 2016 read:
“That, given Canada and Israel share a long history of friendship as well as economic and diplomatic relations, the House [1] reject the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which promotes the demonization and delegitimization of the State of Israel, and [2] call upon the government to condemn any and all attempts by Canadian organizations, groups or individuals to promote the BDS movement here at home and abroad.”
Surprisingly, neither the Prime Minister nor Mr. Mulcair showed up for the debate nor did they make the necessary arrangements to have the motion debated on a day when they would be in the House.
At all events, based on the pronouncements of the leaders of the three major parties, the motion could have been debated and passed expeditiously. Instead, it took a whole day to deal with the matter. The motion finally passed 229 to 51.The total number of seats in the House of Commons of the Federal Parliament is 338.
(The reference for the official record of the debate (Hansard) is: 42nd Parliament, 1st session, volume 148, number 020).
The naysayers-The Bloc Québécois (BQ) and the Green Party
As I expected, the Bloc Québécois (BQ) voted against the motion. One member, Monique Pauzé, described the BDS movement as “…a citizens’ response that is non-violent and not anti-Semitic…Disagreeing with the colonization of Palestine, for example is not anti-Semitic or anti-Zionist. It is a legitimate political opinion that one can agree with it or not.” If she truly believed what she said, I think she will readily accept my offer to sell her the Parliament buildings for a song.
Another member, Xavier Barsalou-Duval was indignant. He asserted that “… Israel is invading the territory of Palestine, against which it is literally waging war. The fact that Israel is a Canadian ally is no reason to turn a blind eye to the atrocities that are happening in the region…What does [my colleague] think we need to do to resolve the conflict in that region, if not impose economic sanctions?”
The Green Party stayed true to its own party policy in favour of BDS.
Here were two parties and three
people who, according to Mr. Stéphane Dion, then Minister of Foreign Affairs,
in good faith honestly believe that BDS is the solution to the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict that he respects and with whom he would want to
debate the issue.
The motion revisited
I call the Conservatives, the “principled timids” because the motion is toothless, compared to the anti-BDS legislation enacted by the American state legislatures whose thrust, with some variation in the wording, is to specifically prohibit the state from contracting with companies that engage in the boycott of Israel, including firms located outside the state, and further require companies explicitly state in contracts that they are not boycotting or divesting.
Therefore, the second part of the motion could have read:
[2] call upon the
government,
a) to prohibit Canadian companies, universities
and other institutions and pension funds, at home and abroad, to boycott,
divest from and sanction the Israeli economy and its public institutions, and
b) to
prohibit the federal governments from
contracting with Canadian companies that
engage in the boycott of Israel,
including those located outside the country, and further require these companies
to state explicitly in contracts that they
are not boycotting or divesting from or
sanctioning Israel and its public institutions or financially supporting organizations that do.
I suspect, the Conservatives avoided this stronger wording out of fear of (a) getting written up in the bad books of both the business community and of the labour unions, and/or b) failing to secure the passage of the motion on the principle that half a loaf is better than none.
If nothing else, the proposed wording would have denied the NDP the opportunity to argue against the motion by invoking section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It also would have denied Stephane Dion, then Minister of Foreign Affairs leading the debate for the Liberals, the opportunity to speak from both sides of his mouth and play both sides of the political fence. Mercifully, the majority of the Liberal members who spoke to the motion did not follow their leader on this score.
The principled-timids-The Conservatives
The Conservative members Tony Clement who opened the debate, Peter Kent and others members stated clearly and unequivocally the grounds on which they support the motion.
Tony Clement, after stating that his party does not want the motion to be a partisan issue, went on to say: “We are here because we believe it is critically important to support the Jewish State of Israel against a movement that seeks to isolate it in the world. I think this motion accurately reflects Canadian values…, interests…principles and…morality.”
Peter Kent succinctly and accurately characterized the BDS movement: “The boycott, divest, sanction campaigners claim it to be a human rights movement. In fact it is nothing more than a thinly disguised, multi-dimensional hate campaign. On the one hand …it seeks to delegitimize and demonize Israel with hateful, hypocritical anti-Semitic attacks .On the other hand, on Canadian university and college campuses, the BDS movement focuses the new anti-Semitism on pro-Israel and Jewish students, disrupting with hate what should be a happy, uplifting student experience.”
The forked tongues
Despite the strong statements of the Prime Minister, one would have thought that Mr. Dion would have followed suit. Instead, he gave a perfect demonstration of the art of speaking with forked tongues; his and that of the Prime Minister whom he must have consulted about the arguments he planned to advance during the debate and secured his approval.
In his opening statement, Mr. Dion informed the House that the Liberals would vote in favour of the motion.
Mr. Dion paid homage to the Canadian Jewish community beginning with an appropriate mea culpa about the ill- treatment of Jews in Canada before, during and for a time, after World War II and the government’s refusal to give sanctuary to Jewish refugees. He then praised the contributions of the community to Canada.
Mr. Dion then proceeded to describe Canada as a close ally and a strong friend of Israel since 1948 and the relationship between the two countries as “broad and deep”.
He specifically referred to the mutually beneficial exchanges of scientific research and related joint endeavours and put some emphasis on the importance of trade between the two countries and mentioned the free- trade agreement between the two countries. On these matters, the Liberals and the Conservatives appeared to be competing for the highest mark in their respective description of the importance and the benefits of these endeavours for Canada to such an the extent that one point, Jamie Shmale (Conservative) advised the opponents of the motion that they ought to vote in support of the motion “out of commercial self-interest.”
Likewise, Mr. Dion paid his diplomatic dues to the Palestinian Authority (PA) and claimed that Canada is an important partner of the PA. He said “Our development and humanitarian assistance to the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza address the immediate needs of the Palestinian people”. Contrary to all evidence, he claimed that “This helps to lay the groundwork for the viable, democratic and secure Palestinian state…”
But when Mr. Dion turned to the intent, substance, effect and merits of the motion, his tongue spliced. He (1) accused the Conservatives of bad faith and divisive tactics;(2) asserted that the motion was divisive; (3) expressed some disagreement with the way the motion was framed; (4) ) save for a single reference to “some hate-filled extremists, racists and anti-Semites … [about whom he said] “We must strongly condemn those individuals”; (5) ignored the well- documented evidence of the serious harm caused by the BDS movement not only in Canada but also to the economy of the Palestinians; (6) paid lip service to the adverse impact of the BDS movement on the Jewish college and university students with a one liner and then moved on, despite the fact that Liberal, Conservative and the NDP members kept speaking about the serious problems experienced by Jewish and pro-Israeli students on Canadian campuses from coast to coast caused by the BDS movement and its supporters; (7) reduced the BDS movement to a mere aggregate of individual supporters, and (8) in effect, rejected the second part of the motion by re-framing it by reference to the individual supporters of the movement with sparse reference to organizations.
Mr. Dion stated, time and again, that his opposition to the BDS movement is based on the fact that it is not the right solution to the problem; that it will not lead to a peace agreement, and that its supporters are simply misguided in thinking that the BDS will bring about the realisation of the two-state solution even though the movement’s directing minds and the supporters who think along the same lines are clearly not interested at all in that solution.
In a disingenuous display of wilful ignorance of the well-established facts about the nature of the BDS movement and the despicable and at times criminal behaviour of its supporters on campuses and elsewhere and its ultimate goals to destroy Israel, the Minister insisted again and again that save for some individuals, most of the people in the movement including many organizations are acting in good faith, believe that the BDS is the way to go in order to get Israel to reach a peace agreement with the PA based on the two-state formula.(Italics mine).
Never mind , Bassem Eid, a supporter of the Palestinian cause, a human rights activist and commentator on Palestinian domestic affairs who writes for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy is reported to have said: “BDS supporters are creating more hatred, enmity and polarization.” In the June 25, 2015 issue of Fikra Forum, Mr Eid wrote: “There is no connection between the tactics and objectives of the BDS movement, and on-the-ground realities of the Middle-East.”
In an attempt to convince the House of the wisdom of his argument, Mr. Dion could not resist the temptation of pointing out that even some Jewish people were among those who in good faith shared this belief. (Italics mine)
Obviously, Mr. Dion does not know much about the Jewish Diaspora’s so-called “progressives”, “lefties” or “liberals”, as defined by Robert Graves, who are more accurately known in the Canadian Jewish community as meshuggeneh (English word of Yiddish origin: Crazy; senseless. One who is crazy).
Not to be outdone by the NDP, the Minister then acting as a sanctimonious defender of the freedoms in section 2(a) of the Charter asserted that the government is “in no way seeking to limit freedom of expression in Canada or to encourage any kind of bullying one way or the other, and that “[the government] will certainly be very vigilant when it comes to combatting hate speech.”
So, what does the government propose in response to the motion? Or as Conservative member Steven Blaney phrased it: How does our Minister of Foreign Affairs plan to actively combat the pernicious new forms of anti-Semitism [BDS] that are attacking the very existence and legitimacy of the State of Israel? How will he prevent people from being misled by entities that have bad intentions?
Replied Mr. Dion: “The direction we must take is to launch a number of programs that are effective in combatting racism and developing tolerance, openness and acceptance in Canada”. (the sequence of sentences edited for brevity without changing meaning). However, it is important to avoid painting everyone with the same brush, to avoid driving wedges all over the place with indiscriminate condemnations. One thing we can do is identify anti-Semitism and separate this anti-Semitism from legitimate discourse in which we are looking to find solutions and we can have good-natured disagreements…We will be there to fight any attempt to divide Canadians and to put Canadians in good faith in the same bag with people who are animated by hatred and racism….The first way to fight racism is to avoid amalgamation [of these two groups of people]”
Needless to say, assuming such programs, long overdue as they are, exist, and assuming for sake of argument that these have been launched, their effectiveness remains a mystery.
At the end of the day, Mr. Dion on behalf of his government reinvented the BDS movement as comprising “some” hate filled- extremists among “most” of its supporters who in “good faith «advocate the mass punishment of the people of Israel; its demonization, delegitimization and ultimately its destruction of Israel.
This is certainly not how the Prime Minister characterised the BDS movement and linked it to anti-Semitism on the nation’s campuses.
So, there we are: in the Liberal Alice in Wonderland of the oxymoron. In practical terms, just how does one separate anti-Semitism from legitimate discourse, since anti-Semitic discourse is also protected as “freedom of speech” under the Charter? How could anyone in good faith, ever believe that BDS is anything but an anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist movement that aims for the destruction of Israel?
While I am delighted that Mr. Dion, as Minister of Foreign Affairs behaved as as a philistine boy scout is now gone, I fear that the government on whose behalf he spoke, anxious to please or appease everybody who demands it or at least not to alienate some, is slowly drowning in its own hypocritical rhetoric and taking the country with it.
With respect to this motion, Mr. Dion and the Prime Minister, demonstrated the fine art of constructing bows that shoot arrows simultaneously in opposite directions .
The clowns
The NDP members turned out to be the clowns of the debate. They first asserted that “this motion is not about BDS [and. picking up on Mr. Dion’s line]... “ the motion is about the politics of division and freedom of opinion” They asserted that “ it is not up to Parliament and the government to tell Canadians what issues they can debate and what ideas and opinions they are allowed to have.”
Accordingly, they proceeded to argue every which way, ad nauseam, ad infinitum that the motion infringes the fundamental freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression…” guaranteed in section 2(b) of the Charter.
And like Mr. Dion, they failed to say precisely what is and/ who are being divided. I would have thought that surely, if the movement being condemned is itself destructive with respect to Israel, causing economic hardship to the Palestinians; hateful, venomous, abusive, anti-Semitic and racist; intent to reduce its opponents to silence through threats, mental and physical intimidation, harassment and bodily assault and interference with genuine academic freedom in Canada, surely the motion that condemns the movement, is a unifying initiative.
The way I see it, both parties use the term “divisive” when what they really mean is “politically inconvenient.”
Interestingly enough, NDP member Murray Rankin, during his long speech said: “What we will not tolerate is anti-Semitism and racism”.
However, when Anthony Housefeather (Liberal) asked Rankin, point blank, whether he would be against the motion if the term BDS, was replaced by the words “anti-Semitism”, “racism” or “homophobia”, Rankin he did not answer the question.
At the end of the day, all the posturing and arguments of the NDP members amounted to nothing more than clowning. As any student who took an introductory course on the Charter, never mind the House lawyers who specialise in matters concerning the Charter and whose services are readily available to the political parties, would have readily told them; the enactments of the Cabinet, the Parliament, whether they take the form of, regulations, legislation or pronouncements by way of motions that are not binding on anyone, must be read and interpreted subject to the provisions of the Charter and having regard to the specific facts of each case.
In the premises, all the arguments as to whether the motion breaches any one or more of the freedoms enumerated in section 2(b) and whether or not this breach is justified under section 1 of the Charter cannot be determined in the abstract, and certainly not by members of Parliament who are required to tow the party line.
If the NDP was so concerned about the unjustified breach of section 2(a) of the Charter, they could have asked the two members who drafted the motion to insert in the text the following caveat before tabling it or even during the debate:
“Nothing
in this motion shall be construed to diminish or infringe upon any fundamental
constitutional right protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”
I have no doubt whatsoever that that they would have gladly done so.
Instead, Mr. Rankin (NDP), asked rhetorical question ” “We have spent the entire day dealing with this opposition motion. Would it not be better if we worked together to fight racism and anti-Semitism and intimidation on our university campuses? That is what we should be worrying about. We should be providing positive solutions to these legitimate problems rather than talking about the ways to divide Canadians in the House.”
No one asked him why, to date, the NDP failed to propose such a plan of action for the consideration of the government and the other parties ;tabled a private member’s Bill and in the interim, brought forward a motion to that effect.
Nevertheless, his suggestion offered some hope that these matters would be addressed in NDP’s next motion on these subjects.
The sequel- The anti-Islamophobia motion
I have no doubt whatsoever that that they would have gladly done so.
Instead, Mr. Rankin (NDP), asked rhetorical question ” “We have spent the entire day dealing with this opposition motion. Would it not be better if we worked together to fight racism and anti-Semitism and intimidation on our university campuses? That is what we should be worrying about. We should be providing positive solutions to these legitimate problems rather than talking about the ways to divide Canadians in the House.”
No one asked him why, to date, the NDP failed to propose such a plan of action for the consideration of the government and the other parties ;tabled a private member’s Bill and in the interim, brought forward a motion to that effect.
Nevertheless, his suggestion offered some hope that these matters would be addressed in NDP’s next motion on these subjects.
The sequel- The anti-Islamophobia motion
The NDP’s clowning did not end that day, and the forked tongue of Liberals remained alert as ever, ready to intervene in the next motion touching the same subject.
Sure enough, the NDP responded with alacrity to a petition initiated by one Samer Majzoub, a resident of Quebec and President of the Canadian Muslim Forum (CMF).
The concluding sentence of the petition called upon the House pass a motion that adopts the two propositions put forward by the petitioners.
“We, the undersigned, Citizens and residents of Canada, call upon the House of Commons to join us in [1] recognizing that extremist individuals do not represent the religion of Islam, and [2] in condemning all forms of Islamophobia.”
Cf. Petition e-mail-411: https://petitions.parl.gc.ca/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-411
On October 26, 2016, Mr. Mulcair tabled the following motion in the House:
“That the House join the more than 69,472 Canadian supporters of the House of Commons petition e-411 in condemning all forms of Islamophobia.” despite the fact that. the preamble to the petition clearly indicated that the petitioners were “Canadians and residents”
From the plain reading of the motion three things are evidently clear:
The first of these is that the motion is divisive between the Muslim and the non-Muslim communities and more critically, between the modernist and secular segment of the Muslim community that considers religion to be a private matter and is otherwise wedded to the values of mainstream Canadians, and the other segment that considers religion to be the directing mind and force that determine the manner in which, among other things, all educational social, cultural, legal and political issues must be addressed and dealt with and guide the way in which the solutions to these matters dealt with in accordance with a particular interpretation of religion.
Saied Shoaaib a journalist and author originally from Egypt in his fairly detailed article titled “To the Muslim Brotherhood: Quit Shouting Islamophobia and Quit Attacking Muslim Families” which prominently displays a picture of Mr. Majzoub, refers to him as an “Islamist”. Mr. Shoaaib goes on state that “Both Mr. Mjzoub and the CMF have a rather long list of dubious connections to Islamist groups and the foreign money used to support them. This includes the Muslim Brotherhood. Mr. Shoaaib concludes that “the first victims of the motion will be secular and modernist Muslims of Canada who oppose extremism, and their families” and provides the facts on which he relies in support of his conclusion.
One of the things, among others, that struck closer to home, is the author’s assertion that “The Ottawa Public Library, for instance, has nothing, but extremist literature in the Arabic language collection.” Cf. www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9577/ muslim- brotherhood –shouting- islamophobia.
Shoabib is by no means a lone voice in his community and his concerns are echoed by other Muslim writers at home and abroad.
The second thing is that, according to the position advanced by the NDP in the anti-BDS debate, and at all events on the face of it, the phrase “all forms of Islamophobia, conjures the violation of all of the freedoms guaranteed under Section 2(b) of the Charter.
Worse still, given the multitudes of definitions of all sorts of the term “Islamophobia”, the motion failed to provide an operational definition in plain English so that the average Canadian would understand exactly what Islamophobia is about and will be readily able to identify the red lines that he is being advised not to cross.
Finally, irony of ironies, Mr. Mulcair, himself engaged in what the initiator of the petitioner would consider gross Islamophobia by leaving out of his motion the particular recognition sought by the petitioners.
As to the Liberals, this time around, they did not (1) claim that while “some” people engage in Islamophobic behaviour and that they should be strongly condemned; most of the people, who utter Islamophobic opinions and engage in Islamophobic conduct, including some Muslims, “in good faith” are engaged in “legitimate discourse”; (2) object to amalgamating the two groups and treat disrespectfully the latter group by accusing everyone of Islamophobia, and (3) propose instead that
instead
of “amalgamating” these two groups”, they would respect the opinion of the
latter and engage them in conversation that may well end in “good- natured
disagreements”.
The enthusiastic response of the members present in the House to the motion read:”That the House join the more than 69 742 Canadian supporters of House of Commons petition e-411 in condemning all forms of Islamophobia.” And it was passed unanimously on October 26,2016
Cf. Journals:
By this point, never mind their bows, the arrows of the clowns and of
the forked-tongues acted as G-d’s vengeance on logic and consistency.
Hoping
And now, I cannot wait to read the NDP or the Liberal’ motion condemning
all forms of Judophobia, followed by one
such motion for every other religion
practiced in Canada , as the alleged spirit of multiculturalism demands
it.
Coming
up
In the meantime, I am looking forward to the debate of the motion M-310
filed by the liberal backbencher Ms. Iqra Khalid, member for Mississauga-Erin
on the subject of “Systematic racism and religious discrimination”.
The motion filed not long after
the NDP’s motion reads:
That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a)
recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear; (b)
condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious
discrimination and take note of House of Commons’ petition e-411 and the issues
raised by it; and (c) request that the Standing Committee on Canadian
Heritage undertake a study on how the government could (i) develop a
whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and
religious discrimination including Islamophobia, in Canada, while ensuring a
community-centred focus with a holistic response through evidence-based
policy-making, (ii) collect data to contextualize hate crime reports and to
conduct needs assessments for impacted communities, and that the Committee
should present its findings and recommendations to the House no later than 240
calendar days from the adoption of this motion, provided that in its report,
the Committee should make recommendations that the government may use to better
reflect the enshrined rights and freedoms in the Constitution Acts, including
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Placed in the Order of Precedence on December 6, 2016, it is awaiting to be
assigned a date for the debate of the motion.
No comments:
Post a Comment