Halting the Rising Tide of Antisemitism

How we can no longer allow the BDS Movement to normalize anti-Semitism

Photo by Levi Meir Clancy on Unsplash

Many people decry the decline of our parliamentary democracy based on what they see in the House of Commons. For the casual observer, our parliament is either bland and completely scripted or angry and intensely partisan. This can be the impression left with people who only see the odd clip from Question Period, but it does not tell the whole story.

Parliament can seem irrelevant or even disconnected from the real lives of Canadians if all they see and understand about our democracy are clips on their social media feed. Canadians are no longer tuning into the nightly news or reading the morning newspaper at the rates they were a generation ago. Today, the vast majority of Canadians wake up to their social media feed in the morning and doom scroll for a few minutes before they pack it in at night. This has only exacerbated the feeling that parliament is irrelevant because substantive news has been replaced with performative clips that are boosted by algorithms giving you what it thinks you want to see. Serious and respectful debate in the House of Commons appears absent from our democracy because it is missing from your social media feed. I can assure you, however, that serious debate does still take place in Ottawa if you are willing to look for it.

Looking back after almost a year since I left public office, it is those moments of real debate between friends that I miss the most. Participating in intelligent, respectful and even emotional debates in Parliament was the best part of being an MP. In those instances, we were collectively charting the course for an evolving Canada as it confronted the challenges of the modern world. Topical debates like the deployment of the Canadian Armed Forces in the fight against ISIS. Emotional debates about assisted dying where MPs showed tremendous respect and empathy for colleagues who shared personal stories of loss or illness. These were serious and thoughtful debates on important issues for Canada, but you likely didn’t see them on your news feed.

Symbolic moments in the House of Commons were also very special and those would occasionally punch through and get some coverage. On some of these occasions Canada welcomed Presidents, spiritual leaders and even inspiring figures like Malala Yousafzai to speak to Canadians through our parliament. I also think back to the time when the normally reserved Stephen Harper crossed the floor to give Tom Mulcair and Justin Trudeau hugs after the attack on Parliament Hill in 2014. It was the Prime Minister’s way to show unity in the aftermath of a traumatic event parliamentarians had been through together. I was very proud of him for doing that. These fleeting moments allow Canadians to see their democracy in action and help to humanize our politics. Canadians need to see more of these authentic moments in parliament where MPs step forward to meet history and be a reflection of Canada.

The BDS Movement Debate

One of these serious and respectful debates during my time as an MP has been on my mind over the last number of months as I have watched our country experience a dramatic rise in acts of anti-Semitism. I found myself thinking back to the debate we held in 2016 to condemn the Boycott, Divest and Sanction movement (the “BDS Movement”) and its role in the fostering anti-Semitism. While there was disagreement between parties and MPs on many aspects of this debate, there was almost unanimous support for the view that the BDS Movement was divisive and inherently unfair. It is hard to believe that now watching the intimidation of Jewish Canadians at their homes, synagogues and on university campuses in recent months. How could a movement that was condemned by the House of Commons eight years ago remain such a destructive force today?

The 2016 debate on the BDS Movement arose as a Conservative opposition motion¹ because our caucus viewed the movement as a central cause of the steady rise in anti-Semitism. We wanted to highlight the insidious nature of the BDS Movement to try and curb its acceptance. While some MPs from the NDP and Bloc characterized the motion as an attempt to restrict or limit free speech, Conservatives and many Liberals argued that the motion was about the responsibility elected officials had to call out the divisive nature of the BDS Movement and its marginalization of a minority group. As I said at the time:

As parliamentarians on all sides of this House, and I am glad that the member for Mount Royal and others have called this what it is, it is our duty to say whether we condemn this type of ‘dressing up’ of anti-Semitism. I know that I and many of my colleagues on this side, and clearly many on the other side, see this for what it is. It is the thin edge of the wedge of discrimination.

The BDS Movement debate was a fascinating and memorable one because it touched on many issues of fundamental importance to a democracy. Identity, history, foreign policy, law, human rights and the critical role of free speech to a democracy. It was also memorable because MPs approached this debate with the seriousness it deserved and with great mutual respect for one another. The tenure and tone of the debate can best be appreciated by watching a small sample of the debate when MPs from the main parties responded to the speech of NDP MP Murray Rankin. I invite you to watch this clip of the exchange:

Watching this clip myself after many years I remember the friendly nature of the debate despite the fact that there was disagreement. It is also a little sad to see the late Arnold Chan in this clip. Arnold was a Liberal MP from Scarborough who passed away from cancer a year later. I was honoured to serve as an honourary pall bearer at Arnold’s funeral and travelled to his funeral with MP Murray Rankin who played a strong role in this debate. This exchange is a small example of the Commons at its best. Serious debate on an important topic, but with a tone of respect for both the subject and for one another.

What is the BDS Movement?

The BDS Movement states that it originated in 2005 in the aftermath of a 2004 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice declaring that a barrier built by Israel in the occupied territories was illegal. However, a closer look at this origin story reveals the original sin of the BDS Movement. While the ICJ opinion is built upon the premise that the state of Israel has the right to exist and the right to defend itself, the BDS Movement does not agree with either of those positions. The BDS Movement is, at its core, both an anti-Israel organization and one that has both tolerated and fostered anti-Semitism under the guise of social justice. Let me explain.

The ICJ opinion recognized that the state of Israel has a right to self-defence, but that Israel could not justify the building of a permanent barrier on occupied territories because it would be considered a form of annexation of territory that was in dispute. The legal opinion against Israel was based upon the fact that the barrier could “prejudge the future frontier between Israel and Palestine”. While the ICJ decision was indeed a ruling against Israel, it also underscored the essential right of Israel to exist a a starting point for any discussion of the conflict. While there may be many valid arguments to be made on both sides of the conflict with respect to the Israeli need for security and Palestinian opposition to development on occupied territories in Gaza and the West Bank, it would be wrong to say that international law supports anything but a negotiated two-state solution. The BDS Movement actively works against such a solution. While it claims to be inspired by international law, the BDS Movement and its conduct run contrary to it.

More disturbing is the fact that the founders of the BDS Movement actively delegitimize Israel and do not even hide their contempt for a two-state solution. In fact, the co-founder of the BDS Movement, Omar Barghouti, regularly questions Israel’s ‘right to exist’ and has crafted a social justice narrative for the movement that is completely misleading and divorced from reality. The occupied territories at the heart of the Israel-Palestine conflict did not arise as a result of ‘colonialization’ or conquest by Israel, but as the understandable result of wars in the 1950s and 1960s that resulted in territories being held. The BDS Movement uses terms like colonialism or Apartheid to tap into the harshly negative sentiments associated with these historical events, but they do not withstand any serious scrutiny.

A review of history demonstrates that the BDS Movement is actually nothing more than an update of the 1945 Arab League boycott of Jewish businesses in British-mandate Palestine. This boycott was in place before the modern state of Israel was created in 1948. Boycotts and bans directed against Jews and Jewish businesses in the region have been the hallmark of groups opposed to the existence of Israel from the very beginning. This is why the BDS Movement founders do not even pretend to support a two-state solution. Their movement has just dressed up old prejudices in the language of modern social justice. The anti-Zionist and anti-Jewish rhetoric found in the boycott movements of the 1940s have been given a slight public relations makeover to become the anti-Israel BDS rhetoric of today. The constant between these eras is the retrograde and prejudicial view that Israel should not exist and that Jews are not welcome in the region. These are the poisonous roots at the base of the growing BDS tree.

Altruistic Blindness and Progressive Capture

In the last decade, I have watched the BDS Movement creep into many areas of civic life in Canada despite these areas having no connection to the Israel-Palestine issue. The misleading positioning of BDS as ‘anti-colonial’ or ‘anti-Apartheid’ has allowed the movement to latch itself onto high-profile, progressive causes and gain entry into groups and their activities across Canada. From the labour movement to academia to culture, the BDS Movement became a fellow traveler in these progressive spaces without any serious scrutiny by the other groups. In many ways, this was an early example of foreign influence before ‘foreign influence’ was a thing in Canada.

I once asked a labour figure whether they knew that the BDS Movement did not support a peaceful, two-state solution to the conflict and they were shocked. They quietly admitted to me that they assumed that it did. They believed that the focus of BDS was simply to help the Palestinian side gain statehood. He told me he would raise that issue in the future, but admitted that it would likely have no impact on the union’s strong support for the BDS Movement.

Altruistic Blindness is what I have called this phenomenon of progressive voices crusading for one cause and cancelling others without much serious examination into the impact of their actions because an unflinching belief that their motives are pure. There is such a rush to be an ‘ally’ to a cause fighting injustice that there is no serious effort to ‘hear the other side’ (audi alteram partem) of the issue. This is how the BDS Movement grew so quickly in our country despite its divisive origin and its steadfast opposition to peaceful resolution of the Israel-Palestine issue. Altruistic blindness also explains how student protestors don’t seem fazed by using terms like Intifada or by chanting divisive taunts like ‘From the River to the Sea..’. For too many people there is a well-intentioned rush to embrace a social justice cause that they are convinced is progressive without ever looking into it.

The BDS Movement’s success in progressive capture has also been accelerated by the rise of identity politics and social media polarization. We are living in a world where people are divided into digital tribes and complex issues are pushed to them in 30-second videos that generally feature the most extreme views on the topic. This is making it almost impossible to gain perspective on the other side of an issue or have respect for the people on the other side of an issue.

While both the political left and right have seen radicalization from the impact of social media algorithms it plays out in different ways. Progressives are motivated by social justice and are more collectivist in nature, so it is harder for them to question a movement that is built upon the language of injustice. Colonialism. Apartheid. War mongers. These are trigger words and the digital tribe rises up to oppose these concepts unequivocally and without hesitation. This explains the incredible growth of the BDS Movement in the early 2000s as it was quickly embraced by many well-intended progressive groups.

I first saw evidence of this with the Toronto Pride parade a few years before I was first elected. Toronto Pride is a world-class event that celebrates the LGBTQ community and commemorates the community’s long struggle for rights and acceptance. It is one of the largest progressive events in the country, so perhaps it is no surprise that in the 2008 to 2010 period parade floats began appearing in the pride parade under banners of ‘Palestinian Queers for BDS’ or ‘Queers Against Israeli Apartheid’. These groups became part of a parade and celebration of inclusion despite the fact that BDS is built upon exclusion and discrimination. The BDS Movement had co-opted the goodwill of the Pride Parade and began to become a regular participant in many other high-profile, progressive events.

The BDS Movement also quickly gained a foothold in some of the more ideological parts of the labour movement as well. In Canada, the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) was an earlier adopter of BDS policies in 2006 and one of their Ontario chapters even created an annual prize for BDS activism. The postal union (CUPW) was also one of the first BDS Movement allies to start calling on its members to boycott Israeli companies and Jewish-run businesses in 2010. The activist side of the labour movement quickly aligned with BDS because it was positioned as a social justice despite the fact that it had absolutely nothing to do with workplace rights of their members. While some unions have resisted, or even curtailed the level of their participation in BDS, it has become an established part of the dialogue of the labour movement.

Over the last decade the BDS Movement has normalized discrimination to such a degree that some efforts to ‘boycott’ businesses appear to be nothing more than attacks on prominent Jewish people or businesses with Jewish owners. When Soda Stream - an Israeli company - became very popular around the world, it became a leading target of the BDS Movement. Even after the company acquiesced to BDS demands to close its factory in the West Bank in 2016 - with the loss of jobs for Palestinians - it remained on the BDS Movement target list for no other reason than its Israeli origins. In Canada, we have seen anti-Semitic attacks and vandalism against the Indigo book chain and its CEO for no other real reason other than the fact that she is a prominent Jewish business leader.

Canada saw a tipping point in hate inspired by the BDS Movement in the last few months as protest action escalated into occupations of university campuses, blockades and intimidation of Jewish neighborhoods, attempts to disrupt cultural events with Jewish Canadians involved and protests in front of synagogues and cultural centres. All of these actions have been inspired or are justified by the tenets of the BDS Movement.

Canada Officially Opposes (but tolerates) the BDS Movement

What makes me upset by this recent crescendo of vicious anti-Semitism is the fact that it has been fueled by a flourishing BDS Movement in Canada even though this movement was formally condemned by Canada’s Parliament eight years ago. BDS is causing havoc on campuses and normalizing hate and division despite the fact that it has been rejected by all major political parties and by leading Canadian institutions due to its divisive origins and discriminatory actions. Canadian society knows the movement runs contrary to our values as a nation, but we have not taken any serious efforts to curtail it.

In an eerie foreshadowing to the paralysis that has gripped some Canadian university campuses in recent months, the Prime Minister formally called out BDS intimidation of Jewish students on university campuses back in 2018. In his apology to Jewish Refugees and the Jewish community in relation to the MS. St. Louis incident in 1939, Prime Minister Trudeau said this:

Jewish students still feel unwelcome and uncomfortable in some of our college and university campuses because of BDS-related intimidation. Out of the entire community of nations, it is Israel whose right to exist is most widely and wrongly questioned. - Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau, House of Commons, November 7, 2018

Two years before this rejection of campus level BDS by the Prime Minister, we had that respectful and informed debate on the BDS Movement in the the House of Commons. All major parties expressed their opposition to the BDS Movement. While the NDP voted against the motion on free speech grounds, MP Murray Rankin said this about BDS at the start of his remarks:

The New Democratic Party does not support BDS. The New Democratic Party does not support policies on boycotting, sanctioning, or divesting from Israel.

The House of Commons passed a motion to formally “reject” the BDS Movement and “condemn” attempts to promote it in Canada back in 2016, yet it has only grown and become more destructive to our social cohesion in the years since. I have had a hard time reconciling this, which is one of the reasons I am writing this essay and proposing some action.

Reversing the BDS Trendline

On top of its rejection by parliament years ago, the BDS Movement has also been called out or rejected by many of the same Canadian universities who have been subject to its occupations in recent months. Even though these institutions are built on respect, integrity and inclusiveness, they have been intimidated and reduced by the escalation of action by the BDS Movement. This needs to stop.

Whether our collective inaction to stems from progressive capture or just a Canadian aversion to conflict, we can no longer allow these malevolent movements to intimidate our fellow citizens and erode our tolerant society. The condemnation in parliament from years ago needs to be joined by concrete action today, so I propose three tangible actions that the federal government can take to stem the rising tide of anti-Semitism caused by the BDS Movement.

First, universities must realize that the tone and tenure of the BDS Movement is denigrating their campuses and causing them to deviate from their important role in the public good. Universities must show resolve to adhere to their principles of inclusion and declare that any occupations or divisive campus activism motivated by the BDS activism will not lead to any accommodations, but will, in fact, lead to disciplinary action. Free speech is fundamental to the university experience, but occupations, racism and degrading conduct should be rejected and sanctioned. Someone who spits on their Dean should never receive a degree from an institution that values an inclusive environment and graduates of strong character. The federal government should publicly announce that they will review granting programs and explore withholding amounts from universities who will not ensure a safe and inclusive environment for all students.

Second, we need to celebrate and amplify groups that showcase peaceful coexistence and solutions that bring people together. Canadians need the ability to find positive outlets for citizens who want to help drive towards a two-state solution in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Last fall, Muslim and Jewish law students at the University of Ottawa and on several other campuses showed that it is possible to have informed and respectful debate on this issue on their campuses without resorting to intimidation or negativity. These students inspired leaders in the legal profession itself to adopt a similar approach. It also inspired business leaders to fund ‘bridge building’ scholarships to student leaders who advocate for peaceful and civil discourse. This should be the type of character and leadership we are fostering at our universities. To demonstrate support for these initiatives, the federal government should declare that they will match dollar for dollar any scholarships or university initiatives that foster bridge building and peaceful resolution of conflict. I much prefer the carrot approach to the stick approach of my first point, but I think both are important to try and achieve some balance in the future.

Third, governments should acknowledge that peaceful protest does not include the right to occupy public spaces or to cause harm to the the economic or social fabric of the country. Years ago, I promoted a policy that would criminalize that blockading or damaging of ‘critical public infrastructure’ under the guise of political protest. At that time it was the ‘Shut Down Canada’ movement blockading railways and pipelines, but I held the same position during the ‘Freedom Convoy’ blocking of bridges and cities a few years ago. The right to protest is a fundamental right in a free society, but that does not extend to damaging the economy, intimidating others or holding the public good hostage. It looks like the Trudeau government now agrees with this position and is acting on it with Bill C-70, An Act respecting countering foreign interference. This Bill just passed third reading as I finalize this essay, but I believe the government should ensure that university campuses are a part of this process as a step to try and restore civility to our public discourse.

With C-70, parliament is protecting “essential infrastructure” by including interference with it in the Criminal Code provisions related to the offence of sabotage. Actions will be considered an offence if a person intentionally interferes with the national defence or security of Canada or with access to “essential infrastructure” in a way that could cause a “serious risk to the health or safety of the public or any segment of the public”. Section 52.1 (2) includes a definition of ‘essential infrastructure’ being offered protection and it includes a long list of critical public infrastructure from health facilities to the food supply to critical telecommunications. As is the case with any good legal drafting, the definition of essential infrastructure also allows for the additional of “any other infrastructure prescribed by regulations”. In my view, social and educational infrastructure, including college and university campuses, should be added to this list in the regulations to C-70.

Education is an essential public service just as much as a bridge is to our economic needs or a hospital is to our health needs. Canadians should be free to access schools, colleges and universities free from interference, intimidation or blockades by people knowingly holding this essential infrastructure hostage for their political views. This inclusion will demonstrate a commitment to peace, order and good government in line with our values as a country. It will also push back against the rising tide of intolerance and anti-Semitism we have seen get steadily worse despite the fact that parliament condemned the BDS Movement eight years ago. “Education”, Plato once said is about “teaching our children to desire the right things”. Informed and respectful debate is definitely the right thing and so is a full-throated rejection of anti-Semitism.

1. MOTION: That, given Canada and Israel share a long history of friendship as well as economic and diplomatic relations, the House reject the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which promotes the demonization and delegitimization of the State of Israel, and call upon the government to condemn any and all attempts by Canadian organizations, groups or individuals to promote the BDS movement, both here at home and abroad.