My Canada includes ...

THIS POST HAS BEEN UPDATED:

Yesterday's Canada Day column sure got some people worked up. 

You can tell by the comments on The Star's main web page. But you should see my email. Everything from high praise to low blows. I'm sure you can figure out why.

Here's the column, with some links and annotations.

My Canada includes:

Collective Bargaining: Yes, I know the strike by Toronto city workers means kids can't cool off in public pools, parents' best-laid summer child-care plans have gone awry and garbage bins are overflowing.

I feel your pain.

Just like most of you, I don't have 18 sick days a year to bank and cash out.

I also know that, without unions, many of us would be working in Dickensian conditions. 

How would you like to be a miner without a union ensuring that the company meets safety standards? Or a sweatshop worker without proper ventilation, light or even fire escapes?

Collective bargaining floats all our boats. Without it, there would be no minimum wage, no paid sick leave, no health and pension benefits, no vacations. Do you honestly believe workers would still get a fair break if the bottom liners had nothing to keep them in check?

It's not workers who drove us into this economic mess. Workers weren't paying themselves multi-million-dollar bonuses for running companies into the ground. In fact, as executive salaries were rising, workers' wages were falling.

This isn't the time to get rid of unions. This is the time to be strengthening them.

I am amazed by how many people resent unions. I wonder how many people realize, for example, that if it weren't for unions negotiating health benefits for their members, nobody would have health insurance today? Thank Tommy Douglas.

Collective bargaining is a human right.

Public Broadcasting: Fully funded public broadcasting is good for Canadian culture, which includes tens of thousands of workers who perform and produce programming.

It is also crucial in an era when private broadcasters fail to live up to their licence requirements to provide local news and other domestic content.

Greedy private broadcasters, who squat on the public airwaves, who benefit from tens of millions of cable subscription fees viewers are forced to pay, who buy US programming and shelve it just so their competition can't have it and who went on corporate shopping sprees while accumulating crushing debt loads are now crying the blues because they are having a few relatively lean years. This after decades of rolling in huge profits.

Well, boo-hoo-hoo. That's no excuse for not living up to the commitments they made for winning their licences.

Even more important, as much as I adore the Internet, it is no substitute for rigorous Canadian eyes and ears on all levels of government – as well as on Canadian corporations, which might otherwise rip off consumers while raping the environment.

CanWest Global and CTV give so much uncritical coverage to the Harper government that it is stunning complains aren't storming their signal towers. CTV might well have changed the course of history when it ran outtakes from an interview with former Liberal leader Stephan Dion, which made him seem like he couldn't understand English. The industry own standards council rapped the network for that.

Forget CTV and Global. They are beyond redemption, as they demonstrated during their campaign to make viewers pay for what they are now getting free – i.e. cable fees for local over-the-air stations.

CTV actually held open houses at its local stations, and got its on-air personalities to shill for these fees.

I'm talking CBC.

I'm talking excellent original and thought-provoking programming on CBC Radio's Ideas.

I'm also talking The National, which is now riddled with commercials and no longer has the weight or authority it used to have.

That's because, to sell ads, it has to produce eyeballs. That means more Michael Jackson, less Stephen Harper.

And that's not good for Canada.

I hate to say it but The National is too often pre-occupied with trivia. And CBC no longer has the resources to do consistent hard-hitting investigative journalism that answers to no advertisers.

Freedom of Expression: Excuse me but since when did the interests of Zionist lobby groups determine who or what Canadians can see and hear?

In recent months, to list just three examples, there have been concerted campaigns against the staging of Caryl Churchill's controversial Seven Jewish Children: A Play for Gaza and an academic conference at York University where the so-called "one-state solution'' was to be discussed. We also saw British MP George Galloway be denied entry to the country for a speaking tour, just because he brought aid to bombed-out Gaza.

Now comes word that the only way the respected Al-Jazeera English news service, currently applying for TV distribution in Canada, can win the support of these same Jewish groups is to have them become consultants.

Journalistically speaking, that is hardly kosher.

Hoo-boy, did I hear about this one. The usual slurs of anti-Semitism, etc.

My answer? What part of this isn't true?

U.S. War Resisters: Canada's proudest moment this century was when it refused to join George W. Bush in his attack on Iraq.

Yet we deport Americans who didn't sign up to brutalize civilians.

If this, this and this don't count as brutalizing civilians, what does?

Those kids were hoodwinked, both by their government and its lapdog media, into thinking they were joining up to protect their country from terrorism and Saddam Hussein's non-existent weapons of mass destruction.

Rather than welcome them, we send them back over the border and to certain prison sentences.

That's not my Canada.

Is it yours?

So, here's the thing.

When former Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson, the man who won the Nobel prize for inventing UN peacekeeping, came up with the red and white maple leaf flag, he envisioned it as the sort of flag that would not be associated with war.

Kind of like the way the Norwegian flag is today.

It no longer is the case. 

Here's the other thing.

When John Lennon and Yoko Ono chose Canada as the venue for their Give Peace a Chance bed-in in 1969, they did it in part because they considered this country as the embodiment of anti-war values.

It no longer is the case.

As I wrote on the wall at the Imagine exhibit at Montreal's Musee des Beaux-Arts, ''John Lennon would not recognize Stephen Harper's Canada.''

UPPITY WOMAN DATE (July 7/09): Marky Mark, with whom I used to spar on my old blog Azerbic during the Israel-Lebanon conflagration in 2006, has put up a blog post that says it all on the Zionist lobby question, which has exploded in the comments.

Here's an excerpt:

While I think Jewish community advocacy groups have the right to advocate for Israel, it has gotten to the point where it almost seems as if a response to a report from a human rights organization concerning Israel comes from B'nai Brith Canada before there is an official response from the Government of Israel. This makes no sense to me. Organizations created to serve the needs of Jewish Canadians should focus, first and foremost, on that mission.

Sure, most Jewish Canadians feel an affinity to Israel, consistent with connections felt by other "hyphenated" Canadians. All you have to do is watch a post-soccer tournament street party in Toronto to see that Jewish Canadians are not alone in that respect.

But Ms Zerbisias is correct in identifying that what local groups have been doing vis a vis Israel is clear-namely, endeavouring to shut down debate. I think this is wrong, as it is a debate in which Israel can more than hold its own, and I think it is catastrophic for Jewish Canadians because it puts "official" Jewish organizations at war (and one that is unnecessary) with leading progressive figures. And most important, it is morally wrong when it involves accusations of anti-Semitism where (as is almost always the case) that are unwarranted.

Thanks Mark. Who'da thunk, back in 2006, we'd have peace between you and me?

Comments

[hysperia]

No and I don't recognize Stephen Harper's damned Canada either. You go Antonia!

[johnnykap]

''John Lennon would not recognize Stephen Harper's Canada.''

John Lennon, while a great musician, was an extreme leftist politically. We can rejoice that his vision for the world has been expunged (kind of like a fetus, Antonia).

[Louise]

Glad to see you are sticking up for unions (amazingly, it has become an unfashionable position even among those I would consider liberal-left). I don't get it. What is so terrible about having decent wages, benefits and working conditions?

[jb]

I don't recognize my Canada that I grew up in and used to be proud of, either. Now it makes me furious thinking about it, and ashamed to say where I'm from. Everything you mentioned in this piece contributes to my decision to never live in Canada again. I'm happier in a third world South American country, helping it along on it's way in social democracy.

[Alison S]

'John Lennon would not recognize Stephen Harper's Canada.'' I don't either.

Great points Antonia.

[The Stygian and his Shemitish Dogs]

Pat Pet,

Do I get thanks for arriving?

[The Stygian and his Shemitish Dogs]

"When John Lennon and Yoko Ono chose Canada as the venue for their Give Peace a Chance bed-in in 1969, they did it in part because they considered this country as the embodiment of anti-war values."

Is it churlish to point out that at the same time John Lennon was approaching William F. Buckley for help in getting permanent resident status in the US?

He should have "imagined" a bit harder.

[Edson]

Thank you so much for the pro-union post! It's scary that at a time when corporations and the free market tripe they push should be getting raked over the coals for the mess they have created for ordinary people everywhere, it's somehow the unions that are being blamed for having it too good. But then the media is corporate so as scary as it is, it isn't surprising.

[Mark]

Why the shot at the "Zionist lobby groups" bogeyman? As a Zionist, I hardly care whether you can get Al-Jazeera English on cable. Ironically, the more (non-Israeli) news you watch or read from the Middle East, the more likely you are to understand the need for Israel to exist as a Jewish state (obviously within reduced borders.)

Isn't the problem really still (and always) old, white, male tories? It hardly matters whether they're Jewish or nominally Christian - they, and not "Zionists", are the ones who oppose everything you and I hold dear.

[Martha Brebaf]

You ask which part isn't true? Try this on for size.

"Excuse me but since when did the interests of Zionist lobby groups determine who or what Canadians can see and hear?"

The "interests" of "Zionist lobby groups" do not "determine" who or what Canadians "see and hear". Canadian law and those responsible to administer the law "determine" what Canadians can "see and hear".

You just don't get it Antonia, many people (rightly or wrongly) may read the word "Jews" when they see Zionist which is bad enough. Worse is the fact that in one of Canada's most important newspapers you suggest strongly that "Zionists" control government authorities. Its a lie and a dangerous one at that, if you are asking.

[Antonia]

The moment we start conflating Zionist with Jew is the moment all criticism of Israel's brutal occupation of the West Bank and the siege of Gaza ends. The moment when all criticism of this ends is the moment when freedom of expression ends.

The record is clear. Bnai Brith, the CJC, JDL etc. have attempted to silence critics of Israel's occupation. Then they complain when people point out those efforts. Well, you can't have it both ways.

What's more: Not all Jews are Zionists.

In fact, there are many progressive Jews -- Independent Jewish Voices, Not In Our Name to name two groups -- who are very public about this.

And where do I suggest ''Zionists control government authorities?''

Please don't put words in my mouth.

[Susan Cardikan]

When do you suggest Zionists control government authorities? You’re putting me on? Let’s parse your own words:

""Excuse me but since when did the interests of Zionist lobby groups determine who or what Canadians can see and hear?"

You write it above very clearly. You leave the unmistakable impression that "Zionist groups determine what can be seen and heard". The word "determine" is yours the question you pose is also clearly rhetorical. Only authorities make that "determination" not your evil "Zionists". Don't play games Antonia. You were sloppy with your words and now you are wearing it.

[Antonia]

Susan,

Perhaps you might want to review the documents on the CRTC's website pertaining to the agreement between the CJC and B'nai Brith and Al Jazeera.

Perhaps you might want to screen this:

http://www.pogge.ca/archives/002280.shtml

Or read this:

http://ijvcanada.org/can-j-inst-pro-israeli-org/jewish-defence-league/jewish-defence-league-galloway-terrorist-organization-advised-canadian-government-to-ban-mp-george-galloway/

How about this?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/goodyear-questions-mideast-forum-funds/article1175909/

The fact is that Zionist groups are attempting to -- and in some cases have succeeded in -- stifling criticism of Israel's occupation.

Need I define Zionism here?
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Zionism/zionism.html

You can make any accusation you like.

But you can't say there have not been repeated attempts, especially in recent months, to stifle debate -- and to stifle people who are saying that the debate has been stifled.

[Dafe Oputu]

Canada is a country that doesn't like war, but a dislike for war shouldn't mean abandoning it. If we had fought a war in Rwanda for example during the genocide instead of everyone just leaving then we'd be heroes. Romeo Dallaire decided to stay and fight a war instead of going home and ignoring problems. A war for peace is possible and Canada's mission in Afghanistan can't be criticized purely based on the fact that we have gone to war.

However most Canadians aren't fully sure what is going on there, which isn't good. I am especially ignorant so I can't defend against criticism of HOW we should be handling the war.

[hysperia]

Did I read the same column that Martha Brebaf read? Darned if I can find anything that says Zionists control the government. Indeed, that would be a very dangerous thing to say for more than one reason. But to ask when it happened that the interests of Zionists determine what Canadians should see and hear when it comes to George Galloway, Caryl Churchill and the conference at York U - well in whose interests IS it/was it that Galloway wasn't allowed into the country, that some Jewish organizations asked Toronto's mayor to suppress the play and that organizers of the York U conference are being harassed after the interference of a certain Conservative politician? Surely not the interests of Palestinians living in Gaza? Whose then? And weren't those groups Zionists? When Jewish groups make claims demanding the suppression of free speech they can hardly expect everyone to just shut up. NOT THE WAY DEMOCRACY works. It's accusations such as Martha Brebaf's that are dangerous.

[hysperia]

Dafe, Romeo Dallaire did not fight a war in Rwanda. The UN prevented him from taking any action to protect Rwandans. If Western countries had paid appropriate attention to Rwanda, there would not have been a need to protect people from genocide. We shouldn't abandon war? Hell yes we should abandon war. But there are a few other things we'll need to attend to before that will be possible. Like the massive inequalities perpetrated by corporate capitalism, for instance.

[Ken Wiener]

When certain Muslims attacked Steyn and Levant, did Zerbisias challenge them in the same aggressive way she went after the Zionists? If not, why not?

[Susan Cardikan]

The JDL is a very marginal group and the B'nai Brith has become politically Conservative. Neither are mainstream anymore. I do not agree with their tactics but they have the right to their views in a free society. You have the right to object. Its called democracy. It looks like you are having trouble with that concept.

BTW, I have checked and the only Jeiwsh group asking for a ban on 7 Children was B'nai Brith. Again not really the mainstream.

Bottom line is this. None of these Jewish groups are acting outside the law. I read the documents you asked me to read and all Ive seen was a gesture from Al Jazeera English to have a consultation group with Jewih leaders over potential concerns around anti-Semitism. What? That's a bad thing?

Your over-done fear of jewish groups makes you look downright silly and paranoid.

[Antonia]

The JDL may be marginal but that does not unmake it as a Zionist group which has attempted to stifle free speech.

BB is very politically conservative but that doesn't stop it from using its reach and influence to try to stifle free speech. Seven Children is but one instance. It also acted, along with other groups including the CJC, to try and prevent a group critical of Israel to march in the Pride parade. It also acted, while smearing a participant as a Holocaust denier, to try a kill funding for the York U. conference. (And it was not the only group trying to A PRIORI censor that discussion.)

That ''gesture'' by BB and the CJC. It was in return for not fighting against Al Jazeera's application for carriage here. That's quite the ''gesture.''

The only groups who have trouble with the concept of free speech are those who try and shut up those who criticize Israel.

Me, I am ALL for free speech. That's why I don't delete your comments.

It's also why I don't feel the need to resort to name-calling when putting forth my arguments.

[The Stygian and his Shemitish Dogs]

"in whose interests IS it/was it that Galloway wasn't allowed into the country?"

pretty well everybody's, actually.

[Mark]

Antonia -

I think your use of the "Zionist" tag is incorrect. Do you think this Zionist organization would try to keep Al-Jazeera out of Canada?

http://www.peacenowcanada.org/

The CJC and BB are right-wing Jewish organizations. Why is "right-wing" not a good enough tag? Is Zionist Irwin Cotler as big a threat (or a threat at all?) to Canada as a Harperite? Do you think Zionist MP Pat Martin is a threat to Canada? (The guy took a serious beating when he tried to stop some skinheads from harassing a black man...)

[Susan Cardikan]

Zerbisias states: "Seven Children is but one instance. It also acted, along with other groups including the CJC, to try and prevent a group critical of Israel to march in the Pride parade"

So unlike Ms. Zebisias I actually did a Google news search. Funny thing I could find no proof that CJC tried to keep "a group critical of Israel" from marching in the Pride parade. To be sure there was much debate on the issue. Concerns expresssed that the parade was turning into a bash Israel thing but no call that I could find from CJC to ban it from the parade. In fact according to the Canadian Jewish News

http://www.cjnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17241&Itemid=86

the CJC marched in the Pride Parade.

So unless I missed a source (even heard Farber on CBC's the Current...no call for banning) you may have got it wrong or worse put your own spin on it.

[Antonia]

Yes, Susan, imagine my surprise when I saw Bernie Farber identifying himself as queer by joining a pro-Israel gay rights group in the parade. Funny because I had never seen him in the march before. Funny because I didn't know he was gay.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

He even posted a picture of himself, and on Twitter wrote:

''Pride just finishe, great day to be a Jew and Zionist in Toronto
1:18 PM Jun 28th from mobile web ''

Note to Mark: Farber himself identifies as Zionist. As for being ''right-wing,'' I think many Jews identify with leftish principles, even members of the CJC. Indeed, it was founded on those principles, wasn't it?

But back to Susan's contention. It was B'nai Brith which launched the initial official salvo against Pride. But then, when I and others pointed out the hypocrisy inherent in that, what with all the associations with homophobes such as John Hagee, I noted that the CJC stepped into the breech.

Coincidence? Maybe.

I suggest your Google search was less than thorough.

http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2009/06/12/9771261-sun.html

Farber told CBC that Pride was not about politics -- which betrayed a total misunderstanding of Pride -- and then he joined a U of T gay group because he is suddenly a champion of queer rights in Israel?

Okay, whatever.

[JoanneK]

Antonia you are a piece of work!! Farber is gay-positive. Under his watch at CJC the Congress supported EGALE in seeking intervention status on behalf of gay teacher Delwyn Vriend. Farber also brought on to CJC the first gay representative to its Board. I can also tell your readers from my own personal knowledge that Farber gave the eulogy at the funeral of the late David kelly, former executive director of PWA. Farber has been close personal friends with Mr. Kelly for 35 years.

As for Farber being gay, while we would welcome him gladly into the fold, he is "straight but not narrow". You see Antonia, the more you get it wrong the more people begin to understand.

[Antonia]

Understand what exactly, Joanne?

And where have I suggested that Farber was not gay-positive?

Anyway ...

So far, nobody here has been able to disprove what I stated in my column.

If people stay on topic, I will welcome their comments.

If you can prove my column incorrect, and show that Farber/CJC welcomed all opinions in Gay Pride, and made no attempts (along with BB) to get QAIA banned from the parade, your comments will be printed.

So far you haven't.

And so, I will assume you have another agenda. To quote Farber, a ''stilted agenda'' against me and my expressing my opinions.

[Marky Mark]

I think the difficulty here is that "Zionist" has a precise meaning that no longer has any practical importance. The term simply refers to the desire to create a national homeland for the Jewish People. That goal was accomplished over six decades ago and Israel is now an internationally recognized country that is a member state of the UN. There are few in this country who would wish to reverse that history. But for those for whom that is a goal, I'd say "anti-Zionist" would be a fair term for their ideas.

Since the idea of there being an Israel is now a practical reality and most people do not want to undo it, the use of the term "Zionist" doesn't seem to fit to describe everyone who recognizes the existence of Israel and doesn't want to dismantle Israel as the homeland for the Jewish People. Are all of Jack Layton, Michael Ignatieff, Gilles Duceppe and Stephen Harper Zionists? The technical answer is yes. Are the editorial boards of the Toronto Star, Globe and Mail and National Post all Zionist? The answer is again yes. In fact, I'm willing to bet that the overwhelming majority of Canadians are Zionists in that sense.

Perhaps you are as well.

In that sense all of the Jewish organizations that you mention are Zionist organizations. But Zionism is not the central purpose of any of them any more than it marks the defining feature of our political parties or the editorial boards of the newspapers that I mentioned. They are organizations meant to service the needs of Jewish Canadians. (And I wouldn't include the JDL in that list on a par with the CJC or B'nai Brith.)

So what is the term "Zionist" meant to capture in 2009? Right wing Israelis and those here who support them? I don't know why people use the term anymore.

I'm personally against the attempts to silence the criticism of Israel that you describe. I think Zionism was and remains as progressive an idea as a whole host of liberal ideas including feminism. That doesn't mean I support everything (or even most things) that Israeli governments do. But just like those who opposed US policy in Vietnam didn't argue for the US losing its independence from Britain, I don't see Israel's misdeeds as such that Israel should be undone. I welcome all debate among reasonable fair minded people.

In terms of the lobbying that was undertaken by the Jewish community organizations that you refer to in your post, I think that those organizations have and should have the complete freedom to lobby just like all other advocacy groups. It seems to me that the efforts failed in all the cases you referred to other than Galloway and, in that case, whether you agree with the decision or not, it was made by the government based on an interpretation of our laws.

Obviously there is some sensitivity to this topic. Clearly in these debates there are some who would attempt to silence criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic. But the flip side of the coin is that given that in 2009 anti-Semitism thankfully is socially unacceptable, there will be a few bad apples who will use criticism of Israel as an outlet for what they can't otherwise express. For that subset of people, however small, terms like "Zionist lobby groups" will be understood in a way far different than the meaning the speaker/writer intends. Given the history of anti-Semitism in this country, I think it's worth remaining sensitive to this issue.

[hysperia]

Wow. It's all silly really. For the most part, these groups are more than willing to take responsibility for affecting government policy - that's the point.

[Eliezer Zusken]

Ms. Zerbisias, I am a long time admirer of both you and Bernie Farber which kind of puts me in an awkward position. So, on this I will side with the facts.

Fact: Farber got it wrong about the Pride parade. Indeed Pride was a quintissential political event. Politics drove it but today its a party a celebration with political overtones. I have attended each Pride Parade since it began and most want to party, on that score Farber is (excuse the pun) bang-on.

Fact: You, Antonia, got it wrong about Farber. He is straight but has a long record of support for the gay community. A number of gay activists now participate with CJC thanks to Farber's encouragement.

Fact: Farber never calloed for the QuAIA to be banned

Fact: Farber has attended Pride events in the past. I thought it was odd you claiming you never saw him there.I mean only 700,000 people attend Pride. I have never seen you at a Pride event.

Antonia, you are a refreshing voice in the meida, one that doesn't easily back down. I respect that. I would respect you even more if you, from time to time, acknowledge that like in this instance, you didn't get it exactly correct.

[Marcy Playground]

I found your last response to Susan particularly childish, even by your standards. I get that you're trying to be ironic, but I failed to find the reference (and I did a thorough Google search) whereby Bernie Farber declared himself to be gay as the reason he marched in the Pride Parade this year. It's typically those with weak or selective arguments who need to resort to these playground tactics.

[Ben Singer]

Antonia,

We've had this discussion by email, but I'll reiterate here. There is a HUGE difference between censorship and not endorsing something vocally or financially. B'nai Brith asked for the withdrawl of the City of Toronto's support for a controversial AND ARGUABLY ANTI-SEMITIC (because it does a poor job of drawing the line between Israeli and Jew) play. Goodyear questioned FUNDING for an 'academic' conference which turned out to be not so academic, including speakers like Ali Abunimah, who has no academic credentials.

As for Pride, Farber is expressing some of the frustration many feel at the hypocrisy of QAIA. Israel, which supports sexual freedom, does not deserve the unfair and one-sided rhetoric at a parade that has nothing to do with international issues at the Pride Parade. There just isn't a logical linkage, especially when one-sided, inflamatory rhetoric only serves to further polarize the issue, pushing away from resolution.

And since when do you have to be gay to march in the Pride Parade? Has your argument gotten so weak that you need to resort to using the accusation of homosexuality as an insult? Are you six year old? I assume you're not a homophobe, so its your age I question. And just because you can quote Seinfeld doesn't mean the intent isn't there.

Your schoolyard antics and your conspiracy theories (yes, making the accusation that "Zionist lobby groups determine who or what Canadians can see and hear" IS a conspiracy, a la "Protocols") are one thing I wish my Canada did not include.

But you're not going to listen to a word I've said, are you?

Okay, whatever.

[Antonia]

One last time. Here is what my column said:

''Freedom of Expression: Excuse me but since when did the interests of Zionist lobby groups determine who or what Canadians can see and hear?

In recent months, to list just three examples, there have been concerted campaigns against the staging of Caryl Churchill's controversial Seven Jewish Children: A Play for Gaza and an academic conference at York University where the so-called "one-state solution'' was to be discussed. We also saw British MP George Galloway be denied entry to the country for a speaking tour, just because he brought aid to bombed-out Gaza.

Now comes word that the only way the respected Al-Jazeera English news service, currently applying for TV distribution in Canada, can win the support of these same Jewish groups is to have them become consultants.

Journalistically speaking, that is hardly kosher.''

What part of that is incorrect?

Unless they address that, comments will be deleted.

I will also be deleting all further comments coming from supposedly different people on the same computer. You know who you are.

[Julia]

Decent wages??

Garbage workers in Toronto are among the highest paid! They make more money than any private company. Fighting for decent wages? Its time this country actually fought for more important things like a better health care.
A metropolitan city like Toronto cannot afford to have a strike of this nature. People of Toronto have the right to be resentful. All that CUPE has done is paralyzed the city. Over what?

As to Stephen Harper - I am so proud that Canada is being represented by a man who actually sees the world as it is. If people just opened their eyes and stopped seeing the world based on their emotions they would see just how great of a job this Prime Minister has done.

Since when is Al-Jazeera respected? Seems to me you are seeing teh world with shades on.
I am born and raised in Canada and never have I felt so many anti-semitic and anti-Israel sentiments. All of which are being led by these unions. So tell me how is it these "Zionist" groups are controlling things? Again look at the stats first.

I can go on and comment about you said about George Bush and Saddam Hussein but quite frankly, I feel like it would not make a difference.

All I can say is that the Canada you want to live in is definitely NOT the Canada I would dare to raise my family in.

[Andrew]

Susan Cardikan, try googling harder.

"the Canadian Jewish Congress has asked parade participants to lobby against the colourful and popular event becoming a venue to attack Israel."

http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2009/06/12/9771261-sun.html

So what exactly are they asking people to "lobby" Pride Toronto to do, if it's not ban a contingent?

[Mark]

I think the CJC lost its lefty roots when Bronfman kicked out all of the supposed communists almost 60 years ago. As far as I can tell, it has been a Likud-type (at best "Center-right") organization for a long time.

But I think you skipped the fundamental question: are left-wing "Zionists" the ones who are threatening Canadian liberties? Or are right-wing Tories - be they Jewish or Christian or Zionist - the problem?

[Beesting]

The CJC “wanted to be more than a Zionist organization in 1919…” (former CJC Western Region Director Abraham Arnold) which explains why CJC’s Farber zeroes in on one and one only [133 words out of 600+] out of the four items Antonia mentions in her column: the ‘Zionist lobby groups’ who advocate for very selective freedom of expression. Farber proves right Arnold who explains: "[the CJC] seem to be spending more time in relation to Israel than in relation to anything else."

The range of “accepted” public opinion on Israel in Canada is so narrow that the badly needed intelligent, robust public debate is virtually impossible. Those who choose universal, ethical and social justice traditions of their faith above zionism are marginalised or worse – summarily discredited rather than addressed intellectually. Farber & Co.’s unfair attempts at gagging many a public debate, at shutting down dissent have more to do with McCarthyism than the Jewish humanist tradition.
What happened to the Talmudic tradition of engaging different opinions as a learning process? Prof. Marc Ellis, director of the Center for American and Jewish Studies at Baylor University noted that, "Within Jewish life there has been a tradition of dissent regarding Zionism, including among Zionists themselves. Much of this tradition is forgotten or deliberately buried. Few Jews know that Judah Magnes, the first president of Hebrew University, Martin Buber, the great biblical scholar and theologian, and Hannah Arendt, the philosopher of the mind and the human condition, were all bi-nationalists, opposed to a Jewish state in Palestine.”

Subjects that Israel’s cheerleaders wish to suppress are currently debated publicly and vigorously within Israel. Why would it not be legitimate for Canadians to express their thoughts freely – the criminal code exists for those who trespass – without having words falsely attributed to them, without being dragged through mud – and with the benefit of due process? My Canada doesn’t include Big Brother to decide what Canadians should know.

[Antonia]

Note that I have deleted several comments that do not address what I wrote in the column, that continue to make accusations without substantiation and dark intimations and that come from internet addresses that make me question their authorship.

If those commenters prove they are not ''sock puppets'' out to harass me by raising irrelevant points, and if they can provide evidence that my column was in error, they are welcome to post.

Otherwise ... DELETE. NEXT!

[hysperia]

But it's quite possible, Mark, that it could be right-wing Tories, right-wing Christians AND right-wing Zionists that are threatening Canadian liberties. Not every NeoCon identifies with one of those groups. In the end, of course, it's our government that must take responsibility as well as Canadians themselves. There's no doubt, though, that there ARE religious groups that influence our politicians and that even represent the beliefs of our politicians - and thus, obviously, of some Canadians. One important point here is simply that Antonia is not an anti-Semite by virtue of anything she wrote in this column or anywhere else that I'm aware of. She was expressing her view about the undue influence that she believes (and I agree) Jewish people of some "Zionist" persuasions have had on political decisions that have influenced Canadian liberties negatively. I've heard her express the same point with respect to right-wing Christians who influence politicians to introduce private members bills to limit accessibility to abortion. Then I've seen those right-wing Christians trash her in this and other spaces. But I must say, they never bother to call her an anti-Christian. That's beside the point because it's obvious. And it just doesn't have the same traction.

Granted, no one has had the "courage" to come right out and accuse Antonia of anti-Semitism. But having read comments in which she is accused of having an "agenda", of being fearful and paranoid and so forth, I have no doubt whatsoever that code is being used for just that accusation. And, once again, from my point of view, anti-Zionist - whatever one's definition of Zionism may be - is simply NOT the same as anti-Semite and arguments that elide the two are disingenuous - but disingenuous with a purpose. The purpose is to keep us forever arguing about red herrings and thus to distract us from real and effective efforts to pressure Israel to behave justly toward the Palestinian people. To say nothing of waking Canadians to the threat to their liberties - whether that be from right-wing Christians or right-wing Zionists.

[Sairen]

Antonia, as someone of Jewish roots who does not support Zionism (particularly the current climate of labeling any and all criticism of the Israeli gov't as antisemitic), I thank you for your encouragement to the rest of us to speak out as "the other" Jewish perspective (yes, folks, there really IS another one - and there are many of us).

[daniel]

Incorrect:
1) Zionist lobby groups don't determine what you see and hear. If they did, you'd have no knowledge of SJC or the york conference.
2) The campaigns were against public funding of an 'academic' conference with little to no academic legitimacy and a racist play, respectively.
3) Galloway was denied entry for support of hamas. If giving aid to gaza were his crime, canada could never accept any israeli officials.
4) Not incorrect so much as disingenuous: the issue is aja, which has interviews with lots of bigots, most notably anti-semites. Aje's association with aja casts doubt on its application and consulting with jews on what constitutes anti-semitism, to avoid breaking canadian hate laws isn't just kosher, it's smart.
5) Kosher can only correctly describe food.
6) Just because my friend Ben showed me your hateful article and comments and let me comment from his computer doesn't make us the same person.

[Marky Mark]

Thanks Antonia-yes, we've come a long way from 2006 and it feels good to be able to discuss these issues in the Canadian spirit, by which I mean we strive to respect diverse views and engage in a constructive and civil debate.

The core problems involved in the Arab Israeli dispute are not going to be solved here in Canada but how we talk about that dispute here does speak to our own society. Despite the obvious passions on both sides of the issue, we owe it to ourselves as Canadians to maintain our culture and traditions in debating this (and other like) issues.

[Leslie W]

Whether BB and CJC have succeeded in stifling debate is not the issue. It is that they have attempted it. The organization for which I work is structured in such a way that the membership may bring motions for debate to regularly scheduled meetings. A couple of years ago, two members (the minimum required to move a motion) brought forward a motion in support of the divestment/boycott of Israel. BB put out an e-mail to all of its members telling them to write and call us to tell us that we HAD NO RIGHT TO ENGAGE in this discussion, and that in so-doing, we were anti-semitic. There was no misunderstanding. Their goal was to stop the talk.

No organization or individual should be in the business of telling others waht they may, or may not discuss, within the confines of the current laws. That BB didn't succeed in stopping us from having the discussion was in spite of the horrendous bullying from the BB member-community that contacted us - swearing, hurling hateful epithets at our staff who answer the phone, writing e-mails accusing us of hate crimes and propogating anti-Jewish sentiment.

So, from personal experience I can tell you that BB does indeed attempt to stop discussion. Thankfully it has yet to be successful in reaching this goal.

Whether or not BB is actually mainstream is not the issue. Every time it puts out a press release, it refers to itself as the major spokes-organization on behalf of The Jewish Community, so to minimize its impact simply because it is known by some to have changed in its political perspective is to ignore that to many, it is still the authoritative voice on behalf of that (non-existent) entity called The Jewish Community.

[Sairen]

Jewish Community? If the BB and CJC think that they speak for all of us, then I guess that I and many others are not part of *their* community. I don't condone the tactics which you just described, Leslie - and I am well aware that these things really ARE happening, sadly. It has been really disappointing to realize this.

And for the record, I know that Antonia Z is neither bigoted, nor, antisemitic. She simply believes in equal human rights for all.