Canadian Jewish Congress is pleased to provide you with the following presentation given earlier today on Parliament Hill by our President Mark J. Freiman, who was testifying before the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Antisemitism.

Mr. Chair, Members of the Parliamentary Coalition.

It is as a Canadian organization, one that represents a specific portion of the Canadian social fabric and one that stands up for Canadian values, that Canadian Jewish Congress commends this Coalition for your decision to work to combat antisemitism, a decision that in our view represents not only a rejection of hatred and prejudice but also an affirmation of basic Canadian values, as expressed in our Charter and elsewhere, of tolerance, decency and equality.

Canadian Jewish Congress also commends you for your decision to stand up for these values through a coalition that crosses party lines. 

For Canadian Jewish Congress, standing up against antisemitism and indeed against all manifestations of hatred and intolerance is not a partisan position.  It is a stand that we as Canadians as much as we as Jews expect from all political parties and we are gratified that these expectations are being fulfilled.

But what is this phenomenon of antisemitism and why over sixty years after the end of the Second World War is it still necessary to devote time and resources to study and ultimately combat it?

The question is not a trivial one.

Antisemitism, simply put, is fear and hatred of Jews, expressed in words and/or deeds.

Up to the end of the Second World War, and in some parts of the world even thereafter, “antisemitism” was not ashamed of its own name.  Around the turn of the last century, the mayor of Vienna was actually elected on the platform of a party that called itself simply the Antisemitic Party, though to be sure he was soon explaining that he reserved for himself the right to decide which Jews he and his party were specifically opposed to.

Later in the Century the Nazis dispensed with even this subtlety, along with the fiction that its opposition to Jews was a “political” rather than an exterminationist one.

Today in the North American context, the term antisemitism as descriptive of significant social or political attitudes is out of favour. 
Antisemitism, with apologies to Oscar Wilde, has become the hatred that dares not speak its name.

To the extent it is still a significant ideology, it is portrayed as something that exists only in foreign, benighted places. On this side of the Ocean, we are told, except for kooks and crackpots (usually portrayed as madly typing manifestoes on computers in their parents’ basement) we don’t have real antisemites and don’t need to trouble ourselves with concerns about residual antisemitism.

It can’t happen here.

We are all anti-antisemites now, to the point where those who suggest a continuing domestic issue of antisemitism  in Canada  often find themselves upbraided for being motivated by ulterior purposes and stand accused of resorting to the label “antisemitism” to insulate themselves and their political allies from legitimate criticism.

That is a view that I understand has been expressed in submissions to your Inquiry by groups and individuals who, I am sure, are careful to preface their messaging with a declaration that they are not antisemites themselves, but go on to maintain that though they deplore real antisemitism, the present Inquiry is not necessary and in fact is likely to be manipulated by “certain groups” to serve simply as a means to muzzle criticism of policies and behaviour by the State of Israel.

So there you have it.

Antisemitism isn’t a problem.  It’s the Jews with their Jewish State along with their Jewish supporters and fellow travellers abroad, including notably the Jews who want Parliamentarians to investigate non-existent Jew hatred.

Is this point of view surprising?

Sadly it is not.

Historically, antisemitism is as often as not, hatred of Jews in search of an alibi.

The basic message of antisemitism has remained remarkably constant:  “The Jews are not like the rest of us and conspire to do us harm.”

What varies over time is the motive invoked for the Jewish bad behaviour and bad intentions being alleged.

Sometimes it is located in theology (”The Jews are plotting to harm us because they hate Christianity”…. or is it Islam?).  Sometimes it is in politics (”The Jews ruin societies by promoting and practising the excessive individualism of Capitalism”…or is it the anti-individualism of Communism?).  Sometimes it is in genetics, sociology or anthropology (”The Jews are a danger because they are genetically or culturally inferior”…or is it because they have made themselves excessively successful?). The underlying message stays the same.  The evils that beset us are caused by the Jews.

Antisemitism is the oldest existing hatred and like other enduring infections it survives by successfully mutating over time.

The more familiar manifestations of antisemitism, from the extreme right have certainly not completely disappeared as the recent incident in Calgary, Ottawa and Barrie attest. The internet remains a problematic medium in this regard both as host for traditional hate websites and as a tool for recruitment.

But the mutation continues.

Antisemitism’s latest mutation, which affords it yet another alibi once again redefines its Jewish target. Instead of “the Jewish religion” or “the Jewish race” or  ‘the Jewish culture of decadence” or “Jewish financial influence”, the target is now often redefined as “the Jewish State” (and of course the International Jews who support it)  

The cause no longer calls itself antisemitism, but rather anti-Zionism and its new alibi is that what is being targeted is not individual Jews, nor Judaism as religion, but rather the alleged misdeeds of the State founded by Jews as a Jewish National Homeland.

But why is this to be seen as merely an alibi?  “Why,” the critics ask, “is it antisemitic to criticize the actions of a state, even one that is run by Jews?”

The answer is that the question itself is misconceived. 

It is no more antisemitic to criticize specific Israeli policies or actions than it is to criticize the acts of an alleged wrongdoer who is a Jew. 

What is antisemitic on the level of personal behaviour, is to attribute the acts of a Jewish person to the fact that he or she is Jewish; to characterize a particular alleged misdeed as an example of Jewish vices.

What is equally antisemitic on the broader level is to tie what are said to be misdeeds by the State of Israel to its status as a Jewish State; to characterize such alleged misconduct as an example of the evil nature of Zionism.

In both examples the act being criticized is only of interest to the antisemite because of the lesson it teaches about Jewish evil.

This is what constitutes the continuity between the “old” and the “new” antisemitism.

The strategy of the “old” antisemitism is to apply double standards and resort to demonization in order to dehumanize Jews.  The “new” antisemitism likewise employs double standards and resorts to demonization in order to delegitimize the world’s only Jewish State and those who support it.

The older, less subtle forms of antisemitism are far from extinct in the contemporary world.  Slogans and cartoons that would draw a knowing smile from a 1930’s reader of Der Sturmer abound in the press and the culture in certain places around the globe.

The book of cartoons I distributed is a good illustration of the enduring currency of some of the most hateful images and themes of classic antisemitism and how today, the targets of this hateful discourse are just as likely to be labelled as “Zionists” as  they are to simply be called Jews , even though  the stereotypes, images and messages remain the same.

In the West, such gross examples are rarer though as the book illustrates, they not totally absent. In our backyard, the increasingly more common form focuses on delegitimization and is spreading under the shelter of the alibi that it is only an expression of a respectable political and philosophical orientation.
 
Both forms are dangerous in their own way.  In Canada we can be thankful that antisemitism in whatever form is still largely beyond the bounds of respectable opinion. 

But not for lack of trying.

Antisemitism gnaws away at that border, looking for respectability by attaching itself to ostensibly respectable notions, whether Patriotism on the right or Social Justice on the left.

We cannot let hatred succeed in this quest.

That is where your Parliamentary Inquiry can make a positive contribution.

As a start, by calling manifestations of antisemitism by their real name, the Inquiry can help stem their drive toward legitimacy and acceptability.
 
We urge you to bell the cat of antisemitism, including explicitly recognizing that so-called anti-Zionism can and often does, cross over into antisemitism.

We ask that you affirm that in its hateful perspective, antisemitism is inconsistent with Canadian values.

In combating antisemitism, you can provide a template for opposition to all forms of prejudice, hatred and discrimination.

In addition, Canadian Jewish Congress has outlined a set of practical recommendations that we commend for your consideration.  They include proposals for structures to ensure that the work of this Inquiry has a lasting impact. 

Other proposals deal with helping put Canada’s own house in order, with working to develop suitable and up-to-date tools for ongoing research, with broad outreach initiatives and with providing education and support for front-line institutions..

Mr. Chair, we thank you again for the opportunity to share these thoughts with you today.

I would be glad to discuss, Canadian Jewish Congress’ proposals, or any of our perspectives further during the time allotted for questions.