Category: Politics

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, in his courageous “Fire and Water” speech in the Israeli Knesset, also spoke forcefully about the historic hate crime that once again is rearing its ugly head.

Harper argued persuasively that in recent years, the world is witnessing ” the mutation of the old disease of anti-Semitism and the emergence of a new strain.”

According to Harper, the old form of anti-Semitism, contained the explicit hatred of Jews and the blaming of Jews and Judaism for the ills of the world or more particularly, the domestic problems of certain nations.

In the case of Germany, in the 1930s, Hitler’s blaming the Jews for Germany’s multiple problems, was used as the rationale for developing and implementing theHolocaust, a state-sponsored and systematic elimination of a whole people and its unique culture.

Harper further argued:

“But, in much of the western world, the old hatred has been translated into more sophisticated language for use in polite society.

People who would never say they hate and blame the Jews for their own failings or the problems of the world, instead declare their hatred of Israel and blame the only Jewish state for the problems of the Middle East.

As once Jewish businesses were boycotted, some civil-society leaders today call for a boycott of Israel. On some campuses, intellectualized arguments against Israeli policies thinly mask the underlying realities, such as the shunning of Israeli academics and the harassment of Jewish students.

Most disgracefully of all, some openly call Israel an apartheid state. Think about that.

Think about the twisted logic and outright malice behind that: a state, based on freedom, democracy and the rule of law, that was founded so Jews can flourish as Jews, and seek shelter from the shadow of the worst racist experiment in history.

That is condemned, and that condemnation is masked in the language of anti-racism.

It is nothing short of sickening.”

But, this is the face of the new anti-Semitism. It targets the Jewish people by targeting Israel and attempts to make the old bigotry acceptable for a new generation.

Of course, criticism of Israeli government policy is not in and of itself necessarily anti-Semitic.
But what else can we call criticism that selectively condemns only the Jewish state and effectively denies its right to defend itself, while systematically ignoring – or excusing – the violence and oppression all around it?

What else can we call it when Israel is routinely targeted at the United Nations?

And when Israel remains the only country to be the subject of a permanent agenda item at the regular sessions of its Human Rights Council?”

This is very powerful stuff.

I totally agree with Harper when he stated that criticism of Israeli policy “is not in of itself necessarily anti-Semitic.”

Take for example the Israeli policy towards its minority, the Israeli Palestinians (representing about 20 per cent of the entire population).

Since in general, the Israeli Palestinians, lag behind the Jewish majority in terms of housing, education and income, the Jewish majority’s policies pertaining to this group, may be in part called into question. That is fair game, provided the critics of Israeli policies towards its Palestinian minority, are sincerely interested in the civil and human rights of Palestinians.

Accordingly, such critics, if they were acting in good faith, would also be openly critical of Hamas’ discriminatory mistreatment of Palestinians in Gaza, especially Palestinian women.

But to turn a blind eye to the many civil rights abuses inflicted upon the Palestinians by Hamas, (in terms of rule by violence, lack of democracy and lack of rule of law) is to seriously call into question the bona fides, as Harper has done, of the critics of Israeli policies pertaining to Palestinians.

By just targeting Israel for criticism, indicates that the true intentions of these critics, are not to protect the civil rights of Palestinians, but to use the plight of the Palestinians to create hatred against Israel and its Jewish people.

With the ultimate goal of delegitimizing Israel and deeming Jewish people as international pariah.

Harper has publicly identified this form of criticism as the new anti-Semitism.

Harper is also bang on when he accuses those who criticize Israel as an “apartheid” state, as also engaging in the new anti-Semitism.

Because to suggest that Israel is guilty of engaging in apartheid, akin to the racist and discriminatory treatment of black residents of South Africa, is a modern day form of blood libel. (for centuries anti-Semites alleged that Jews kidnapped Christian children, killed them and used their blood for Jewish rituals)

In apartheid South Africa, as discussed in a recent Huffington Post article ” a minority of whites oppressed a majority of blacks and discrimination was enshrined in law.

There was separation by colour: white, coloured, Indian, black, South Africans were forced to live in areas based on those designations. There were government boards given the legal right to designate “colour… There were segregated sports arenas, public restrooms, schools, stores, restaurants, and public transportation.” Similar to the Jim Crow laws of the U.S. in the early 20th century.

In contrast in Israel, equality of all Israeli residents is enshrined in The Israeli Declaration of Independence, which proclaims, Israel will “ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants regardless of religion, race, or sex.”

Unlike in formerly apartheid South Africa, in Israel there is no segregation by races or color as to the restaurants, hospitals, public restrooms, public beaches. Israeli Palestinians are politically represented in a democratically elected Israeli Parliament.

Their civil rights and human rights are also protected by the rule of law and an independent judiciary and legal bar.

I commend Harper for calling a spade a spade.

That is, solely targeting Israel for criticism, without holding Israel’s opponents to the same standards, is simply the new anti-Semitism — a sickening disease that should be continuously and publicly exposed and eradicated.

In a recent editorial, the Globe and Mail applauded MP Michael Chong and his proposed Reform Bill. Because the Globe, as with Chong, believes that the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) has become too powerful.

The Globe supports Chong’s Bill because the objective of this Bill is, according to theGlobe, for the Canadian parliamentary system to return to the Westminster tradition (see English, Australian and New Zealand systems) whereby there is more equality between the executive (PMO) and the legislature (Parliament).

I believe that the Globe is missing an essential element of Chong’s push for Parliamentary reform.

I am suggesting that Chong’s bill, which relies upon the democratic traditions of Westminster and which promotes greater power for individual MPs, is a means, but not an end in itself.

Though Chong’s clear intent with this bill is to give more power to the MPs and reduce the power of the Prime Minister and other other party leaders, I believe that possible consequences of this bill are that certain MPs may gain the power to reopen the abortion debate with a view of criminalizing abortion. This should be a wake-up call to the Liberals, NDP, Conservatives and all Canadians who support a women’s right to choose.

Please consider the following:

On Sept. 26, 2012, Stephen Woodworth, a Conservative MP, tabled a private member’s bill in the form of a motion intended to strike a 12-member, all-party committee to study the definition of when a newborn can legally be considered a human being. At the time this motion was defeated 203-91.

Currently the Criminal Code declares that a child is a human being when it emerges alive from the mother’s womb.

If this motion had passed and if Parliament had then passed a follow-up bill amending the Criminal Code to say that life, for example, commenced after 12 weeks in a womb, then any woman and doctor engaged in an abortion after 12 weeks of pregnancy could be held criminally responsible for killing a human being. For Woodworth and his bill’s supporters to suggest that his bill was not an attempt to criminalize abortion is an insult to everyone’s intelligence.

Woodworth, and two other Conservative MPs, Kyle Seeback and Leon Benoit backing the Chong’s bill, are on record opposing abortion in its entirety.

These three Conservative MPs believe that life begins at conception. I believe that for these three MPs, the act of an abortion is killing a human life and should be considered an offence under an amended Criminal Code.

I believe that this Woodworth motion was a clear attempt by anti-abortion Conservative MPs to reopen a debate on abortion through the backdoor, contrary to Harper’s campaign promises and the party’s policies, upon which these very same politicians campaigned under the Conservative banner in the last federal election.

During the vote on this bill, Prime Minister Stephen Harper kept good on his campaign promises not to re-open the abortion debate and voted against the motion. Harper had earlier called the motion “unfortunate.”

I strongly suspect that Harper and his office used their greater power over individual MPs to ensure that sufficient Conservative MPs voted against the motion, to ensure its ultimate defeat.

Among Conservative MPs who supported this Woodworth motion were:

Michael Chong

Stella Ambler, Ontario MP

James Rejotte, Alberta MP

Larry Miller, Ontario MP

Kyle Seeback, Alberta MP

Leon Benoit, Alberta MP

I think it’s no coincidence that these same Conservative MPs are publicly supporting Chong’s proposed Reform Bill.

I believe that Chong’s bill could theoretically give anti-abortion MPs the upper hand against weakened party leaders, whether they be Harper or Trudeau.

Specifically, anti-abortion MPs could theoretically use their new power to remove Harper and Trudeau, or at least threaten their removal, unless they support a more anti-abortion policy.

In addition, Harper and Trudeau could theoretically be prevented from removing these anti-abortion advocates from caucus and could be prevented from vetoing anti-abortion candidates who take over local riding associations.

There is already evidence that if Chong’s bill is passed, certain special interest anti-abortion groups are considering going after control of certain Conservative and Liberal riding associations.

Note 20 years ago, Liberal leader Chretien gave himself veto powers over candidates to prevent this very same development.

Chong’s bill is not only Harper’s problem, but should be a problem for Trudeau and Mulcair. Trudeau and Mulcair run the risk of having their riding associations taken over by extremists espousing views contrary to their party’s respective policies and principles.

As a personal note, the issue of women’s rights hits very close to home.

My father was an obstetrician/gynecologist at Montreal’s Jewish General Hospital from the 1950s through the 90s.

He treated thousands of Quebec women patients over the years. Many patients came to him on matters relating to reproduction, contraception and family planning. Unfortunately, some of his patients were victims of botched back-alley abortions. I learned at a very early age from my father the necessity for women to gain easy access to secure, safe, clean, affordable and legal abortions. You could say a woman’s right to choose is embedded in my DNA.

So I take very seriously any attempt by any politician, regardless of his/her political stripe, to undermine the current laws (or lack thereof) of a Canadian woman’s right to choose to proceed with an abortion.

I suggest that the passage of Chong’s bill may theoretically empower some anti-abortion MPs to seriously question and potentially undermine a system in Canada that to date has provided Canadian women with safe, secure, accessible, affordable and legal abortions.

Now is the time for such leaders as Trudeau and Mulcair (and their respective pro-choice MPs) to put aside their partisan differences with Harper and stand with Harper in opposing Chong’s bill.

Because if this bill is passed into law, it is theoretically possible that anti-abortion MPs of all parties will be given unfettered power to go after Canadian women’s hard-earned rights. Thus, Canadian women may face the same horrible conditions endured presently by American women, where a woman’s control of her own body and her right to choose, are under assault throughout the United States.

Conservative backbencher MP Michael Chong recently introduced a Bill in the House of Commons, “An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Parliament of Canada Act (reforms),” a.k.a. “The Revenge of the Political Nerds and Nobodies.”

This Bill is a direct attack on the leadership of Harper and an indirect attack on the leadership of Trudeau of the Liberals and NDP Mulcair.

I think this Bill will attract broad three party opposition and be rejected.

The thrust of this Bill is to take power away from Harper as Conservative leader and Mulcair and Trudeau as leaders of the NDP and Liberals, respectively, and vest more power in individual federal members of Parliament.

This Bill wrests power from each party leader as follows:

1. 15 per cent of caucus members can trigger a leadership review any time. Then a majority of caucus, voting by secret ballot, would be sufficient to remove the leader, and begin the process of selecting a new one.
2. The caucus, not the leader, would decide whether a MP can stay in caucus. A vote to expel (or to readmit) would be held under the same rules as a leadership review: 15 per cent of caucus to trigger, 50 per cent plus one to decide.
3. It would remove the leader’s ultimate right to select nominees in each of the federal ridings and vests that power in the individual riding associations.

This Bill is being brought forward by Conservative MP Chong who apparently has never forgiven Stephen Harper for kneecapping his once promising political career. Chong opposed his party’s historic and symbolic recognition of Quebec as a “nation” and was forced to resign his Cabinet post in 2006. This bill is Chong’s revenge on Harper.

Under the guise of greater democratic powers of MPs to express themselves and make the leader accountable, what Chong is proposing is nothing more than a “bait and switch” measure.

That is the fatal flaw of Chong’s Bill and why it should not survive.

The political reality of Canadian federal elections is that Canadian voters are voting for the leader of the party, his policies, his character, and his ability to govern and implement his policies. In the last three federal elections, the voters chose Harper over Dion and Ignatieff. Because they believed that Harper was the most prudent and disciplined manager of the Canadian economy. And they believed Harper’s promise that he would focus on the economy and that there was no hidden social conservative agenda, i.e. anti-abortion and anti-same sex marriage policies.

Similarly, the success of the NDP in Quebec was due to the efforts of Jack Layton, whose personal appeal replaced established Bloc, Liberal and Tory incumbents, with unknown NDP candidates.

I believe that the major determinant of whether an individual MP is elected, re-elected and is a member of the winning governing party or losing opposition party, is the success or failure of the federal campaign of the leader.

Once the voters have elected Harper indirectly as Prime Minister, they expect him to last out his term, and not to be turfed out because 15 per cent of Tory MPs suddenly don’t like Harper’s disciplined approach to party unity and his policies upon which he and the party campaigned.

More specifically, the Canadian voters have three times elected Harper as prime minister because, among other things, Harper promised that he would focus on managing the economy and that he would not reopen such controversial areas, as abortion, a woman’s right to choose, or any matters relating to gay rights, i.e. same sex marriage. These are very controversial and divisive social “hot button” issues.

The Chong Bill will provide a small minority of caucus MPs who won an election on one agenda, (women’s and gay rights) the power to remove Harper as leader, because this group secretly preferred a contrary agenda, (the restriction of abortion rights and gay rights). But these very same MPs did not have the integrity to campaign honestly as Independents in order to further these controversial social policies.

The removal of a sitting leader under these circumstances, strikes me as unjust, unfair and undemocratic. The Chong Bill, by investing such power in the MPs, would clearly undermine trust with the voters, that the leader of the party has the unfettered power to keep his campaign promises, upon which he was elected, during his term of office

The same reasoning would apply to those voters who voted indirectly for Trudeau and Mulcair.

The voters also expect that the leaders of their respective parties, would impose discipline on their parties and determine who should be in or out of caucus and who should be running as candidates under the party’s banner.

If Harper is holding himself out to Canadian voters that he and his party maintain the status quo of abortion rights and are defenders of bilingualism, multiculturalism, and equality, then Harper should have the right to remove any MP from caucus who opposes these principles or prevent any candidate from running for the Conservatives, who espouses the views of homophobia, racism, anti-Semitism, anti-bilingualism or misogyny, to name just a few such areas.

The Chong Bill would restrict Harper and Trudeau and Mulcair, from removing MPs from their respective caucus, who violate party principles.

Lastly, all the major parties are trying to be more inclusive than exclusive. As a result, parties are trying to broaden their base, but encouraging Canadian voters to join the various parties and vote indirectly, through delegates or directly, (as in the recent case of the Liberals) for the leader of the party.

Chong’s Bill giving the right of the caucus to remove a leader who has been elected leader by thousands of party members, flies in the face of this more populist, inclusionary and more democratic trend.

For these above reasons, I predict there will be broad party support to deep six Chong’s Reform Bill.

In the classic film, Network, frustrated and angry newscaster Howard Beale launched into this following rant:

“All I know is that first you’ve got to get mad. You’ve got to say, ‘I’m a HUMAN BEING, God damn it! My life has VALUE!’ So I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now and go to the window. Open it, and stick your head out, and yell, ‘I’M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I’M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!'”

Montreal’s Jewish General Hospital, (The Jewish General) finally could not stand by as Quebec Premier Marois promoted Bill 60, the proposed Charter of Quebec Values (the Charter).

The Jewish General is mad as hell and it is not going to take this Charter any more.

Marois’ Charter imposes a ban on public-sector workers wearing religious garb such as kippahs worn by observant Jewish men and headscarves worn by Muslim women.

The Jewish General, founded in 1934, is one of Quebec’s most prominent institutions. It is located in one of Montreal’s most diverse multicultural areas. For nearly 80 years this hospital has provided excellent medical care to patients of all faiths, races, languages and ethnicities, with compassion and superior medical treatment.

This hospital is well known to the PQ brass. Ironically, such Pequiste stalwarts as Premier Marois and former PQ leader Jacques Parizeau, have been treated at this internationally-known hospital.

Approximately one third of its doctors, nurses and other employees wear either kippahs, hijabs or turbans.

The implementation of this Charter would cause many of these medical practitioners to leave the Jewish General and Quebec.

Mindful of the Charter’s impact on the Jewish General, Marois inserted “The Jewish General” clause in the Charter which permitted hospitals such as the Jewish General to temporarily exempt itself from this Charter.

But to the Jewish General’s credit, it refused to compromise its principles, to “play ball” with Marois and the PQ government. In other words, to quietly go along to get along.

In a strongly-worded statement that has reverberated throughout Quebec, in parts of Canada, Executive Director, Dr. Rosenberg, argued:

“Since the bill is inherently prejudicial, there is no point in taking advantage of any clause that would grant us temporary, short-term relief …This bill is flawed and contrary to Quebec’s spirit of inclusiveness and tolerance.”

Dr. Rosenberg further stated that this proposed Charter is contrary to both the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms and the Quebec Charter of Human Rights. He also stated that should the bill become law, his hospital will not be applying for a temporary exemption to its application. The Jewish General will simply ignore the law, and dare the province to take it to court.

As reported in the Globe, a propos Rosenberg’s brave declaration,

“At a weekend ceremony to mark the 75th anniversary of Kristallnacht, the Night of the Broken Glass where Nazis launched a co-ordinated attack against Jews in Germany and Austria, Rabbi Reuben Poupko, an outspoken Orthodox rabbi warned of the perils of placidly accepting any attack on symbols of faith. He recounted the story of Ben Zion Halberstam, a rabbi who was killed by Nazis in Ukraine in 1941 as he defiantly kept replacing his kippa on his head during a beating.”

Though not comparing the PQ to Nazis, Rabbi Poupko emphasized the determination Jews have to maintain their religion in the face of the greatest challenges. “We’ve faced greater challenges to our faith than the charter. But make no mistake, the charter is a denial of freedom. The Quebec Human Rights Commission said so,” he said.

This incredibly brave stand by the Jewish General hits particularly close to home. My great-grandfather Louis Salomon, was a Vice President and one of the founders of the Jewish General in 1934.

The Jewish General was founded and funded by the Montreal Jewish community as a response to anti-Semitism in Quebec during that era. Jewish people were denied medical care at other Montreal hospitals simply on the basis of their religion. Jewish doctors were denied medical privileges at these hospitals for the same reason.

My grandfather Dr. Moe Scherzer, a.k.a., “Uncle Moe,” was a pediatrician at the Jewish General from 1934 to 1948. Uncle Moe did not only look after Jewish patients. Many of his patients were French children in the east end of Montreal. In those days, doctors made house calls.

I often heard stories of my grandfather rushing to the east end in bitter cold winter nights to attend to young children in distress. Montreal was gripped by the depression. Oftentimes the parents had no money to pay for his medical services. He often came home to my grandmother with tourtiere pies and knitted socks. Sometimes his patients were in such desperate financial straits that Uncle Moe would ensure that the local grocer would send food to the Quebec family in trouble.

My father, Dr. Aubie Wolfe, an obstetrician and gynecologist, and University of Toronto medical school graduate, was denied admission to all Toronto hospitals in the late ’40s due also to anti-Semitism. My father joined the Ob/Gyn department of the Jewish General in 1950 and worked there until his death in 1996.

Many of my father’s patients were Italian, Greek and French Canadians who sought his medical services, because these services, including contraception, were denied to them in the other hospitals. My father was pre-Morgentaler.

There are hundreds of similar stories of Jewish General doctors who served the diverse Montreal community.

We should all commend the Jewish General for standing up to Marois and opposing, without compromise, this deplorable Charter. In doing so, the Jewish General is nobly fighting to maintain its tradition of service and its hard-won identity.