Antisemitism: evaluating events in context

To go back to the beginning: antisemitism, animus against Jewish people for the religion they profess and the community they belong to, is absolutely wrong, as wrong as any other bigotry. Trying to excuse antisemitic actions or expression by claiming to oppose the policies of the current policies of Israel offends twice. Using Israeli policies as an excuse to target Jewish people make them scapegoats for policies they did not choose and often do not support. Antisemitic acts and expressions by those claiming to advocate a just peace in Israel/Palestine cast doubt on the sincerity of peace efforts while obscuring the hard reality: more Christians than Jews support the bad political and theological ideas behind efforts to subjugate, expel, or destroy the Palestinian people. 

None of this makes it any less important to report incidents fully and honestly.

So far, we have seen no shortage of attempts to exploit the tragedies besetting the Jewish and Palestinian people. Perhaps the most risible recent attempt to do so has come from Pierre Poilievre, who insinuated the blame for incidents of violence and intimidation against the Jewish community lies with his political rival, Justin Trudeau. We have also seen a number of reports presented without context.

The word "context" needs some care here. Context can act as a code word for justification; nothing justifies antisemitism. That doesn't mean the context of an event cannot shed light on the motive for an act, and provide evidence the motive for an act did not arise, or did not arise primarily from antisemitism. I do not claim to define antisemitism. Some acts and expressions pretty clearly do not arise from, or express, any dislike of Jews; others plainly do. In between there exist a wide range of acts, expressions, and attitudes reasonable people, both Jewish and Gentile, can disagree about. Two principles remain here: first, it always makes sense to have as much information about an offence as possible, particularly one as serious as hate, and second, if we find an act did not arise from hate, that's good news.

With that in mind, let us consider two recent events. 

On October 10 of last year, a group of individuals splashed red paint on the front of an Indigo store, and affixed posters accusing Heather Reisman, the CEO of Indigo, of "funding genocide". Heather Reisman is Jewish; she also helped found and funds the HSEG foundation, which provides support for individuals who have no family in Israel and have served in the Israeli military. Many of the reports on the vandalism at Indigo prominently mention Ms. Reisman's Jewish faith, but omit her work in support of Israel's military. I would like to emphasize three points here. First, Ms. Reisman has every right to support Israel. Second, whatever the legality of supporting another country's military, it seems pretty clear that free speech includes the right to criticize that support. Third, news reports that omit a significant part of a story do everyone a disservice. Maybe criticizing Heather Reisman for providing financial support for service in the Israeli military does amount to antisemitism. Even if we accept the criticism, the means of expressing it, red paint and pasted flyers, may be antisemitic, as may the timing, three days after the horrific attack by Hamas. Those who want to argue these points, from any angle, should have the opportunity to make their case in the light of everything we know.

St. Stephen's Church windows

Another example where context might or might not make a difference: on June 3, someone threw a rock through one of the windows at the Anshei Minsk synagogue on June 3. This is profoundly unfortunate and very wrong. The police have made an arrest; while they are investigating the possibility this is a hate motivated offence, they have not laid charges for a hate crime yet. As the investigation proceeds, we may find out more about the motives of the offender. Until we know more, we can only look at the larger context, in this case the neighbourhood. This offence took place in Kensington Market, a pocket of deep poverty in an otherwise wealthy part of Toronto, where poverty, drug dependency, mental health issues, and insecure housing leave many people leading profoundly marginal lives. Some of these people lash out, and churches as well as synagogues pay the price. The rector of St. Stephen's church in Kensington was forced to cover all the ground floor church windows with heavy wire mesh after they were broken often enough that repairing them strained the church finances. Again, this doesn't exclude the possibility we may find the person who broke the window at Anshei Minsk synagogue had antisemitic motives for doing so. It simply indicates the possibility of another motive for this act.

The horrific violence in Southwest Asia has left multiple religious communities on edge. We have seen some truly appalling antisemitic actions, such as the shooting at the Bais Chaya Mushka. This country has a problem with antisemitism. Failing to report all the aspects of incidents which frighten or outrage the Jewish community, or any community, whatever the motives behind them, serves no one.