It “brings progress.”

That’s what a Canadian union leader said, the day after Hamas massacred hundreds of Israeli men, women and children. “Progress.”

Three student unions at a major Canadian university called Hamas’ terrorism “a strong act of resistance” – and called Israel a “so-called” country. “Resistance.”

At street protests across the country, Hamas is celebrated. In Toronto, they waved the flag of Hamas, a listed terror group in this country. Someone else brought along the flag of the Taliban – which 158 Canadians lost their lives fighting, not so long ago.

They played recordings of the sounds of Hamas’ missiles landing, and mocked “Zionists.” They chanted cheerily about an ancient slaughter of Jews.

There have been rallies in support of Israel and its people, yes. But since Hamas’ October 7 mass-murder of more than 1,300 Israelis, there have been too many unambiguous expressions of support for terror. Here, in Canada.

For murder.

In other places, you’re not allowed to advocate for murder and genocide. Britain’s Home Office has drawn up plans to expel students and others who express support for Hamas. France’s Interior Minister has banned all public demonstrations in support of Hamas.

In Canada – apart from some editorials in newspapers, and performative condemnations by politicians – we have done nothing. Zero. We have instead permitted the willful and open promotion of murder.

Enough.

We are a country of laws. We are a country of laws with reasonable limits on what people can say. Just as it is a crime to threaten to kill or harm another person in Canada, it is a crime to promote hatred.

Section 319 of the Criminal Code of Canada says that you cannot willfully promote hatred against an identifiable group, like Jews. Section 318 makes it a crime to promote genocide against an identifiable group. Like Jews.

This writer has been part of a successful effort to prosecute, convict and jail two Toronto men who willfully promoted hatred against Jews and women. It was overdue, and it was the right thing to do.

We now need to do likewise with those who would advocate for the homicidal subhumans who make up Hamas and its ilk. We need to make it unlawful to willfully promote and defend terrorism.

Don’t we have a law like that already, some ask? Well, we used to. We used to have section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which prohibited communications which were “likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt.”

It was a non-criminal sanction, that mainly provided for fines. It was a sensible law that worked. But the government of Stephen Harper stupidly, cravenly got rid of it. Leaving us only with the criminal law to fight expressions of hatred.

Expressions of hatred, mainly online, exploded after section 13 was abolished by the Tories.  The government of Justin Trudeau has made no serious effort to bring it back. And, as we’ve seen in the past few days, too many Canadians have taken that as a license to advocate for terror.

Freedom of speech is precious, yes. But sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code require the approval of the Attorney General to initiate a prosecution. That is a high bar.  We could do that for a new law that prohibits the willful promotion of terrorism and terror groups.

That would protect Canadians constitutional right to free expression and free speech. But it would also ensure that we finally have a tool to end expressions of support for terror.

It’s time. This has gone on for too long, and it is only going to get worse.

Enough.

Comments (26)

Comments (22)

Terrorist.

And, here we go again.

The definition of “terrorist” is someone who is prepared to use violence to achieve some political objective. It’s not complicated.

At the CBC, however – and other news organizations, to be fair – the word “terrorist” is apparently verboten. CBC, and other media organizations, this week decreed that the word “militant” should be used to describe Hamas and their ilk. Not terrorist.

In a week where we are bearing witness to unspeakable horrors – in a week where we were provided with proof that Hamas actually killed babies last Saturday – it all seems insane, offensive, absurd. People in the Middle East are literally burying their dead and trying to stay alive, and over here we are debating semantics.

But we do that a lot, don’t we? Far from the front lines, some of us in the West expend a lot of energy on word games. Some of us think it’s meaningful.

It isn’t. It’s stupid. It’s a waste of time.

And, what happened is indisputably terrorism.

But if you think that the subhumans who murdered babies care what we call them, you are living in a fantasy world. If you think that innocent Israelis (and innocent Palestinians) – cowering in bombshelters, listening to death thud all around them – are preoccupied with semantics this week, you’re dreaming.

But still,  some of us over here still do it. Perhaps it makes us feel we are making a meaningful contribution.

When I started off in journalism, as a teenager, I would get to interview rock stars. I didn’t make any money doing it, but it was fun.

I did it for years: I interviewed everyone from Meat Loaf to Ted Nugent to the Sex Pistols. Every so often, one of them would complain to me about being pigeonholed in one genre or another.

Backstage one night in Vancouver with The Clash, I raised the subject with the legendary punk band’s lead singer, Joe Strummer. Stummer smiled and stuck an index finger in my chest.

“Punk rock, rock ‘n’ roll, it doesn’t matter what you call it,” he said. “The kid who is hearing the song, hearing the words, decides. The kid knows what to call it.”

The same goes for the families of the 1,200 Israelis who were slaughtered in cold blood one week ago. They know; they decide.

It was terrorism. It was mass murder. It was genocide. It was the darkest hatred. It was evil made flesh.

So, my advice is this: don’t get upset by what CBC calls it. Don’t waste time complaining to them.

Because, when all is said and done, when someone refuses to call terrorism what it is, which is terrorism? When they ignore the literal definition of “terrorist?”

It defines them, too.

Comments (6)

Comments (4)

When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.

That that’s how the saying goes. When it comes to Sarah Jama, it applies.

Jama is (unfortunately for her party) a New Democrat. She is also (unfortunately for the rest of us) an actual member of the provincial legislature.

It’s pretty hard to give Jama credit for anything, but credit where credit’s due: She’s never really hidden what she truly is, which is a bigot. Which is, too, someone who maintains a deep and visceral loathing of Israel — and the people mostly found there. The Jews.

Here’s just a small sampling of some of the things that NDP MPP Sarah Jama has said and done about Israel and Jews — and, for good measure, police.

— Jama has said, many times, that Israel is “an apartheid state.” Given the fact that Israel has Palestinians in its military and legislature and judiciary, it’s not a very effective apartheid state, is it?

— Jama has said that Israel is an “illegitimate” state, and that it funds “the killing of people here, locally, and globally.” She’s offered no proof of any of that, of course. But there is plenty of proof that the myriad Palestinian terrorist groups she often celebrates have killed more than 3,500 Israelis since Israel was founded in 1948, “globally and locally.”

— Perhaps because she doesn’t want the police to feel left out, she has said that police officers “protect Naziism,” and “arbitrarily kill babies.” She has offered no proof of that, either.

This is not an exhaustive list. It also does not include her most recent remarks, published online under NDP letterhead, wherein she again falsely accused Israel of “apartheid,” and — instead of condemning the homicidal cult called Hamas — she attacked the victims, and demanded Israel “end all occupation of Palestinian land and end apartheid.”

Given that Hamas slaughtered hundreds of Israeli men, women, children and babies on Saturday, Jama’s anti-Semitism drew swift condemnation. Multiple Jewish and human rights organizations demanded her ouster from the New Democrat caucus, as did Ontario’s premier and the interim leader of the Ontario Liberal Party.

And, initially, it looked like that might actually happen. Marit Stiles, the purported leader of the provincial NDP, publicly demanded the Jama take down her statement.

She didn’t. She wouldn’t.

And, 24 hours later, her leader and her party folded like a cheap suit. They said that Jama’s “apology” — which was a case study in weasel words and conditional language — was sufficient. Everyone move along, nothing to see here, etc.

Except, well, no.

As the past few days have made depressingly clear, Canada has nothing to offer in either a military or strategic sense to Israel and her allies. We have been shut out of any meaningful role in fighting Hamas, principally because of Justin Trudeau’s long-documented performative diplomacy.

So, being a small and increasingly irrelevant country, all that we can really do is provide a good example. But — on the very day that the president of the United States stated that he had seen a video of Israeli babies decapitated by Hamas — the only Canadian example that anyone would remember was that of the Ontario NDP.

That is, to excuse and minimize Jew-hatred and praise for mass murderers.

Regrettably, within the NDP these days, Sarah Jama is not the exception, she is the norm. At all levels, for years, the New Democratic Party has been the political party most often associated with anti-Semitism. There is literally not enough room here to document all of it.

Yes, some Conservative MPs, as was first revealed by this writer, met with a German neo-Nazi. Yes, a Liberal MP invited an actual Nazi to the House of Commons. But in both those cases, the Conservative and Liberal leaders acknowledged that mistakes had been made.

Ontario’s New Democratic Party, and its leader, have not. They let Sarah Jama’s foul statement remain up. They let her remain in their caucus. They let hate win, basically.

Sarah Jama, as noted has always shown us who she is. She has not hidden it.

And, now, we all know what Ontario’s New Democratic Party is like, as well.

Which is just like her.

Comments (13)