National Post (Opinions) Archives - Page 17 of 373

Released on August 5, the Government of Canada-commissioned Campus Antisemitism and Student Experiences study — CASE — produced a finding that should have ended complacency about the climate facing Jewish students: some 96 per cent of those surveyed reported experiencing or witnessing at least one form of antisemitism during the previous year. The study also collected more than 1,200 accounts of antisemitism by asking open-ended questions.

But another CASE finding deserves attention.

The Jewish students surveyed were not monolithic in their relationship to Zionism. CASE defines Zionism as the belief that Jewish people have the right to self-determination in part of their ancestral homeland. Sixty-nine per cent said Zionism was very important to their identity, 18 per cent somewhat important, six per cent not very important and seven per cent — 55 out of 762 valid respondents — not important at all.

Across the first three groups, concern about antisemitism remained substantial. Among those for whom Zionism was very important, 95 per cent either strongly or somewhat agreed that antisemitism was a serious problem on their campus. That fell to 79 per cent among those for whom it was somewhat important and 61 per cent among those for whom it was not very important.

Then the pattern collapses.

Among students for whom Zionism was not important at all, only 11 per cent agreed antisemitism was a serious campus problem. None strongly agreed. Sixty-seven per cent of this group strongly disagreed with the statement “Antisemitism is a serious problem on campus.”

The divide becomes even more striking when respondents are asked about concrete incidents rather than general perceptions. Forty-two per cent of students for whom Zionism was very important reported antisemitic remarks or gestures directed at them often or occasionally; among those that rejected Zionism most, just four per cent did. Sixty-nine per cent of the first group reported frequently or occasionally witnessing antisemitic remarks directed at somebody else. Among the least-Zionist respondents, that fell to 13 per cent.

Only 23 per cent of respondents for whom Zionism was very important agreed their campus was safe and inclusive for Jewish students. Among those for whom Zionism was not important at all, 92 per cent said it was.

In any case, there is a mountain of evidence on one side of this divide: police-reported hate-crime statistics, public-opinion surveys of Canadians showing wider recognition of anti-Jewish hostility, the testimony of Jewish students and the broader documented escalation of antisemitic incidents. CASE does not stand alone. Its findings sit inside a much larger evidentiary record.

The magnitude of the discrepancy also raises the question of whether something resembling denialism is operating — not necessarily a conscious rejection of facts, but a tendency to minimize or reclassify evidence that conflicts with one’s political framework. One possible explanation is psychological or social: for some students, acknowledging pervasive antisemitism may conflict with their understanding of Jewish identity or with a desire for social acceptance.

The least-Zionist respondents are not merely less likely to regard antisemitism as a problem. Across multiple measures, antisemitism almost disappears from their reports and perceptions of the campus environment.

Jewish students who do not see antisemitism as a serious problem should not negate the experiences of the majority of those who say that it is. We rarely accept that standard when discussing racism encountered by other communities. It should not apply here.

CASE reveals two things simultaneously. First, antisemitism is reported extraordinarily widely among Jewish students. Second, a small subgroup for whom Zionism is unimportant, for some reason or another, is less likely to notice antisemitism on campus.

What the CASE study exposes, therefore, is something deeper than ordinary disagreement. Even Jewish students with somewhat weaker attachment to Zionism continue to report antisemitism at substantial levels. The dramatic break occurs only among the group for whom Zionism is not important at all. Such outright detachment appears to be associated with the near-erasure of antisemitism from their perception of campus life.

The serious question is therefore no longer whether antisemitism exists on Canadian campuses or in the wider society. There is far too much evidence for that question to remain intellectually credible. The question is why, for a small group of Jewish students, so much of it becomes almost invisible. And that’s important whenever a select minority of voices are elevated precisely because they deny or minimize the antisemitism documented by their peers. The evidence does not disappear because some refuse to recognize it. Only the recognition does.

Methodological note: CASE used targeted, network-based recruitment because there is no complete national sampling frame identifying Jewish postsecondary students. Its regional distribution broadly tracks the Census geography of young Canadian Jews, and recalibration by broad region and gender changed the two headline exposure measures only marginally: 89.1 to 87.4 per cent and 95.7 to 95.4 per cent.

National Post

Jack Jedwab, President & CEO, Association for Canadian Studies & Metropolis Institute

Paul Holley, Research & Evaluation Director, Association for Canadian Studies & Metropolis Institute

Cary Kogan, Professor, University of Ottawa, and co-President of the Network of Engaged Canadian Academics

Click here for more Canada

Detractors like to say that House of Commons decorum has never been worse than it is today, but don’t be so sure. Charlie Feldman is the author of the new book, “Unparliamentary: Tales from Canada’s Colourful Unparliamentary Past.” He joins Brian Lilley to recount stories of foul-mouthed, rowdy, drunken and altogether misbehaving MPs and senators from all the way back to Confederation right up to former prime minister Justin Trudeau’s “elbowgate” that make today’s cohort seem tame by comparison. Along the way, Feldman explodes some fabled stories as myths, surveys a surprising scarcity of sex scandals and uncovers some things we might have preferred not to know, from the story of the salmon hidden inside an MP’s pants and why feces were once thrown in the House. (Recorded July 14, 2026.)

Click here for more Canada

The latest arbitrary deadline to a gratuitous threat made by an untrustworthy president falls this week when Aug. 19 arrives and the U.S. does or does not introduce 50 per cent tariffs on a package of Canadian goods.

The degree to which this seizes Mark Carney might be indicated by the fact the prime minister chose to spend a week vacationing in Italy rather than nibbling his nails as the minutes ticked down. Sure, his aides say he stayed in close contact with Ottawa, but anyone who’s spent any time in Italy knows that distant crises always seem somewhat less desperate when considered over a cappuccino while pondering a statue or two in a pleasant piazza.

Italians tend to take a relaxed view of life thanks to their long history of ups and downs and knowledge that, whatever the disaster, life goes on. Empires, dictators, wars and calamities come and go; Italy is littered with the remnants of fallen worlds testifying to the foolishness humans can get up to, but also to the ability to recover from the madness of others.

If any of this crossed Carney’s mind while he sought a break from his duties, he might also consider that the reputation of one of his predecessors benefits not from something he did, but something he didn’t do. When Jean Chrétien is being toasted by Liberals as a successful and well-remembered leader, his refusal to join the U.S. in its ill-fated crusade in Iraq is a leading reason.

Canada preferred to be friends with the U.S. just as much then as it does now, but was sentient enough to understand that joining it in bad ideas and self-defeating ventures wasn’t a requirement. American President Donald Trump’s misguided tariff war is just such an example. Whatever the temporary pain, Canada would be far better off in the long run avoiding any sort of agreement that lets Washington claim the slightest victory in its attempt to bully concessions out of Ottawa.

Better to walk away, let the White House do its worst and deal with the consequences. That will inevitably be the result under this administration in any case. Whatever piece of paper negotiators wave should a last-minute “deal” be reached won’t be worth the ink wasted on the signatures. As long as Trump is president the U.S. can’t be trusted to keep its word. A quick-fix tariff accord could be signed at breakfast and broken before lunch.

Until its leadership changes, any agreement with the U.S. is a recipe for ongoing uncertainty. Even if Republicans suffer defeat in November’s mid-term elections, the president’s ability to sow confusion will remain considerable until 2028, and likely longer given the time it would take to re-establish America’s reputation as a reliable country.

It’s difficult to know just where the current talks lie. Official pronouncements, strategic leaks and expert analysis are all over the map. Canadian negotiators Dominic LeBlanc and Janice Charette are reportedly hopeful agreement can be reached, but they’d have to say that or they’d be useless in their jobs, no matter how senseless U.S. demands might be. Nothing that comes from the mouth of U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer gives cause to believe their hopes will be fulfilled.

While LeBlanc and Charette have repeatedly trekked to Washington for discussions, Greer has seen no need to return the courtesy. Reports on discussions, opaque as they’ve been, suggest the U.S. has not moved an inch in its list of demands, while showing no material interest in accommodating Ottawa’s rival concerns. Many of the demands, if the reports are accurate, are grotesque in their reach: special rights to Canadian minerals, required purchases of U.S. technologies, guaranteed access to Canadian resources, all of which represent a surrender of Canada’s right to do as it pleases with its assets.

The brazenness of the attempt at a shakedown cries for Ottawa to write off the talks as pointless. Instead, the game plan appears to consist of devising a formula squishy enough to placate Washington while minimizing the immediate damage. Canada’s team seems deep into efforts to find concessions able to soothe delicate American sensibilities without triggering outrage among Canadians already fed to the teeth with the U.S. leadership and its ongoing obnoxiousness.

Carney has managed to retain his popularity with voters to date. Liberals remain well ahead of Conservatives in opinion polls, and Carney enjoys a wide lead over opposition leader Pierre Poilievre. But his standing is based largely on belief in his ability to handle the U.S. challenge, a level of trust that could quickly erode if he’s seen as responding with weakness to U.S. belligerence.

In any case, Trump cares more about attention than popularity; his infatuation with himself is self-generated and immune to human intervention. He’s safe in his job for two more years and unable to run again; Carney needs public support more than Trump does and has to show reason for Canadians to provide it. Demeaning the country in the name of momentary economic gains is not a road to renown.

Charette reportedly informed Greer that Canadian hostility towards Washington could force Canada to retaliate to any new tariffs, and that Ottawa couldn’t “rein in or control” premiers set on taking a tough line on talks. The U.S. seems weirdly preoccupied with the boycott of U.S. alcohol, which represents a tiny fraction of imports to Canada; it may be the dispute’s outcome will rest on the ability to talk Premier Doug Ford into allowing California wine and Kentucky bourbon back on the shelves of Ontario liquor stores.

If that’s the case, more power to Ford. There is no such thing as an agreement with Donald Trump, his word is worthless and Canada will have to deal with the end of reliable and sensible trading rules with the U.S. now or later. If something has to be done, it’s just as well to get on with it. Now’s as good a time as any to inform Washington Canada is uninterested in further pointless discussions, and let ordinary Americans get back to bearing the brunt of their president’s expensive obsession.

National Post

Click here for more Canada

The cesspit of antisemitism that has been permitted to fester at Toronto Metropolitan University (TMU) is laid bare in a just released report by former Ontario Appeal Court Justice Mary Lou Benotto.

Jewish students spat on, pelted with sour milk, intimated, harassed, threatened, and living in fear because a university was unable to tackle the scourge of antisemitism that swept through its halls after Oct. 7, 2023.

In an astonishing statement, one tenured professor pleaded with the Jewish community to send their children anywhere but TMU.

“I will tell anyone, with great sorrow, anyone in the Jewish community, not to have their children apply to TMU. Can you imagine that? I love this university and I’ve worked here for (over a decade),” the professor told Benotto.

“It’s given me my entire professional life. Now I tell friends not to let their children go here because they’ll be harassed, and mistreated, and bullied and potentially assaulted. And I say, ‘Send them to McGill, or Western, or U of T, or to the U.S., or somewhere else.’ They are all better.”

What is so horrifying is that it wasn’t just other students behind this wave of hate that put Jews in the crosshairs, but also some faculty.

“Some administrators and University leaders expressed concern that certain faculty members may be encouraging, incentivizing, or intensifying student activism in ways they viewed as inappropriate or inconsistent with professional boundaries,” said the report.

A section entitled “Educator statements” highlighted the hate in the classrooms.

The Benotto review “was also given multiple examples of statements reportedly made in classrooms, faculty-led seminars, and educational spaces that many Jewish participants experienced as antisemitic, dehumanizing, or normalizing hostility toward Jewish people.”

Statements included: denying or minimizing the Holocaust (it appears Hitler wasn’t conducting a genocide, it was merely “discrimination”; saying “academic power is rooted in Jewish supremacism” and it needs to be “rooted out of academia” and holding a discussion about “how much violence we are willing to engage in.”

The introduction to the report notes, “The Review is based on the foundational principle that universities are meant to foster inquiry, debate, and democratic engagement.”

Yet, at TMU, failure to enforce its own policies has allowed hatred towards Jews to blossom, debate and discussion to be shut down and the inmates to overrun the asylum.

It’s clear from the report that the people behind the pro-Palestinian/anti-Jewish protests were out of control.

Senior university administrators were followed, filmed, verbally assaulted and had things thrown at them.

“Administrators, some faculty, Jewish student and faculty representatives, and event organizers frequently described conduct they experienced as crossing from protest into intimidation, harassment, or attempts to silence participation,” said the report.

“Interviewees in this group pointed to repeated event disruptions, aggressive confrontations, social media targeting, doxxing, hostile language, and personal accusations directed at identifiable individuals.”

In one incident, said the report, the vice provost was in a campus café when a student threw pamphlets at her containing accusations of war crimes against Israel. On another occasion, the same woman was surrounded by masked students shouting at her and filming her while displaying signs depicting her as a war criminal.

“Protesters repeatedly followed the University President to the parking garage and surrounded his vehicle and then posted a video of the event with disparaging remarks,” said the report.

Posters around campus showed senior university administrators, including the president, vice-provost and chief financial officer, alongside the phrase, “Wanted for Genocide.”

Is it any wonder that one emeritus professor told of her shame at being associated with the university?

The report also noted that many Palestinian, Arab, Muslim, and pro-Palestinian participants experienced fear, exclusion, and marginalization. “Several described grief and trauma connected to events in Gaza, frustration with institutional neutrality, and concern that criticism of Israel was too readily conflated with antisemitism.”

But it is clear from the report that there was a divide between some students who felt unsafe and those who really were unsafe.

The Benotto review began as an investigation into two incidents. In September last year, Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) disrupted a Democracy Forum event featuring AI Minister Evan Solomon by shouting “war criminal” and “baby killer” and causing it to be shut down.

In November, the same group smashed their way into an off-campus meeting of a speaking event hosted by Students Supporting Israel. The meeting was also cancelled.

The report noted that in the second incident the university had refused to allow the meeting to take place on campus. “TMU effectively permitted a ‘heckler’s veto,’ whereby the threat of disruption determines who is permitted to speak.”

But Benotto’s review quickly became “a broader institutional issue: a deeply polarized campus environment shaped by the aftermath of October 7, 2023, and the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

Can TMU, the virtue-signalling university that ditched the name Ryerson on the altar of diversity, equity and — how ironic — inclusion, get a grip on things?

“The Review concludes that the two incidents under review were symptoms of a deteriorating campus climate that, absent decisive institutional action, are likely to recur,” said the report.

Urged to act decisively, TMU responded with the speed and gusto of a dead sloth.

It has created “an Implementation Task Force” to review the recommendations of the Benotto report and come up with policies, procedures and proposed actions.

But as Benotto boldly pointed out: the university already has the tools it needs with its Code of Conduct. The challenge lies in a “consistent and principled” enforcement, she said.

Consistency would be nice; principles would be great. TMU seems inclined to neither.