In 2019, Vancouver rejected the controversial IHRA definition of antisemitism but now a new city council is planning to adopt it despite outcry from the community.
BY MARION KAWAS
FILE: PROTEST BANNER IN LONDON, 2018. (PHOTO: JEWISH VOICE FOR LABOUR (UK) VIA THE PALESTINE POSTER PROJECT ARCHIVES)
In 2019, Vancouver became one of the first cities in Canada to deal with the infamous IHRA definition of antisemitism. A motion was submitted at that time to not only adopt the IHRA but also to share it as an additional tool with various civic departments, including the Vancouver Police Department. There was a quick and effective response from a broad cross-section of community and social justice activists, which resulted in the motion not being passed by council.
However, the civic election last month produced a new council with a quite different composition. The recently formed ABC Vancouver party won a significant majority of seats on council and also secured the Mayor position. Their election platform called for more funds for policing, and in an unprecedented move, they were even endorsed by Vancouver’s police union. Their platform also included a commitment to have Vancouver adopt the IHRA.
And they wasted no time in fulfilling at least their IHRA promise, as the same councillor who introduced the motion in 2019 gave notice to reintroduce it at the first business meeting of the new council.
Once again, local activists and organizations are mobilizing to express their opposition to this move. Although the chances are slim of it being rejected this time, many feel it is important that the critique of this anti-Palestinian and anti-free speech definition be known publicly. There are more voices than ever pointing out the major flaws in the IHRA definition, most recently from the United Nations.
Canada Palestine Association CPA, that has been active on the Vancouver scene for over four decades, issued a statement noting that the criticisms of the IHRA “that were valid in 2019 are still valid in 2022, as evidence increases of how the IHRA definition is being used to silence Palestinian voices and criticism of Israel.”
The BC Civil Liberties Association put out a letter on Nov. 7 reaffirming that they “are strongly opposed to the IHRA definition because of its threat to freedom of expression”. And in a welcome move, the Union of BC Indian Chiefs also penned a letter to Vancouver City Council in which they expressed “grave concerns” and urged them to “not proceed” with adoption of the IHRA. They stated: “We do not condone protecting Israel from criticism in relation to its settler colonial policies and mistreatment of Palestinians.”
And in the words of Sid Shniad, a founding member of Independent Jewish Voices Canada, “IJV has been campaigning against the IHRA definition of antisemitism since its inception. Even its author, Kenneth Stern, objects to the way it has been used to weaponize antisemitism in the service of Israel and Zionism. Their goal is to convince people that opposition to Zionism and to Israeli oppression of the Palestinians is antisemitic. Our responsibility is to open people’s eyes to what this is really all about.”
One of the most egregious, and less highlighted, aspects of the IHRA definition is its inherent anti-Palestinian racism. Zionism, as a settler-colonialist ideology, has impacted the indigenous Palestinians in ways that will take generations to heal. To tell Palestinians that the Zionist project is not a “racist endeavor” (as the IHRA definition does) is profoundly disturbing. In classic colonization tactics, the Palestinian nation and people were violently uprooted and dispossessed, by an Israeli state that gave, and continues to give, exclusive and preferential rights to Jewish Israelis over everyone else. Palestinians, like all other oppressed indigenous people, have the right to narrate their history and determine their own future; they also have the right to call out their oppressors and the racism inherent in the Zionist scheme.
The CPA statement concluded:
“The IHRA definition was wrong then and it is wrong now. Passing it now at Vancouver city council will not change that nor will it change our determination as Palestinian Canadians to raise our voices against our oppression, and against anti-Palestinian racism and all those who maintain it. We will continue to speak out forcefully and reject the concept that our narrative must be constricted and restrained. If other communities are granted the right during discussions of discrimination to say: ‘Nothing about us without us’, then so are Palestinian Canadians. Or are we to be treated differently, like lesser beings?
Passing this anti-Palestinian definition will not deter us, but it will tarnish the reputation of the city of Vancouver. No longer can Vancouver promote itself as diverse and tolerant. Rather, it will be presented internationally as a city that callously engages in racism against vulnerable minorities (in this case the Palestinian, Arab and Moslem communities), a policy that could have negative implications on tourism and investment.
We join hands with many allies, from progressive Jews to anti-racist and human rights groups to church and union organizations, to say #NoIHRA. Adopting this dangerous and vague definition of anti-Semitism will only serve to harm the reputation of Vancouver as a welcoming city for all people. “
