http://www.efc.ca/pages/law/canada/canada.H-6.part-1.html#5

Publication of discriminatory notices, etc.
12. It is a discriminatory practice to publish or display before the public or to cause to be published or displayed before the public any notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that

(a) expresses or implies discrimination or an intention to discriminate, or
(b) incites or is calculated to incite others to discriminate if the discrimination expressed or implied, intended to be expressed or implied or incited or calculated to be incited would otherwise, if engaged in, be a discriminatory practice described in any of sections 5 to 11 or in section 14. [1976-77, c.33, s.12; 1980-81-82-83, c.143, s.6.]

Hate messages
13. (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
Exception
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of any matter that is communicated in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a broadcasting undertaking.
Interpretation
(3) For the purposes of this section, no owner or operator of a telecommunication undertaking communicates or causes to be communicated any matter described in subsection (1) by reason only that the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking owned or operated by that person are used by other persons for the transmission of that matter. [1976-77, c.33, s.13.]

The problem with so-called anti-hate laws is that there is no precise definition of what hate is. It can be expanded to include almost anything including factually based statements as has happened in the various jurisdictions. Thus influencial groups can mould the definition to stifle legitimate opinion and debate

By DIAA HADID, Associated Press WriterSat Jun 2, 1:58 PM ET

An Islamic group threatened to behead female TV broadcasters if they don’t wear strict Islamic dress, frightening reporters and signaling a further shift toward extremism in the Gaza Strip.

The threat to “cut throats from vein to vein” was delivered by the Swords of Truth, a fanatical group that has previously claimed responsibility for bombing Internet cafes and music shops. The new threat was the first time the organization targeted a specific group of people.

In many parts of the Muslim world, conservative policies keep women out of TV anchor positions or dictate they wear headscarves on air. Headscarves for TV broadcasters are uncommon, however, in Lebanon and Jordan, and even Egypt keeps newscasters who wear them off its TV stations.

The influence of Islamic groups in the Gaza Strip has grown over the past three decades, especially as poverty has risen since fighting with Israel began in 2000. Now, it is more common to see women with their faces covered with veils than women without their hair covered.

Most of the 15 women broadcasters on government-run Palestine TV wear headscarves. But they also wear makeup and Western clothing — not considered strictly observant by extremists.

The Swords of Truth issued the statement Friday in an e-mail to news organizations.

“We will cut throats, and from vein to vein, if needed to protect the spirit and moral of this nation,” the statement said. The group also accused the women broadcasters of being “without any … shame or morals.”

Prior to the statement, some women broadcasters said they had received personal threats through their mobile phones. It was not clear if the threats were from the same group.

One anchorwoman who does not wear a headscarf said she was too frightened by the threat to go to work on Saturday.

“It’s a dangerous precedent in our society. It will target all working women,” said the broadcaster, who declined to give her name out of fear. “The statement frightened us.”

Another presenter who wears a headscarf said she couldn’t understand why they were targeted. “I hope they take it back. I hope not a bullet will be fired at us,” she said.

Basem Abu Sumaya, head of the Palestinian Broadcasting Corporation, which runs Palestine TV, said the PBC already had security measures in place, but could not protect people on the way to work. The PBC is bankrolled by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah, and is accused of openly exhibiting support for the moderate movement, a bitter rival of the Islamic group Hamas.

A senior security official, who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, said The Swords of Truth had less than 100 members and was formed last year.

The group claimed responsibility for the bombings of about three dozen Internet cafes, music shops and pool halls, which are considered places of vice by some in deeply conservative Gaza. Assailants detonated small bombs outside the businesses at night, causing damage but no injuries.

The security official said his forces were taking the threat seriously. He said Hamas members funded the group, wanting to impose a hardline version of Islam in Gaza. Hamas won parliamentary elections last year, but has since formed a unity government with Fatah.

Hamas spokesman Ismail Ridwan said his faction had “no relation” to the group.

Other hardline groups also have become prominent in Gaza in recent months. The Army of Islam claimed responsibility for kidnapping British Broadcasting Corp. reporter Alan Johnston in March. And Muslim hardliners lobbed a bomb at a U.N.-run school in May, accusing the world body of “turning schools into nightclubs” for holding a show of traditional Palestinian dancing.

Reply: MyJewishLearning.com states: “Mizrahim and Sephardim [are] two distinct communities that are often confused with one another.

… Mizrahim are Jews who never left the Middle East and North Africa since the beginnings of the Jewish people 4,000 years ago.

… Once the Roman Empire crumbled descendants of these [“Jews who chose to return and rebuild Israel after the Persian Empire conquered the Babylonian Empire”] migrated throughout the European continent. Many settled in Spain (Sepharad) and Portugal,” i.e., Sephardim.

Go to your own URL and read: “Many speakers, especially in Israel, identify all non-Ashkenazi Jews as Sephardim. The reason for this usage is that most Mizrahi communities use much the same religious ritual as Sephardim proper (i.e. descendants of the Jews expelled from the Iberian Peninsula, that is, modern Spain and Portugal), and can therefore be described as Jews of the Sephardic rite, though not as Sephardi Jews. This broader definition of “Sephardim” is common in religious circles, especially those associated with the Shas political party.

Others prefer to differentiate between Sephardim proper and Mizrahim. There is some disagreement on whether Iberian-descended Sephardim from Eastern countries (e.g. Turkish Jews) should be described as ‘Mizrahim’ or not.

In many Arab countries there was a social distinction between Judeo-Romance-speaking Sephardim arriving after the expulsion from Spain in 1492, plus the ones expelled by order of King Manuel I of Portugal in 1497, and the older Arabic-speaking communities.”

Me: “They weren’t Israeli until after they (900,000) were kicked out of Muslim lands.”

Reply: You wrote in a previous post: “40% of Israeli Jews are Mizrahi, that means Jews from Israeli lands. They’re from the 900,000 Jews who were kicked out of Arab countries in the 40s.” Of course, I then responded: “How can one be an Israeli Jew and be kicked out from Arab lands?” So let’s be precise: they are emigrant Arab Jews who became Israeli citizens.

Me: “n [sic] the 1930s, the situation of the Jews in Iraq deteriorated. Previously, the growing Iraqi Arab nationalist sentiment included Iraqi Jews as fellow Arabs, but these views changed with the introduction of Nazi propaganda and the ongoing conflict in the Palestinian Mandate.”

Reply: Naeim Giladi wrote, “Jews from Islamic lands did not emigrate willingly to Israel; that, to force them to leave, Jews killed Jews; and that, to buy time to confiscate ever more Arab lands, Jews on numerous occasions rejected genuine peace initiatives from their Arab neighbors.

I write about what the first prime minister of Israel called ‘cruel Zionism.

I write about it because I was part of it.

Of course I thought I knew it all back then. I was young, idealistic, and more than willing to put my life at risk for my convictions. It was 1947 and I wasn’t quite 18 when the Iraqi authorities caught me for smuggling young Iraqi Jews like myself out of Iraq, into Iran, and then on to the Promised Land of the soon-to-be established Israel.”

Read more at here.

Anyway, this is semantics and of minimal importance. I accept that Jews born and raised in Mandate Palestine have a right to reside there as citizens, and there would be a strong argument for the right of return for any Jews that could demonstrate that their ancestors were expelled (ethnically cleansed) from Mandate Palestine.

First of all Mizrahi Jews ARE Sephardic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mizrahi_Jews

They weren’t Israeli until after they (900,000) were kicked out of Muslim lands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_lands

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farhud

n the 1930s, the situation of the Jews in Iraq deteriorated. Previously, the growing Iraqi Arab nationalist sentiment included Iraqi Jews as fellow Arabs, but these views changed with the introduction of Nazi propaganda and the ongoing conflict in the Palestinian Mandate. Despite protestations of their loyalty to Iraq, Iraqi Jews were increasingly subject to discrimination and harsh laws. On August 27, 1934 many Jews were dismissed from public service, and quotas were set up in colleges and universities. Zionist activities were banned, as was the teaching of Jewish history and Hebrew in Jewish schools. Following Rashid Ali’s pro-Axis coup, the Farhud (”violent dispossession”) pogrom of June 1 and 2, 1941, broke out in Baghdad in which approximately 200 Jews were murdered (some sources put the number higher), and up to 2,000 injured — damages to property were estimated at $3 million. There was also looting in many other cities at around the same time. Afterwards, Zionist emissaries from Palestine were sent to teach Iraqi Jews self-defense, which they were eager to learn. .” (Simon, Reguer, and Laskier, p 364)

In 1948, the country was placed under martial law, and the penalties for Zionism were increased. Courts martial were used to intimidate wealthy Jews were detained, Jews were again dismissed from civil service, quotas were placed on university positions, and one of the most important anti-Zionist Jewish businessmen in the country was arrested and executed for allegedly selling goods to Israel, shocking the community (Tripp, 123). Additionally, like most Arab League states, Iraq forbade any legal emigration of its Jews on the grounds that they might go to Israel and could strengthen that state. However, intense diplomatic pressure brought about a change of mind. At the same time, increasing government oppression of the Jews fueled by anti-Israeli sentiment, together with public expressions of anti-semitism, created an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty.

Just a last word. Respectfully, I do want to say that I would avoid thinking and speaking in those terms. I think if we show self restraint in how we discuss other people and be aware that objectifying anyone is never a good idea, then perhaps others too would not feel threatened.

Jews are a very small group. Muslims and Christians are over a billion. It is natural if they have a certain amount of inherent fear of either group - given history.

Which is why I am individualist…the more we think in terms of group rights and identity politics, the more we exacerbate racial and religious tensions. By giving race and religion their proper space but focusing our legal structures on the individual, we neither suppress nor overindulge either of those categories.

But there has been a good deal of historical revisionism, yes.

LR

As for the CJC and B’nai Brith being a house divided, has either been infiltrated by the children of another Father? I think we would’ve heard about goyim joining up to something like that in the most demeaning possible terms.

Yes, I think formerly the CJC was the voice for the Canadian Jewish community and communal organizations and still officially styles itself as such (on its website, which is what I went by). But B’nai Brith does speaks from a more extreme position — which actually makes the argument stronger.

Anyway, I will ask Kim to make the correction. I was in haste to get this out asap to help Chris and PEJ, which has served as the forum for so many voices.

Thanks, Flip Zeppelin, you have educated me - I had not idea about Nazi.

And thanks to DV for helping on this.

LR

About B’nai Brith and CJC hating each other. I think that might be right
but they could still take work together quite closely. I’ve seen it with others.

But, as a matter of fact, I did not look at it that closely but followed Chris Cook in his account of it, in a letter he sent me informing me of the story. I will try to double check and will correct if necessary.

Thanks all for the information. Now, let’s see what the tenure committees for Churchill and Finkelstein will do..
LR

I have seen, in America, very little true anti-Semitism. Aside from a handful of skinheads, I’m not aware of having met anyone who truly “hates the Jews” for being Jewish. In fact, every single time I’ve heard the phrase “anti-Semitic” used, it is used to describe someone who is critical of the illegitimate state of Israel, or its policies.

I say “illegitimate” because the people who formed the state of Israel had no legitimate right to take the land. The people who had been living there for thousands of years (Palestinians) were removed at gunpoint or the threat thereof, by a bunch of white guys (the British) who controlled the land due to their own racist imperialistic agenda. The people who moved in to the stolen land (Ashkenazi Jews, who incidentally have absolutely no common ancestry whatsoever with the Sephardic Jews that are described in the Bible) then proceeded to embark on a campaign to abuse the people whose land they stole. The conduct of the assholes in Jerusalem (I don’t care what color they are, what religion they have, or where there ancestors came from, their actions classify them as hateful bilious assholes) is ONLY deserving of international scorn. For critics of Israel to be labeled as anti-Semitic solely on the basis of criticizing Israel belittles the term.

Expressing what may be uncomfortable for others to hear is the price of liberty. Anything else is censorship in the tradition of the USSR.

I just don’t see how this can be considered anti-Semitic. You can be against sectarian states without being agains jews or judiasm.

It is really a stretch to try to fit that into the category of anti-Semitism.

And for those on the left, you might want to hesitate the next time you hear someone on the right labeled anti-semitic, as you can now see this word is used to quickly and too loosely to silence legit critics of Israel and other policies of the self-described leaders of the Jewish community.

No, this is kowtowing to tyranny plain and simple.

And, in any case, intolerant Jewish organisations like the B’nai B’rith and the Southern Law Poverty Center, seem never to reciprocate gestures of goodwill. Trying to appease them is futile.