Usman Ahmad: Bill 168 and the ONDP’s failure to stand up against antisemitism and zionism
Written by: Usman Ahmad, @meagainstapathy
“Committing to win is the most principled thing a New Democrat can do” said Ontario NDP leader Andrew Horwath’s chief of staff, Michael Balagus, during opening segments at the Ontario New Democratic Party’s Provincial Council. Merely winning an election was a recurring theme throughout the day and could be seen in the party’s attitude towards Bill 168.
The private member’s bill brought forward by Progressive Conservative MPP, Will Bouma, is the first of its kind aiming to implement the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-semitism at a provincial level. Of course anti-semitism is a real, continuous and rising threat on a global scale which is, believe it or not, what makes this definition all the more problematic on top of its anti-Palestinian sentiments. This is why it is worrying that the ONDP, the self-proclaimed progressive choice, stated that it “will not oppose this bill”.
On Feb. 27, Bill 168 passed its second reading with unanimous accord across party lines from all MPPs who attended.
The IHRA definition of anti-semitism leaves the actual definition of anti-semitism vague whilst conflating legitimate criticisms of the government of Israel as anti-semitism. This means; not only will it fail to adequately protect the Jewish community throughout Ontario, but will also make a conscious effort to stifle the voices of those standing up on behalf of fundamental human rights for Palestinians. This definition ultimately puts Jewish communities in danger by failing to adequately address and define the issue of anti-semitism. It is therefore clear, that this definition has the main purpose of dismissing all criticism of Israel and suppressing Palestinian solidarity. This can further be seen by how 7 of the 11 examples of anti-semitism cited in it are criticms of Israel.
Canadian law, federally and provincially, does not protect any other country from criticism of any sort. The IHRA definition, therefore, sets a dangerous precedent going forward in regards to both freedom of speech and academic freedom, prompting over 400 Canadian academics to sign a letter decrying the definition.
“I, a Jew, would be called antisemitic because I know Israel’s laws against Palestinians are oppressive and racist” said Sara Rans, the riding president of London North Centre at the ONDP Provincial Council this past Saturday. She also provided a more complete alternative defintion of anti-semitism from Independent Jewish Voices:
“Antisemitism is racism, discrimination, or violence directed against Jews—because they are Jews” before declaring that “this is the antisemitism I want to fight. People who hate Jews will attack other vulnerable groups. We need to fight oppression together.”
In response to Rans’ passionate speech ONDP leader, Andrea Horwath, stated (much like John Vanthof on February 27) that the party is aware of the issues surrounding Bill 168. She explicitly noted the various concerns in regards to freedom of speech, not addressing anti-semitism adequately, as well as the potential of the definition being used to stifle Palestinian solidarity.
Horwath defended the choice to support the bill, claiming that it was a divisive issue even amongst the ONDP’s caucus but that we cannot allow the PC government to divide us as that is what they want. She essentially admitted to cracking the party whip on MPPs that went against the ONDP on the issue.
Finally, Andrea Horwath brought the truth to light as to why the party took this stance on the bill; a “strategic decision” to gain voters. In her conclusion to Rana’s speech Horwath admitted that supporting the bill was a strategic choice that the progressive lane of the NDP had to trust. There is a belief that, Bill 168 won’t make it to the third reading like “most private members bills” and even if did it would become open to changes and criticism. As a result, supporting the bill would be less controversial, appease more voters and hopefully never come to fruition.
This is not true and even if it were, this is a saddening tactic for a “progressive” party to take.
In accepting such a moderate take, the ONDP has alienated their progressive and most dedicated supporters. Those who would stand outside in the cold preaching and canvassing about the parties original socialist values. Those who stick by the party because they are supposed to be taking a different stance to the Conservatives and Liberals and not blatantly following and supporting the same bills as them. Those who believe the party has the potential to follow in the same footsteps as Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn in terms of offering real change.
All of this, without even diving into all their disappointed Arab and racialised supporters who look to the party to be one that fights against colonialism and human rights violations on a global scale.
Even if the bill does not make it to its third reading, the ONDP has ultimately still made a statement here. A statement saying that more important than standing up for human rights in Palestine, more important than fighting anti-semitism and hatred here, more important than freedom of speech, is winning an election and appealing to voters that might as well be voting for the Liberal party.
What makes this all the more frustrating is that the IHRA definition failed to pass in Montreal, Calgary and Vancouver’s city councils, proving that if the ONDP were to take a strong and moral stance there, they would have strong support backing them and that this is, in fact, an election winning stance to take.
Ultimately, what’s the point of commiting to winning if the cost is our values? A party with nothing to offer is not a party worth canvassing in the cold for, not a party to be proud of and not a party worth voting for.
Committing to progressive values for the many and not the few and real change not for me, but for us, is the most principled thing anyone can do. It is time we make sure the ONDP gets the memo.
More Articles