There is an ancient Jewish folktale which tells of a man visiting Hell and being amazed to find its inhabitants all seated at long tables with fancy tablecloths, beautiful silverware and delicious food in front of them. Yet no one was eating. They were all wailing. On closer examination the visitor saw that none of them could bend their elbows. So while they could touch their food no one could bring the food to their mouths.
The visitor then went to Heaven where the scene was identical, long tables, fancy tablecloths, beautiful silverware and delicious food. And here too people could not bend their elbows.
But here no one was wailing -- because each person was serving his neighbour.
Being sensitive to one's neighbour, can there be any better definition of human rights?
More than most, Jews have had a vested interest in embracing human rights. Antisemitism, as Jewish historian Robert Wistrich once wrote is undoubtedly the "longest hatred." Indeed, in the modern era, hardly a generation has gone by without the dark cloud of Jew-hatred erupting into a calamitous storm. The Holocaust became the ultimate expression of antisemitism.
With the deep and visceral understanding of humanity's potential for evil, for many Jews and other minorities, human rights became a watch word, a fence of protection.
Despite widespread belief that Canada, especially Ontario, was distinctly different from its southern neighbour, it was not uncommon for restaurants to refuse service to people of colour. In Windsor, in the early 1950s, the United Auto Workers-Congress of Industrial Organizations once filed a complaint against a local café for refusing to serve a black member of the Canadian armed forces a cup of coffee.
And following the war, within living memory, the colour of your skin, or the God you chose to worship, could prevent you from buying and holding land. Restrictive land covenants were used by landowners in Ontario to prohibit Jews, racial minorities and others of "questionable" nationality from doing so.
In cottage country, and even on Toronto's beaches up to the mid 1950s, it was common to see signs that read "No Dogs or Jews Allowed".
So it was in Ontario, the most diverse of all of Canada's provinces that work began in establishing a mindset of equality.
Ontario Jews worked together with black leaders and labour groups to advocate for a human rights apparatus in the province. Canadian Labour Congress human rights co-ordinator Kalmen Kaplansky, Alan Borovoy, a young law student and budding civil rights lawyer, then head of the Jewish Labour Committee; Canadian Jewish Congress community relations director Ben Kayfetz; and renowned civil rights litigator Sidney Midanik all worked with black leaders like Bromley Armstrong and Dan Hill to press their case.
Their advocacy led to the establishment in 1961 of the Ontario Human Rights Commission -- the first such body in North America.
Thanks to work by the Ontario Human Rights Commission discrimination, so commonplace in the past, is far less so today.
Yet hate is not easily squelched. Robust, hatred seems to find ways to pick itself out of the dustbin, brush itself off, and find other methods to spread its poison.
Only last week a madrassah (Islamic School) in Toronto was found to be teaching antisemitic lessons to its young students.
A few months earlier a mixed race couple in Newmarket Ontario were the victims of a racial attack.
In a recent study, the Toronto Star reported that, "Employers in Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal 'significantly discriminate' against applicants with Chinese and Indian names compared to those with English names."
The good news is that Canada has strong anti-hate laws which make it a criminally indictable offence to promote hatred. And most human rights codes across the country have strong tools to deal with outright discrimination.
But we cannot be complacent. Louis Lenkinski a former Chair of Canadian Jewish Congress and a past secretary-treasurer of the Ontario Federation of Labour, once explained to me that you cannot have justice for Jews if there is not justice for everyone.
Today with the advent of the internet, Wi-Fi and communications technology only dreamed about years ago, information dissemination is instantaneous. No longer must we solely count on newspapers and television. Today any one of us can be a purveyor of information, a columnist with an opinion and literally thousands do so as bloggers. Regretfully though, the responsibility of measuring criticism with sensitivity is sometimes sadly lacking.
Some bloggers do not hesitate to use their blogs not only to voice an opinion but to defame, libel and disparage. Human rights codes and commissions must play a careful balancing act between our cherished right of free speech, and the right of those most vulnerable to be free from the hateful harm caused by those who would use their blogs as bully-pulpits.
Humanity is never linear. It takes all kinds to make a community. Thus we all have responsibility to ensure collective dignity. Human rights codes and anti-hate laws are simply tools to help maintain that needed dignity.
Follow Bernie Farber on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@berniefarber
Joel John Roberts: San Francisco Blasts Sonic Noises to Disperse Homeless
It is better that we cast the net of free speech as wide as possible. I would rather risk offending someone than live in a country with thoughtcrimes.
Maybe its just me but if my elbows didn't work, I'd just eat with my mouth right off the plate... Pie eating contest style.
Just kidding, heaven and hell don't exist. God is made up.
I would like to see some substantiation on that, 'common' or not.
But we have turned the corner a little faster than the US in the realm of gay rights, the last bastion.
First Nations file a historic human rights case against the federal government for under-funding child welfare services on reserves.
http://www.fncfcs.com/fnwitness
British Columbia, Canada
For:
The National Judicial Institute
International Instruments and Domestic Law Conference
Montreal, Canada
November 9-12, 2001
CONTENTS
* I. Introduction
* II. Overview
* III. Aboriginal Children
* IV. Children Trafficked into BC
* V. The Children of China and the Children of Honduras
* VI. Canadian Children Trafficked to the United States for Prostitution
* VII. Internet Luring
* VIII. The Child Victim Witness
* IX. Summary
http://www.vancouver.sfu.ca/freda/articles/traf1.htm
Social exclusion and the growing racialization of poverty in Canada
Notes for Presentation to Subcommittee on Children and Youth at Risk of the
Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities
on Wednesday, March 19th 2003
John Anderson, Canadian Council on Social Development
http://www.ccsd.ca/pr/2003/aboriginal.htm
http://www.gnb.ca/0073/PDF/positionpaper-e.pdf ( June 2010)
Not only the Jews but also Aboriginal people ( Alta. & BC had legistation on the books) all over Turtle Island.
Canada & 33 states south of the border & in Peru, former president Alberto Fujimori (1990–2000) pressured 200,000 indigenous people in rural areas (mainly Quechuas and Aymaras) into being sterilized as well as the Sami people in Sweden & the Tibetians..
Authorities obtained the "consent" required by the law partly by persuasion, and partly by enforcing it through coercion and threats. Thus the recipients of social benefits were threatened with removal of the benefits, women were exposed to a choice between placement in an institution or sterilization
BTW: Joseph Bruchac wrote a book about it " Hidden Roots" for school aged kids ..40 percent of Native American women accessing care through the U.S. Indian Health Service in the were sterilized against their will. up until the 970's"
Jane Harris-Zsovan /Eugenics and the Firewall: Canada’s Nasty Little Secret
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~wellerst/laughlin/
http://www.crin.org/docs/resources/treaties/crc.12/China_CFT2_NGO_Report.pdf
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2148793.stm
http://www.cwpe.org/node/185
Legislature of Upper Canada, permanently disenfranchising all Indian and
Metis peoples, and placing them in a separate, inferior legal category
than citizens.
1874: The Indian Act is passed in Canada’s Parliament, incorporating the
inferior social status of native people into its language and
provisions. Aboriginals are henceforth imprisoned on reserve lands and
are legal wards of the state.
1884: Legislation is passed in Ottawa creating a system of state-funded, church administered Indian Residential Schools.
1905: Over one hundred residential schools are in existence across Canada, 60% of them run by the Roman Catholics.
1907: Dr. Peter Bryce, Medical Inspector for the Department of Indian
Affairs, tours the residential schools of western Canada and British
Columbia and writes a scathing report on the “criminal” health
conditions there. Bryce reports that native children are being
deliberately infected with diseases like tuberculosis, and are left to
die untreated, as a regular practice. He cites an average death rate of
40% in the residential schools.
November 15, 1907: Bryce’s report is quoted in The Ottawa Citizen’s headline.
1908-1909: Duncan Campbell Scott, Superintendent of Indian Affairs,
suppresses Bryce’s report and conducts a smear and cover-up campaign
regarding its findings. Bryce is expelled from the civil service.
November, 1910: A joint agreement between the federal government and the
Roman Catholic, Anglican, Presbyterian and Methodist churches
establishes the structure of Indian Residential Schools and the
contractual obligations of churches running them. Duncan Campbell Scott
refers to the policy
May, 1919: Despite an escalating death rate of Indian children in residential schools from tuberculosis – in some cases as high as 75% – Duncan Campbell Scott abolishes the post of Medical Inspector for Indian residential schools. Within two years, deaths due to tuberculosis have tripled in residential schools.
1920: Federal legislation makes it mandatory for every Indian child to be sent to residential schools upon reaching seven years of age.
This paper will outline the history of federal and provincial laws applicable to aboriginal people.
Much has been written about discriminatory federal legislation respecting Indians. The exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament over "Indians and lands reserved for the Indians"(1) and the large body of resulting federal legislation(2) are obvious reasons for the emphasis on the federal side of this story. There has been relatively little discussion, however, of the discriminatory provincial legislation and the joint impact of federal and provincial discrimination on the basic human rights of aboriginal people. This paper does not attempt to identify exhaustively every instance of statutory discrimination and its implications. It will, however, review the history of this issue and examine both federal and provincial strands of legislation. The word "discrimination" will be used in the sense of legal distinctions singling out aboriginal people for special treatment and operating to the detriment of their fundamental human rights.
CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS
A. The Federal and Provincial Franchise
B. Self-Government
C. Property Rights
1. The Right to Homestead
2. Restricted Right to Sell Agricultural Products
3. Wills and Estates
FEDERAL CONTROL OF INDIAN STATUS AND MINORITY RIGHTS
IN INTERNATIONAL LAW
CRIMINAL LAW
http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/bp175-e.htm#CONCLUSION%28txt%29
In 1663 Quebec City outlaws the sale of liquor to First Nations People...by 1678 the French lift the alcohol ban and by 1689 the # of First Nation slaves increases to solve the labour shortages in New France.
http://www.centrelink.org/Hilden.html