Hold social media platforms accountable for antiSemitism: Tech giants are failing to act on user reports of hate content, digital watchdog reports
Post-Holocaust anti-Semitism was primarily disseminated by hate groups utilizing mediums we now deem somewhat archaic, like flyers and graffiti. In some circumstances, as in the case of Germany's Ernst Zundel, they were able to publish pamphlets, utilize phone answering machines and organize gatherings on some far-away farms.
The one-to-one direct recruitment into hate groups during those years now seems equally archaic. It took a considerable amount of effort to inspire, cultivate and introduce a new recruit to a group. For this reason, hate groups — particularly neo-Nazis — were relatively small in number following the Holocaust.
But with today’s postmodern anti-Semitism, inspiration, cultivation and recruitment happens en masse thanks to the spectacular growth of the internet and its social networking sites. In the past two decades, and particularly in the past few years, the world wide web has brought together more people than Hitler himself might have imagined, to promote and facilitate false anti-Semitic narratives that are inspiring dangerous violence.
The Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) released a report this week that charged that social media companies are not acting against anti-Semitism. Even while there has been a dramatic shift in operating guidelines for most social media firms — while under pressure from Jewish communities around the world — CCDH reported a whopping 84 per cent of documented anti-Semitic content was not acted upon. “Tech companies are consciously giving a free pass to anti-Jewish hatred and the increasing threat to the Jewish community,” said the not-for-profit NGO.
Its recommended solutions include having platforms hire and train more moderators to remove hate, and holding these platforms accountable if they fail to remove such comments.
Since 2014, I have argued in these pages and as part of a parliamentary committee that to combat online hate we must hold social media companies accountable. The only way social media operators will become accountable is if they are penalized through fines for non-action in the removal of hateful content. The fact that 84 per cent of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories about 9/11, and outrageous claims that Jewish people are responsible for COVID-19 and control world affairs, are left on social media should outrage civil society.
Ironically, our biggest and most important front against anti-Semitism and all forms of hatred is the internet. For this reason, The Abraham Global Peace Initiative has begun conversation with experts in artificial Intelligence and internet marketing to form a global task force on internet hate. We need to capture the hearts and minds of Silicon Valley to build algorithms and foster creative approaches to striking a blow at hate-mongers.
According to the CCDH, Instagram, TikTok and Twitter allow the usage of hashtags for anti-Semitic content such as #rothschild, #fakejews and #killthejews — all of which have gained over 3.3 million impressions. One is too many. Whereas once a neo-Nazi flyer would get the attention of mostly nobody, today's hate is entering into millions of homes via the internet, infecting children and young adults and thereby creating a new generation of haters.
Germany has recognized this problem and the general growth of anti-Semitism, announcing this week an investment of more than $40 million into researching and finding solutions to the problem. But frankly, we are running out of time.
Every day, there are dozens of reported anti-Semitic incidents around the world. Just this week, England's Tottenham Hotspurs football (soccer) team was “appalled” by radio show hosts who failed to challenge an anti-Semitic comment levelled at the club's Jewish chairman by a caller. In France and Germany, COVID-19 protests have given way to rising extremism and by extension, increased anti-Semitism. And just the other day, a Democratic politician in Ohio who lost a primary race to a rival backed by Jewish party members claimed she "didn’t lose this race" but "evil money manipulated and maligned this election."
More troubling about postmodern anti-Semitism is not merely the online regurgitation of old anti-Semitic canards, but the systematic propaganda campaign to dehumanize Jews as a means of attacking Israel. This justification of anti-Semitism is playing out online and in the media as the public is continuously fed falsehoods. Outrageous false narratives accuse the Jewish people of genocide and apartheid. The distinction between fact and fiction is blurred online as social media algorithms become echo chambers.
These lies and distortions are fast polarizing people into extreme positions, heightening levels of anxiety, animosity, fear and hatred. Whereas Adolf Hitler and his henchmen were able to mobilize millions into evil action through propaganda, the internet can mobilize billions more.
Ahmed Shaheed, the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion, warned in a report to the UN General Assembly in 2019 that anti-Semitism is "toxic to democracy.” It poses “a threat to all societies if left unaddressed,” he said. The time for action is now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strengthening hate-speech laws a sad necessity: “sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.”
07/04/21: Public consternation over proposed legal changes to confront online hate speech is legitimate considering the possibility of abuse. If approved, amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act and accompanying changes to the Criminal Code and the Youth Criminal Justice Act will fundamentally change how Canadians conduct themselves online. Understandably, in a free and democratic society, maintaining freedom of expression is critical to the very foundation of our national enterprise.
Many argue that curtailing speech and even online behaviour disallows our fundamental rights and freedoms as citizens. To some, it signifies an encroachment of state control reminiscent of tyrannical regimes and even communism. China’s recent harsh clampdown on media and individual expression in Hong Kong points to the danger of state power over rights and freedoms.
The Canadian government’s new “action to protect Canadians against hate speech and hate crimes” would clamp down on individuals who express “detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.” This would apply to public communications by individual users on the internet, including on social media, on personal websites and in mass emails.
That effectively means that journalists, writers and social media influencers could be subject to greater scrutiny.
I get it. As a promoter of free speech who is exposed to a daily dose of diverse opinion, my rational self agrees with the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis’ contention that “sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.” But there are problems with this perspective, too. As a student of the Holocaust, I have observed that anti-semitism is an infectious disease that if left unchecked in the social marketplace will rise to the top of hate and discriminatory practice in almost any society. Sunlight does not disinfect anti-semitism. Sunlight allows anti-semitism to replicate when it’s out in the open.
Statistics Canada reports that the Jewish community is the most targeted religious group for hate crime and hate speech in this country. In 2017, incidents of anti-semitism and hate crime in general increased by a whopping 47 per cent here. In 2019, police recorded 1,946 criminal incidents that were motivated by hate, representing a seven per cent increase from the year previous. Undoubtedly, these figures have increased under cover of the coronavirus pandemic as people have been spending more time online. During the Hamas-israel conflict in May, an online torrent of anti-semitism infected every corner of the planet.
For this reason, when testifying in front of a parliamentary task force about online hate in May 2019, I advocated for a strengthening of our hate-speech and hate -crime laws. As someone who is forwarded regular doses of anti-semitic content from those who have been targeted, I know that over the past two decades, we have seen a steady increase in online anti-semitism and hate against many groups. I doubt few would argue this point.
The Jewish community in particular (but certainly not exclusively) has been victimized online beyond measure: Jewish university students were attacked by their peers for merely identifying themselves as supporters of Israel during the latest conflict. Children of Holocaust survivors relive their parents’ trauma as they see Holocaust denial jokes flash on their screens. The Jewish community feels aghast when a newspaper displays a caricature of an Israeli soldier with his knee on the neck of a Palestinian. Online anti-semitic hate speech is pervasive and commonplace.
Given this reality, I have advocated for the reinstatement of Section 13 to the Canadian Human Rights Act, to return scrutiny and legal ramification for online hate. Over the years, I have encouraged parliamentarians to strengthen our hatespeech laws to prevent what was a foreseeable marketplace that is spreading hate and intolerance at an accelerated rate. For the victims of online hate speech, regulation of the internet gives them a mechanism to challenge abusive behaviour. But operators of social media platforms and internet service providers must be held accountable, too.
For non-victims, the argument for freedom of speech is an honest and rational reaction to the danger of state expansionism. The inevitable abuse of the law by individuals must come with stiff penalties. But put it this way — if it wasn’t for our hate speech laws, the now infamous “Your Ward News” in Toronto would still be publishing its misogynistic and anti-semitic material in print and online.
If it had been allowed to publish under the notion of free expression, it’s possible other publications would have sprouted up as well. As someone who has been involved in that case since its inception, I am proud that Holocaust survivors and their children no longer need to find this paper on their doorsteps.
There is no place for hate speech — ever. If we are going to build a more compassionate society, we must become more culturally proficient — while still holding true to our core values of freedom, democracy and human rights. Sadly, and although unpopular in many spheres, regulation of hate speech is today more necessary than ever. Yes, this issue is controversial and all sides of the argument have valid concerns. But the silence over anti-semitism in the past few weeks has shown us that legal remedies are necessary.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Silence Over Antisemitism: We need some outrage over anti-Semitism in Canada
There is no monopoly on discrimination. In the Jewish world, we have stood up throughout history for freedom and civil rights. Our people have proudly walked with every modern-day liberation movement, including participating in and supporting Martin Luther King Jr. in the civil rights movement, the feminist movement and most recently the LGBTQ2 movement.
We are proud leaders in the promotion of social welfare policies and legal and ethical rights. Upholding Jewish values, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, for instance, is fondly remembered for fighting against gender discrimination and became the first tenured female at Columbia Law School.
Despite our concern for others over the centuries however, it has not been matched for the Jewish community in the past couple of weeks. Shockingly, despite the overt anti-Semitism on the streets of North America and Europe, there has been a deafening silence. Jewish people have been assaulted in New York, Los Angeles and Toronto. In Toronto this past weekend, Palestinian protesters carried Hamas flags at their rally, while many held anti-Semitic signs and slogans. One read, “Good Job Israel, Hitler Would be Proud.”
A brick shattered the window of a Kosher pizza parlour in Manhattan. Video captured a swarm of men attacking diners at a Sushi restaurant in Los Angeles, and synagogues are reporting vandalism in places like Arizona, Illinois and New York. As in Toronto, a brawl broke out in Times Square while the Diamond District was also attacked by a gang of pro-Palestinians. Drive-bys consisting of Pro-Palestinian groups have become commonplace in Jewish areas — racially tinged epithets being shouted at young Jewish children and adults alike.
Worse, over the past number of days, my phone has been ringing off the hook and messages have been pouring in from staff at corporations and school boards who have a growing sense of fear and discomfort in their institutions. They are shocked by the silence of their peers and colleagues whom they have worked with for years to promote equity for other groups within their institutions.
But now, when anti-Semitism is at an all-time high, when they are being personally targeted on the street and their freedoms seem constrained, they wonder why there is silence. Why have their institutions not unequivocally condemned anti-Semitism, period?
Condemnation of anti-Semitism is not a political matter. It is an anti-discrimination matter. One local school board completely convoluted the matter in a memo that tried to reassure its staff about the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Instead, it ostracized its Jewish staff and probably inflamed passions further by saying in reference to the conflict that it is “committed to working from anti-racist, anti-oppressive and anti-colonial frameworks.”
Effectively, it politicized the institution and possibly legitimized anti-Semitism by falsely accusing Israel of being a racist, oppressive, colonial state. Naturally, this has put its employees and students on edge and pitted them against each other.
This is the time for leaders to step up and publicly defend their Jewish friends and neighbours. First and foremost, all public and private institutions must issue statements condemning anti-Semitism while providing guidelines for appropriate conduct and communication. Second, authorities, including law enforcement and the attorney general, must thoroughly investigate and if necessary charge people who promote hate speech and are found to have committed hate crimes.
The fact that some Jewish neighbourhoods are setting up their own security systems above and beyond our public law enforcement services may be indicative that public needs are not being entirely met. Finally, faith-based organizations and friends of the Jewish community must speak out against anti-Semitism and visibly extend a hand.
Article I of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaims that “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” We are all equal and must strive to advance human rights for all people.
There is no shortage of pain and suffering on our small planet and unfortunately, we are seeing an upward global trend of inequality, racism and discrimination. Together, we must stand to uplift all who are suffering, including the Black and Asian communities and persecuted peoples like the Uyghurs, Tibetans and Rohingya.
And yes, in the coming days and weeks, we need to see some outrage against anti-Semitism. I am calling on my friends outside of the Jewish community to stand up and speak out.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its time to take a global approach to combating antisemitism
Few disagree that while we have been on the brink of global disaster during the COVID-19 pandemic, our post-pandemic world offers new hope and new opportunities.
Figuratively, the reopening of the world can be likened to a reopening of our hearts and minds as we rise to the challenge of thinking about humanity on a global scale. A renewed global reorganization is desperately needed, particularly as democracy and freedom are on the decline. This was driven home this week as the leaders of NATO-affiliated nations, meeting in Europe, issued a stern warning about the encroachment of Russia and now China on global security.
The NATO alliance reiterated its commitment to democracy, human rights and the rule of law, and to preserving and protecting the freedom of nations unified under its banner. The subsequent meeting in Geneva between presidents Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin was the first in many years between these old foes, and while undoubtedly spirited behind closed doors, was a positive step toward reopening much-needed channels of communications. The new reality in this post-coronavirus world is that our interdependence makes communication essential and provides opportunity for increased human potential.
In the Middle East, that opportunity could not come at a better time as a challenge to Israel’s enemies. The Abraham Accords have held deep between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Morocco. While Israel squashed Hamas in self-defence, thus displaying its military might, this latest conflict has proved to be a defining moment in many ways. Prophesy in the region is always a losing battle and it’s hard to know if Israel’s new government will survive the test of time. But for the naysayers who propagandize slanderous accusations against the Jewish State, the country’s new roster of cabinet members rebuts those allegations.
Israel’s new government is exploding with diversity — a mirror reflection of the nation itself. Its new cabinet includes nine female ministers (still inadequate but a positive direction), two Arab ministers, two openly gay ministers and one religious minister. The icing on the cake is the newly installed religious Prime Minister, Naftali Bennett, and the Alternate Prime Minister (also serving as foreign minister), Yair Lapid. The coming together of this new generation of Israeli leaders — the right and the centre-left — is probably the seismic shift a very fractured Israel needed to bring the country together. Given a recent poll that found 53 per cent of Palestinians leaning toward supporting Hamas, building an inclusive society has never been more urgent.
And while many rightly express concern for the safety and security of Israel with Benjamin Netanyahu’s departure as prime minister, time will tell if the new leadership is what Israel needed at this critical time. Netanyahu is arguably irreplaceable. There are few leaders in the world today who command as much respect and have such direct lines of communication with other major leaders. He still commands more public trust than Lapid and Bennett, having won 30 seats in the past election in comparison with 17 for Lapid and seven for Bennett respectively. Netanyahu has kept Israel safe, bolstered its economy, brought forward four peace agreements with its neighbours and opened more diplomatic missions around the world than ever before. The Jewish world owes him respect and gratitude.
And while Israel’s new leaders will need to delicately navigate a diverse coalition and a tense nation — particularly after the Arab uprising inside Israel during the past conflict — the bigger problem for Israel is the Jewish diaspora. It can no longer be ignored or taken for granted. Given the fact that the Talmud teaches that “all of Israel are responsible for one another,” what then will be Israel’s renewed responsibility to a global Jewish community that is reeling from a spike in anti-Semitism given the latest conflict?
Just this week, the Community Security Trust reported 201 anti-Semitic incidents had occurred in London, England, in May — an all-time high. There were 12 reports of assaults and more than 160 reports of abusive behaviour. Similarly, Germany’s Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution reported what it said was a frightening increase in threats to Jewish life in the country. Among the reported incidents, a swastika was found etched on an ark at a synagogue at the Frankfurt International Airport. The trend is also disconcerting in America, where the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) released a new study that found that 77 per cent of the nation’s Jewish community was concerned about anti-Semitism while 53 per cent reported an increase in Jew-hatred and 40 per cent were more concerned for their physical safety.
The spike in anti-Semitism is undoubtedly directly linked to Israel. U.S. Ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield told the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee this week that, “We’ve seen that countries that have put Israel on the agenda on a regular basis have expressed views that are anti-Semitic, and many of those countries are in the Middle East.” She observed that it’s “appalling that the UN Human Rights Council has one standing agenda — and that’s Israel — when there’s so many other countries that are committing human rights violations.” Bashing Israel has always been a way to distract the world from atrocities and human rights violations happening elsewhere. Anti-Semitism is now that new distraction, which the world can no longer afford given pressing global issues that threaten human security.
Thankfully some common sense prevails, but for far too long, successive Israeli governments have failed to address the growing threat to the world Jewish community. It’s time to take the NATO approach — a global alliance of preparedness — to combating anti-Semitism. The safeguarding of freedom, democracy and global peace — values upheld by NATO and democratic nations — is intertwined with the fight against anti-Semitism. As the world reopens and re-engages, it’s time for it to rise to this challenge.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ignoring Antisemitism from the far left at our peril
Since the shocking attack on Capitol Hill on January 6, 2021, public analysis of anti-Semitism has turned a blind eye to how the far left has turned Jewish life upside down over the last couple decades.
In Newsweek, Kathrin Meyer, the secretary general of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, wrote a meaningful article, in which she argues that, “Just weeks after right-wing extremists stormed the United States Capitol … it is now our duty to reflect on this event and act on history’s lessons from 1930s Europe, when the world failed to prevent extremist groups from rising to power — with disastrous effects.”
Meyer is right that we must stay alert and aware of extremist groups that want to destroy our democracies. We now know that many of the rioters who attacked the Capitol were white supremacists who are a danger to our freedom and our way of life. One of the rioters even brazenly wore a “Camp Auschwitz — Work Makes You Free” shirt — an expression of Nazi ideology. This is abhorrent.
In all this, however, the equal complicity of the extreme left is being sidelined. If we are concerned about extremists attacking democracy, where is the condemnation of the anti-Semites on university campuses, for example, who have spent two decades churning out graduates who hate Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East?
University campuses, a central driver is what’s come to be known as “new anti-Semitism,” have seen Jewish students and faculty victimized by horrible events like Israeli Apartheid Week and movements like the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign against Israel.
Frankly, it’s offensive that all this hate has been largely ignored recently. The inconvenient truth of this post-truth world in which we are living in is that the rise of anti-Semitism is coming from three spheres: far-left movements, radical Islam and white supremacists. Yet world leaders like U.S. President Joe Biden and UN Secretary General António Guterres have focused mainly on anti-Semitism emanating from the far right.
I was glad that Biden raised the alarm about white supremacy in his inauguration speech. And in a statement released this week marking International Holocaust Remembrance Day, Guterres, who has spoken out forcefully against anti-Semitism in the past, said that, “In Europe, the United States and elsewhere, white supremacists are organizing and recruiting across borders, flaunting the symbols and tropes of the Nazis and their murderous ambitions.” These are strong and welcomed words, of course, but there was no mention of the other sources of anti-Semitism, which are equally virulent.
In recent weeks, I have received several notifications from Jewish university students who have raised concerns about assignments that seem to distort the truth about Israel and even question historical facts about the Holocaust. Sources also tell me that some NDP members are proposing to put forward a motion at the party’s next convention to oppose the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of anti-Semitism. These are but two examples to underscore how the left is plotting against Israel and, by extension, the Jewish people.
The other anti-Semitism that must be talked about, as it is just as complicit in spreading hatred as white supremacism and the extreme left, is state-sponsored and comes primarily from the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Iranian regime continues to peddle Holocaust distortions and promote conspiracy theories against Israel and the Jewish people. It has also been the main moral backer of Al-Quds Day events around the world, which are held in Western democracies to delegitimize the Jewish state.
In a new world in which peace in the Middle East is closer than ever thanks to the Abraham Accords, we are seeing increasing numbers of friendships being made between Muslims and Jews. Incredible relationships are being forged at every level. This may ultimately diffuse the violent anti-Semitism we have witnessed in places like France and the United Kingdom over the last couple of decades. It may prove to be the antidote to the vicious left-wing campaign against the Jews — especially since the Arab world has virtually thrown out the boycott of Israel.
Still, anti-Semitism must be addressed cohesively and in its entirety. One cannot condemn white supremacism without condemning bias and hate against the Jewish state at the United Nations. One cannot memorialize the Holocaust while funding UN agencies that allegedly still utilize problematic textbooks that call for the elimination of the Jewish state. And one cannot say he or she stands against anti-Semitism and all forms of racism while allowing Jewish students and faculty to be subjected to hateful events on campus.
All forms of anti-Semitism are dangerous and pernicious, and far-left anti-Semitism cannot be ignored. It has the best chance of eroding our institutions and the very foundation of our democracy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why is Academia Attacking IHRA?
It's not enough that Jewish people are violently attacked on city streets, from New York to France. It's not enough that social media and the internet is littered with antisemitic comments. Its not enough that Saturday Night Live takes an antisemitic swipe at Israel fuelling conspiracy theories. And it's not enough that students on university campuses still find antisemitic graffiti on their frat houses (during Covid-19).
Even the very definition of antisemitism is now under attack. We cannot define the very thing that is victimizing us - despite the fact the International Holocaust and Remembrance Alliance's definition of antisemitism has been accepted by more than 30 nations and counting.
Several weeks ago, a professor sent me a copy of an email he received from Ryerson University's Faculty Association. It was a full copy of an “Executive motion on Antisemitism and the IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance). The motion was disconcerting. It reads in part:
"The Ryerson Faculty Association unequivocally supports the academic freedom of its members. This freedom includes the right to pursue research and open inquiry in an honest search for knowledge that is free from institutional censorship, including that of the government. While the RFA opposes antisemitism and all forms of racism and hatred, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s Working Definition of Antisemitism poses a serious threat to academic freedom in our university. The IHRA definition of antisemitism misconstrues antisemitism to include a broad range of criticism of the State of Israel. The IHRA definition thus undermines important anti-racist and decolonial initiatives in Canadian educational institutions. It can also be used to censor political speech and restrict the academic freedom of teachers and researchers who have developed critical perspectives on the policies and practices of the State of Israel. Such targeted attacks will have a chilling effect on the academic freedom of our members in the classroom, in their research, and in campus politics more broadly".
In the past, Ryerson has made great effort to confront antisemitism. In reply, I wrote the faculty association a courteous letter in an attempt to understand some of its concerns. While it's good that the association affirms that it “…opposes antisemitism and all forms of racism and hatred”; it contends that the IHRA definition poses a “serious threat to academic freedom in our university”.
It's hard to believe that the motion poses a "serious threat" given that the definition itself is a guideline for understanding antisemitism. I explained that while perhaps imperfect, it is a necessary tool given the scourge and rising tide of antisemitism – especially on university campuses. It does not require or criminalize anyone from objection or critique or fair discussion – particularly at the academic level. It is certainly not a “serious threat” to free speech.
In my letter, I also expressed that given the well-established and documented antisemitism on university campuses, the RFA’s strong language contending that the definition may subject educators to “targeted attacks” seems to be the very opposite of what has been happening on campuses. Jewish students are the ones who have felt under attack for two decades on university campuses.
As well, the faculty member who provided me with the email told me that he is "terrified" by this latest attempt to shut down discussion of antisemitism. Indeed, Jewish faculty on university campuses in general have felt scared for many years.
Some academics may feel that the IHRA definition misconstrues antisemitism because it includes some criticism of Israel. It appears that what seems challenging for them to understand is that Jewish people see Israel as the embodiment of Judaism itself. Thus one sided attacks on Israel like BDS or the mislabeling of it as an apartheid state is not taken lightly.
RFA's belief that the definition "undermines important anti-racist and de-colonial initiatives in Canadian educational institutions" is also misplaced. Jewish people are not colonizers of their own land. They are a people bound to the land by history that is factual and evidence based. There is little dispute of indigenous Jewish presence in the holy land. Denial of Jewish history and connection to the land is hurtful and false.
It's hard to see how Academia is being "attacked" and how it's "seriously" threatened. Academic freedom and free speech are values enshrined and cherished by the Jewish community and its friends. We are open to fair and honest debate about antisemitism and historical truths concerning the Jewish people's connection to the land of Israel.
We should be having this discussion in an open and fair manner. Thankfully, all Canadian universities can now look to prestigious British universities - our commonwealth partners - like Cambridge and Oxford who have adopted the IHRA working definition of antisemitism. It's time for our community institutions to positively embrace the well-intentioned global shift to counter antisemitism.