Countering Antisemitism

Some folks have been asking me about last week’s Council endorsement of the IHRA definition of antisemitism, which I voted against. I want to say a little about my own deliberations, and my commitment to tackling antisemitism and hate in all forms. 

The IHRA definition has vocal supporters and vocal opponents within the Jewish community (largely summarized here). Council received hundreds of emails on both sides, and heard from roughly 70 speakers, most of them Jewish, with diverse opinions on it. It was hard, because so many people I respect oppose each other on this particular issue.

The IHRA definition itself is relatively simple, it’s the “illustrative examples” included with the definition that muddy the water. There was debate about whether this definition could or would be used to limit criticism of the government of Israel or advocacy for the  rights of the Palestinian people. There was debate about whether we can adequately address antisemitism if we don’t understand and define it. There were statements that the organized Jewish community is united in support of this definition. There was tension on both sides about who gets to decide which voices matter and which don’t. There was discussion about land and conflict and atrocities in the Middle East. It was a local microcosm of a heated international conversation, to be voted on by City Councillors.

It was… hard.

What we heard clearly from nearly all speakers was a concern about the rise in antisemitism – online and offline. We heard painful stories of family experiences of antisemitism. And we heard a strong shared desire to ensure everyone can pray, gather, and exist without fear of hate or violence.

I have been involved in multifaith community and antiracism advocacy for much of my adult life. As a grad student at an multifaith theological school I studied alongside Jewish leaders (and Muslim leaders, Buddhist leaders, Hindu leaders, Indigenous leaders, Christian leaders and many Unitarians). I have worked, marched and prayed alongside a diversity of Jews and other people of faith, for marriage equality, for climate justice, for workers rights, for peace and justice locally and globally.

I married into a Jewish family almost ten years ago, and I am a parent to two mixed-faith kids. As the most religious and spiritual of their parents, it matters a lot to me that they feel connected to their traditions and ancestors, and the communities that keep those traditions alive. Wherever they land, I want my kids to have access to the rich histories of their people, and to be able to experience belonging within those communities if they choose. 

I am imperfect at it. But I try my best, with the food, the holidays, the music, the stories and the questions. And I’ve asked for advice many times, from Bubbies, Rabbis, and other mixed-faith families (and, my favourite source of advice on this topic, my kids’ Bubbie, who once dreamed of becoming a Rabbi, and then married a Jewish atheist, and so raised her own kids in a mixed-faith family of sorts). 

By and large, my own Jewish family and many of my closest Jewish friends were against endorsing the IHRA definition. Some of them are involved in Independent Jewish Voices. They worry that it will be used to stifle Palestinian rights voices. All of them have experienced antisemitism in a variety of forms. These are the folks I see most close up, wrestling with their faith and how they live it out, modelling the tradition of questioning everything. 

I know my own family and networks aren’t a representative sample. So, like always, I read every email I received, and I listened with my head and with my heart to each speaker before Council. And I read plenty of articles people sent me, including Kenneth Stern, one of the drafters of the IHRA definition, raising concerns about how it was being used. And the IHRA definition has certainly been used in some places to stifle legitimate criticism of the Israeli government.

I voted no with these concerns in mind. One of the many times when a yes-or-no vote feels deeply inadequate for such a complex issue. And I knew that, however I voted, I was going to upset people and communities whom I love and care about. The IHRA definition debate is a fraught one, and in truth I don’t believe it belongs before city councils – it creates more divisions, not less. 

Above all, I want to be part of building bridges and strengthening our collective commitment to Justice for all. Though you may disagree with me, I hope you know my values led me to the decision and that I will continue to find ways to bring light to issues of injustice everywhere.

I’ve received plenty of feedback since the vote, including anger that I voted against it, and also anger that I “didn’t oppose it strongly enough”. It’s been hard on my heart. I know the whole issue weighs heavily in the lives of many people.

I want to be absolutely clear about is this: I oppose antisemitism in all its forms. Everyone deserves to feel safe, and to live free from hate and fear of violence. I oppose Islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia, racism and injustice for these same reasons. And the responses required are both specific to each type of hate, and also contain a multitude of intersections. 

I remain committed, in words and in actions, to the work of countering antisemitism and hate. And I will show up to do this work, again and again. As a parent, as a neighbour, as a person of faith, and as an elected leader, in the service of Tikkun Olam, repairing our shared world. 

—

I’m happy to hear from you or talk about it more. You are welcome to send me an email and I’m happy to talk from there: christine.boyle (at) vancouver.ca.