City Council adopted a report determining the group Queers Against Israeli Apartheid isn’t in violation of Toronto’s anti-discrimination policy yesterday, drawing a close to a debate that at one point threatened to sink Pride’s funding. So that’s good news. But councillors also tacked on an amendment that could put a serious dent in free speech in this city.
Back in July 2010, councillors who objected to the participation of QuAIA in Pride asked the city manager to determine whether the group’s presence at a city-funded event violated municipal anti-discrimination laws (the group has since voluntarily withdrawn from the parade).
The city manager looked into it and determined the phrase “Israeli apartheid” doesn’t violate city policy. The manager’s report was unanimously endorsed by Rob Ford’s executive council last month, but not before a lot of grandstanding by councillors determined to show voters their pro-Israel chops by publicly slamming QuAIA and defending the occupation of Palestine. It was a weird meeting.
Israel’s defenders on council had little choice but to accept that “Israeli apartheid” is not discriminatory, because the current policy narrowly defines discrimination as something that hinders the provision of city services to an individual or group, which QuAIA clearly does not do. But such is their hatred of those two words that some councillors have determined that if the policy says the term is ok, the policy must be broken.
One of those councillors is rookie Ward 10 rep James Pasternak, who introduced an amendment yesterday that called for an update of the city’s anti-discrimination policy. In and of itself, that’s not a bad thing. The policy is 13 years old and could possibly be improved. But Pasternak’s explanation of why he wants it changed should send shivers down the spine of anyone who’s a fan of free speech.
“Look, the term ‘Israeli apartheid’ is offensive. It’s not a positive thing that we want in the public domain, in city financed events,” he said after yesterday’s vote. “We want something positive, we want to celebrate, we want people to be comfortable.”
Later, he said “We’re in the business of making people feel comfortable, and welcome, and respected.” The need to “make people feel comfortable” was also stressed by Councillor Giorgio Mammoliti when he attacked QuAIA at last month’s executive council meeting.
It’s difficult to overestimate how bad an idea Pasternak and Mammoliti have latched on to here. Ensuring citizens are comfortable is an appallingly high threshold to set for free speech. If you start defunding groups or events that make people uncomfortable, suddenly there’s not a lot that you can say or do in this town.
Under the type of policy Pasternak envisions, Pride itself would be ineligible for city funding. Surely all that gratuitous nudity and flouted traditional values make a lot of people uncomfortable. Ditto for the annual Walk With Israel event, which makes pro-Palestinian activists apoplectic. But no one has a right to deny Pride city funding or stop Walk With Israel from shutting down city streets because those events don’t do anybody any demonstrable harm, other than offending them. Government has no responsibility to ensure other people’s views don’t make us feel squeamish from time to time.
If Pasternak is going to alter city policy so that it no longer recognizes “Israeli apartheid” as protected speech, he has to prove that it does Jewish groups harm in some way, and that’s something that so far nobody has been able to do. The term has never been defined as hate speech by either the Criminal Code or Ontario’s Human Rights Code. Falling back on the argument that it just really bothers people puts us on a path towards a comfortable, but silent, city.
Pasternak’s amendment was passed, but there is no timeline yet for a review of the anti-discrimination policy.
