RSS FeedNew Brochure on Righteous Among Nations
Earlier this year I pointed out how in the Western context hatred towards Muslims and Jews are usually linked, meaning someone harbouring hatred to one group is more likely to hate the other as well.
The natural conclusion I advanced was that the two groups should work collaboratively to fight hatred against them all.
A British group called Faith Matters has developed a new brochure, pointing out some of the roles Muslims took on during the Holocaust in protecting the lives of Jews.
The narrative of Muslim individuals in different contexts, including Albania, Tunisia, Morocco, Turkey, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzogovnia, help illustrate the role that many individuals played in opposing Axis forces.
There’s even a story of a contemporary Muslim lawyer living in Palestine, Khaled Mahameed, who has founded the first Arab Holocaust museum in Nazareth called The Arab Institute for Holocaust Research and Education. Mahameed believes the political backdrop of the Holocaust is an important component for Arabs to understand in order to foster greater dialogue between the two groups.
The intent behind the publication is to promote greater understanding and cooperation between the two groups,
Today, unfortunately, xenophobia and fear ‘of the other’ still continue to plague societies and the United Kingdom is not immune to these issues. The caricaturing of communities continues in some quarters and the lessons of history are not learnt. Yet, history should teach us and guide us so that we preserve the stories of our common humanity and social links which should not be forgotten. Furthermore, these stories should not be physically or mentally shelved as though they have no significance in the modern world. If anything, they have a greater significance today then they would have had 10, 20 or 30 years ago.
The Righteous Muslims booklet shows us that there are many stories of positive Muslim and Jewish interaction, even at the darkest moments in history. It shows a common bond and a link between people of two faiths who believe in the compassion of God and in the sanctity of life. Whilst the politics of the Middle East may block such stories out of the public narrative, there is a duty on us all to ensure that they get their rightful place in our social and educational narratives.
Of course there are some misgivings about the brochure already, with some expressing misgivings that the brochure glosses over Muslim involvement in supporting the Nazis.
But that’s a narrative we already hear enough of, even on full-page advertisements in Canadian newspapers.
This brochure provides a more nuanced perspective, demonstrating that people of a global faith could be found on all sides of the political spectrum, thereby avoiding gross generalizations and stereotypes of normative relationships between the faiths.
Another recent initiative that could help foster better relationships between these communities is a project by Robert Harush, an Israeli businessman from Ashkelon who has decided to renovate a major mosque in France. He’s doing this despite living in Ashkelon during Operation Cast Lead, and even having a rocket land in his house.
There are other great resources that expand on these complex relationships during WWII such as the PBS documentary and website, Among the Righteous, based on a book by Dr. Robert Satloff, Among the Righteous: Lost Stories from the Holocaust’s Long Reach into Arab Lands. The Faith Matters brochure was also originally modeled off Satloff’s book.
Watch the full episode. See more Among the Righteous.
Satloff claims that the reason why these stories haven’t been told for so long is that Jews didn’t look hard enough, and Arabs didn’t want to be found,
Somewhere over the past 50 years it became toxic in Arab societies even to recognize this wonderful act of humanitarianism.
Here’s a video by Dr. Satloff telling the story behind his book:
Journalistic privilege
Paper fights to shield its source
Tonda MacCharles writes for the Toronto Star:
The constitutional guarantee of a free press is “meaningless” if it does not protect journalists from being forced to reveal the identity of confidential sources, media lawyers argued Wednesday before the Supreme Court of Canada.
In the second case this year revolving around the role confidential sources play in freedom of the press, lawyers for The Globe and Mail, a group of Quebec newspapers, the Fédération des journalistes professionelles du Québec, and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association urged judges to shield the identity of a source key to the reporting of the sponsorship scandal in Quebec.
If the client-lawyer relationship is privileged, why shouldn’t the journalist-source relationship be privileged too?
Real Media Don’t Die, We Multiply
If you’ve been alive and on the Internet in the past year you would have read the obituaries – print newspapers are dead. Or dying, so they claim.
Some are even claiming the recession with determine the outcome of print, who are expected to see a major decline in 2009. Even law reviews are seeing the transition to exclusive virtual publication. And print legal researchers may be an endangered species.
One of the best April Fool’s gags this year was The Guardian‘s story on how they had moved to Twitter – exclusively.
But others claim that traditional media is not dying, it’s simply changing. Parker Mason, a PR friend of mine in TO said,
Did the invention of the printing press kill off the spoken word? No. It just meant that hand-lettered books were no longer necessary, and it gave more people access to literature and information.
Did the invention of radio kill off the written word? Again, no.
Did television indeed kill the radio star? No, but it might have forced some radio stars to adapt to become more television-friendly. And it also created a whole knew breed of radio stars.
Did the internet kill television? Again, no. If you’re like me, you might not use an actual television set but you probably still enjoy watching television shows on your computer or portable device.
Print media is likely to be around regardless. What papers will do is probably enhance their online presence, and many Canadian papers are already seeing an explosion of comments and interactivity on their sites. Dany Horovitz of Law is Cool also writes for the National Post’s Executive Blog, an exclusively digital publication.
Legal media is probably not much different, despite our affinity in this industry for paper. With over 4,500 hits a day on this site (and growing), we’re competing directly with legal print media for numbers. But not necessarily readership, because ours is global; or even for content, given our unique format and different focus on students specifically.
Smart newspapers will make this transition seamlessly. Smarter ones will partner with existing online media outlets.
The University of Western Ontario’s law school paper, Nexus, did post here for some time through their former editor-in-chief, Alex Dimson. The paper has gone through some changes and is now named Amicus Curiae, and we’re pleased to announce that the new paper will posting selective articles on Law is Cool as well.
Check out Ahmed Farahat’s excellent interview with Justice Binnie. Kamila Pizon of Amicus Curiae will also be posting shortly on the transition from LL.B. to J.D.
The synergies between print and virtual media are natural but often overlooked. We benefit from well-researched, carefully edited pieces, and they have an opportunity to speak to a larger audience.
Trained journalists also benefit from going online, and bring their writing skills with them.
For example, we’ve just taken on Digal Haio, a 2L at Osgoode. I first met Digal years ago during outreach activities in politics, where she was working for the Somali Press, an important voice for a vibrant and dynamic community with unique challenges of marginalization, discrimination, and racism. We’ve always had a strong mandate on this site for social justice and empowerment, and her contributions will definitely be valued.
At one time I also worked as a reporter in a print-based newspaper as a side job.
But the conversation goes the other way as well. I recently did an interview with Charles Adler on his nationally-syndicated radio show. The topic of conversation? My blog post on Animal Spirits, something everyone is worrying about in the midst of the G20 and economic troubles. I did another interview yesterday with Luigi Bennetton for Lawyers Weekly on web collaboration and wikis.
The Internet is an excellent place journalists to find topics of interest among the public, and find resources and experts for their pieces.
Law firms and lawyers have never underestimated the need for media presence, for client development or even basic advocacy. At some point they’ll have to start including online media, because that’s where most of the content will be. The University of Western Ontario law school recently started posting videos and downloadable audio files for our distinguished speakers, a move that will likely increase their profile generally in the legal community.
The growth of online media does not necessarily mean the demise of print. It just harkens change, one of the inevitabilities in life. Those embracing this change will not only flourish, but will find their media experiences enriched as a result.
Please note most of us are entering our exam period, and regular postings will be on hold.
Supporting Lawyer Mothers is a Bad Thing?
We’ve all heard it from some of those more sharp-tongued friends of ours – all those single mothers are eroding our economy and stealing our taxes.
The Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC) is getting heat now for supporting single mothers of another type – sole practitioners – and also those in smaller firms.
In a unanimous vote, LSUC will increase it’s fees by a measly $5-15 per lawyer to assist mothers and fathers seeking parental leave by providing grants of $3,000 a month.
But Karen Selick of the National Post slams the program, calling it “creeping socialism” (that’s a bad thing, by the way).
She forgets that Canada is often classified as a socialist democracy, especially the structure of our health care system, which to most Canadians is our proudest symbol of nationalism.
Selick also neglects to mention that the initiative was the result of a province-wide consultation by LSUC’s Working Group on the Retention of Women in Private Practice, which included many different social and ethnic groups and firms of all sizes. LSUC heard from 900 lawyers and students and received over 55 written submissions.
But consulting, of course, is so very undemocratic.
The Working Group states,
Women have been entering the private practice of law in record numbers for over two decades. However, they have also been leaving in great numbers, largely because private practice has not adapted to their realities, such as childbirth and taking on a significant portion of family responsibilities.
Also overlooked is that the move is part of a major plan to address the issue of equity in the workplace. Other recommendations adopted include:
- a think tank to promote retention and advancement of women in law
- direct support for women
- practice locums, for more leave and flex-time
- career development resources
- creating an advisory group
- networking strategies for minority (Francophone, Aboriginal) women
- a review program
But they also clearly express that this initiative begins in the law schools by preparing female law students for the realities of law.
The entire comprehensive 174-page report can be found here.
If valuable legal talent is being lost to inflexible and inadvertently discriminatory work practices, you would think this would be perceived as a progressive move.
Selick says,
What I have never understood is why anyone gives a damn whether women are leaving private practice and clustering in government or corporate jobs, or quitting entirely.
[emphasis added]
Beyond ethical and humanitarian concerns, the legal industry loses millions of dollars a year due to skilled practitioners leaving the law.
Sean Weir of Borden, Ladner, Gervais stated in May 2006 edition of Canadian Lawyer,
We invest a lot in education and programs and do a lot of intensive training from new associates and junior partners.
So when you have a well thought out plan that will save the legal industry mega bucks, and it’s also the right thing to do, why would someone think that it’s a bad thing?
Maybe it’s because they also think that human rights laws are phony too.
h/t Sharon Kour of UWO Law
Updates
Selick justifies her stance using legal economic theory. This type of analysis is frequently used by libertarians and the far right, as they create arbitrary cost-benefit analysis that attempt to prove their position.
More recently, legal economics has become popularized by books such as More Sex is Safer Sex. The author comes to some absurd conclusions, such as it’s better for a sexually inactive person to have a fling with a more promiscuous partner and contract a STD before returning to their inactive lifestyle, because they removed the opportunity of another more active person from getting the disease and passing it on to others.
But they also come up with some quite scary policy stances, such as justifying racial profiling. The problem with legal economics is that their supporters selectively choose the facts and statistics they include in their calculations. In the case of racial profiling, for example, many other studies have demonstrating that it actually increases cost and decreases effectiveness. Legal economists rarely have scientific or statistical backgrounds.
Canada invests hundreds of millions of dollars into our publicly subsidized education system. Despite rising tuition costs, they are still relatively low compared to other nations. But this means that your tax dollars are going into funding the education of women, who are now comprising 50-60% of law school classes. By not creating a more favorable career environment, we lose the incredible investment we put into these individuals. It’s these types of figures that are conveniently overlooked by strictly utilitarian legal economists, who falsely present their arguments as as logical and well-thought out.
A Country Run by the Mob(osphere)
When “free speechers” publish letters by lawyers or put legal proceedings online, they themselves are attacking free speech by attempting to intimidate legal proceedings [same applies for when their supporters attack websites].
That’s what John W. Dozier claims, in his American piece on Copyright Rights and Free Speech,
The first intended use is for it to chill the rights of businesses to speak without fear of a mob attack. It is often published to incite an overwhelming force to attack a business in many ways, both legal and illegal, and to intimidate businesses into submission. The publication itself, in this context, is an attack on our free speech rights. Chilling effect is an understatement. The second is even more obvious. If the business decides to move forward, the recipient uses the threat of posting it to gain an advantage in the legal dispute. The threat is not one founded upon the public’s right to know. It is founded upon a belief that the threat of publication of the cease and desist letter will get the recipient a better “financial settlement”, which is often a nice way of saying that “if you pay me off I will stop the attacks and remove the postings about your company, and if not, well, you’ll have to suffer the consequences “. That, my friends, smells of extortion. But it happens every day. These public interest and free speech groups know it…
Dozier terms such collectives as the “mobosphere,” and provides services to clients who are attacked by these organized groups.
The typically American problem has slowly entered Canada by right-wing groups pursuing similar tactics.
But some lawyers are pushing back.
Richard Warman, the lawyer who has championed human rights against neo-Nazi groups before tribunals, is suing a whole slew of far-right blogs claiming they have libeled him.
But Warman has also named the National Post is his proceedings, demonstrating the complex and often incestuous relationship between some publications in Canada and the far-right.
A Far-Right Bias in Media?
Canadians have overwhelmingly suspected and complained of a strong right-wing media bias in our country.
But their concerns have in many ways been confirmed with the presence of Prime Minister Stephen Harper at a party celebrating CanWest Global‘s expansion, led by CEO Leonard Asper. They are now the country’s largest media company, and are even launching their own news wire service to compete with Canadian Press.
Lawrence Martin said in the Globe and Mail,
Their continued ascendancy is a major blow — tilt the message and you gradually tilt the mind — to the left and to moderates. The Aspers make no bones about their conservative bias.
The Aspers attempt to defend themselves by saying that a philosophical bias in no way means a conservative reporting bias. But some would beg to differ.
Robert Fisk of the Independant has raised concerns about bias in the American media. But these are nothing compared to what we see in Canada,
In Canada, the situation is even worse. Canwest, owned by Israel [Izzy] Asper [at the time], owns over 130 newspapers in Canada, including 14 city dailies and one of the country’s largest papers, the National Post. His “journalists” have attacked colleagues who have deviated from Mr Asper’s pro-Israel editorials. As Index on Censorship reported, Bill Marsden, an investigative reporter for the Montreal Gazette has been monitoring Canwest’s interference with its own papers. “They do not want any criticism of Israel,” he wrote. “We do not run in our newspaper op-ed pieces that express criticism of Israel and what it is doing in the Middle East…”
David Beers of The Tyee explains how the Aspers forced their papers to publish editorials from their headquarters, and fired journalists that disagreed with their positions.
Research has shown again and again that “those election issues covered prominently in the news media tend to be perceived by the public as the most important election issues. Items buried tend not to make it on the agenda for public discussion.” Edge says the message is clear: “While the media can not tell us what to think, they are very influential in telling us what to think about. The way these stories are covered not only tell us what to think about, but how we think about it.”
Balance Needed
A true democracy with real freedom of speech requires dialogue on both sides of any debate, what the courts have termed, “the marketplace of ideas.” But even this concept has its limitation, as stated in R v. Keegstra [1990] S.C.J. No. 131,
Freedom of expression is seen as a means of promoting a “marketplace of ideas”, in which competing ideas vie for supremacy to the end of attaining the truth. The “marketplace of ideas” metaphor was coined by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, in his famous dissent in Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919). This approach, however, has been criticized on the ground that there is no guarantee that the free expression of ideas will in fact lead to the truth. Indeed, as history attests, it is quite possible that dangerous, destructive and inherently untrue ideas may prevail, at least in the short run.”
Courts have also recognized that when dealing with vulnerable minorities, an equal exchange may not always be possible. Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General) examined the vulnerability of children, for example, at the hands of corporations,
The concern is for the protection of a group which is particularly vulnerable to the techniques of seduction and manipulation abundant in advertising…
Thus, in matching means to ends and asking whether rights or freedoms are impaired as little as possible, a legislature mediating between the claims of competing groups will be forced to strike a balance without the benefit of absolute certainty concerning how that balance is best struck. Vulnerable groups will claim the need for protection by the government whereas other groups and individuals will assert that the government should not intrude. In Edwards Books and Art Ltd., supra, Dickson C.J. expressed an important concern about the situation of vulnerable groups (at p. 779):
In interpreting and applying the Charter I believe that the courts must be cautious to ensure that it does not simply become an instrument of better situated individuals to roll back legislation which has as its object the improvement of the condition of less advantaged persons.
A Dangerous Threat
Izzy Asper is the same individual who wanted to move the capital of Canada from Ottawa to his hometown Winipeg, obviously in complete disregard to the importance of Quebecois in Canadian society. He would strangely lobby from within the Liberal party, while making significant financial contributions to the Conservatives.
The company, now run by Izzy’s son, poses such a threat to Canadian society that some have written entire books on it. Marc Edge is the author of Asper Nation: Canada’s Most Dangerous Media Company.
Beers asks,
But even if CanWest owns dozens of newspaper across the nation along with Global TV and other television stations reaching 94 per cent of all Canadians, and even if CEO Leonard Asper has said he aims to make his company one of the top five media companies on the planet, how much torque can the Aspers really put on our democratic process?
Enough, it seems. What’s really scary is how these perspectives may change the fabric of Canada itself. Martin says,
You alter the character of a country by changing how it sees itself. You can change how it sees itself by changing the character of its media. Led by the Aspers, the character of Canadian media is changing.
Modern history has seen fascism, communism, brutal dictatorships, and liberal democracies. What exactly would we call a political system that is run by the media?
The 20th c. had the mafia and the mob. The 21st c. might just have the mobosphere, unless the public and politicians are alerted to this potential threat.
