The Globe and Mail features a bombshell story today on a recent government appointment of the chief of the Canadian Human Rights Commission that not only calls into question its vetting process, but the fairness of the body charged with addressing online hate in Bill C-63. Less than two weeks ago, Justice Minister Arif Virani announced that Birju Dattani had been appointed as Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission for five years. The position is particularly important at this moment given the proposed changes to the Canada Human Rights Act in the Online Harms bill that would expand the scope of Commission work on online hate, including the prospect of dealing with thousands of complaints. Yet what the release did not say is that Birju Dattani once went by the name Mujahid Dattani. Search under that name and it reveals a deeply troubling record of posts and appearances that call into question the ability for Jewish or Zionist Canadians to get a fair, impartial hearing at the Commission.
The Globe story covers the stunning history: a now deleted tweet that linked to an article comparing Israelis to Nazis, which is considered antisemitism under the IHRA definition adopted by the Canadian government. Further, there was a tweet to an article likening Palestinians to Jews incarcerated in the Warsaw Ghetto and a joint conference appearance with a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir, an Islamist fundamentalist organization which is opposed to the existence of the state of Israel and banned in Britain. In addition, he was interviewed at a rally featuring chants that “Zionism is terrorism” as he personally called for a boycott of Israel.
The government has placed enormous emphasis on the Canada Human Rights Act and enforcement by the Commission as important measures to address online hate. That plan has attracted considerable criticism on free speech grounds, yet days before the Dattani appointment, Virani defended its inclusion in Bill C-63, telling the House of Commons that he was giving Canadians “a tool to get hate speech removed.” But that tool must go through the Canadian Human Rights Commission, now led by someone with a track record that cannot possibly be viewed as impartial when it comes to the biggest target for hate crime.
This appointment has strong echoes of the government’s indefensible funding for Laith Marouf, given that proper vetting would have likely disqualified Dattani from this appointment. In fact, Virani’s officials tell the Globe they were unaware of the posts or activities and that Dattani did not disclose them during the vetting process. This is not a hard call. Virani’s office now says that “It is critical for the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission to maintain the confidence of all Canadians and to be seen as an impartial and fair judge of matters before them.” That is simply not possible given a track record that includes posts to articles that qualify as antisemitic using the government’s own definition of antisemitism. Dattani should resign or have his appointment rescinded.
Related posts:
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 193: The Online Harms Act is Nearly Here – A Backgrounder and Preview
Taking Action Against Antisemitic Hate: When Content Moderation, Self-Regulation, and Legislation Fail
Road to Nowhere: Parliament Breaks For the Summer With Little Accomplished on Digital Policy
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 207: The State of Digital Law and Policy in Canada as Parliament Breaks for the Summer
It isn’t anti-Semitic to accurately compare the actions of the Israeli government to that of the Nazis. It may be highly uncomfortable and unpleasant to Jewish people to consider that they are, like a victim of abuse, continuing the cycle of oppression but they have the option to stand up and oppose the oppression of peoples based on their heritage and faith rather than being complicit to it.
Continuing to improperly conflate opposition to brutality and oppression of the government of Israel with anti-Semitism and hate speech against Jews is a bad faith behaviour that makes people immediately dismiss your opinions with respects to the subject even if, in the future, there were actual anti-Semitic behaviour.
Israeli soldiers and Nazi soldiers both wore uniforms.
See, I just compared Israelis and Nazi Germany. Was it antisemitic?
Israelites stole Palestinian land, massacred Palestinians, kept them in a military occupation where they are abused by the IDF on a daily basis, and you think it’s anti-semitic to compare them to Nazi Germany?
What the honest fuck is wrong with you? How do you have such an insane intellectually dishonest blind spot when it comes to Israel?
The IDF murder naked Israeli hostages who were waving a white flag. Forensic Architecture just proves that their tanks fired openly on a family in a car, and then again on the ambulance sent to rescue the bleeding 6 year old girl inside. 2 millions homes have been bombed into rubble while the army is intentionally creating famine.
How about you post one article about what the Palestinian people are going through, if you want us to at all take you seriously? Go ahead, show us much concern for the dead Palestinians as you do for someone comparing the actions of the state of Israel with the actions of the state of Germany.
Honestly, I have lost a significant amount of respect for you for trying to say that COMPARING the actions of two states is inherently antisemitic. It’s the dumbest fuck*** statement I’ve ever heard.
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/avraham-russell-shalev-dont-be-fooled-anti-zionism-is-just-the-antisemitism-rebranded
Israel did not steal “Palestinian” land. This is a lie. Palestine was never a country. It was a region populated by Jews, Arabs and Christians. The “Palestinians” were invented in the sixties, long after the creation of Israel. There is ample archaeological evidence of Jewish presence in Judea for 3000 years. It is the other way around. The Jews were kicked out of their land. The Nazi’s killed 6M Jews in Europe. The Jewish population hasn’t recovered the losses yet, almost 100 years later. You may be hiding under a J name, but you are a hater, anti-Semite and you should be ashamed of comparing Israel with the Nazis.
I am a Jew that is proud of his heritage. And nowadays, I am pretty upset that Judaism is being used as a shield for nationalist atrocities. It does not matter if there is a country named Palestine or not. People were living on that land, displaced by force and never allowed to return to the land their ancestors had lived for many generations. You do not need to do archeological excavation to find out these facts.
I see many resemblances between the experiences of European Jews and Palestinians. Dehumanization, ruthless bombardments killing primarily women and children, bombing ghettos and killing refugees. The most crucial resemblance is the similarity of the discourses of the attacking side about “protecting themselves” against a disgusting enemy. Keep Judaism and the Jewish name out of your nationalist endeavours and atrocities on the way to achieving. Zionism is not Judaism. Anti-zionism is not anti-semitism. Some zionists are also Jews, and some anti-semites are also anti-zionist. Zionism was supported by the anti-Jewish people during the Balfour Declaration, and today, the best friends of Zionists are shady right-wing characters across the US.
“Oh no too many people think there’s a Jewish conspiracy to control the world, I know what will help, silencing all criticism of a foreign state and saying that anyone who criticizes that state is anti-semitic! That will help convince people that there’s no conspiracy!””
– Michael Geist, apparently.
Mhm, hater, ISRAEL is there to stay, whether you like it or not. Cope!
The IHRA definition of anti-Semitism is, to say the least, problematic. At the end of the day, Israel is a state and not a Jewish person so should be held accountable as a state. Zionism, as currently espoused by the state of Israel is an ethnic-nationalist ideology that is the underpinning of the current assault on the Palestinian people by the occupying power. What is most troubling to me is that the propaganda of the Israeli state to conflate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism will create a space where the vile practice of anti-Semitism will thrive.
Zionism is a nationalist, political ideology that called for the creation of a Jewish state, and now supports the continued existence of Israel as such a state. You would be right if “the actions of the Israeli government” were the way they are reported and not lies. The fact that you and others like you call casualties of war genocide, and that you do not condemn October 7 massacre and call for the return of the hostages, yes, these make you an anti-Semite.
Please do tell us again why the IDF show the naked Israelite hostages who were waving a white flag?
They do that because they follow the rules of war and respect the livelihood of Palestinians? Or because they hate Palestinians, don’t see them as equal people, and indiscriminately kill them.
Defending and denying war crimes is very un-Jewish of you.
The point, as no one seems to understand, is that the head of the HRC in Canada must be impartial and be seen to be. Arguing for a corrupt commissioner because he leans your way isn’t an argument, it’s proof that you are corrupt and that you believe the HRC should be equally corrupt. It’s astounding.
Except there’s no accusations of corruption, just that he’s critical of the Israeli government.
Did you even read the article?
This issue is about the fairness and impartiality of the appointee, not the side one takes in the Israel-Hamas war. All the people commenting here seem to have strong opinions on the situation, not the appointee. The appointee took a side on a contentious issue – he has a right to do that but it may disqualify him from the job. He will likely never be seen as impartial, and he will be tasked with adjudicating online hate speech. That’s the problem.
Does that principle of ‘impartiality’ according to your definition, apply both ways? If supporting a boycott of Israel is ‘impartial’? Is opposing one? Would you be saying someone who shares the opinion of Geist who opposes a boycott could not be appointed because they are not ‘impartial’? If attending Pro-Palestinian protests ruins someone’s impartiality, does attending pro-Israel protests do the same thing?
Connecting what happened during the Holocaust with what is happening in Gaza was something that was done by the Jewish Academy Award winning directors this year but disqualifies a Canadian appointee?
And this claim that it is antisemitic to compare atrocities committed against Palestinians with atrocities committed against Jews smacks of a belief that some lives are just worth more than others.
Geist is hardly being impartial but his view would get nowhere near the same scrutiny.
Do you think it would be appropriate to appoint someone to regulate hate speech who was neutral about South African Apartheid?
Do you think it would be appropriate to appoint someone who saw a KKK rally and said “yeah, whatever, I feel neutral about it?”
Neutrality in the face of hate and aggression is not neutrality, it’s capitulation and tacit endorsement.
If wanting Israel to stop committing genocide disqualifies one from appointments, then that would disqualify a tremendous number of Canadians. Somehow I doubt that there would be the same pressure trying to block those like Geist and Yda Rab who want to tar those who critisize Israel with antisemitism for daring to say in Canada what the International Criminal Court does.
Extremely disappointing that ‘public intellectuals’ are engaged in this type of neo-McCarthyism.
SSSS
This is great news and I hope things will soon be back to being more stable than before.
It’s almost refreshing to see the usual suspects venting here against the blog.
In my opinion, it really highlights the contrast between Michael’s focused writing and their ad hoc opinions which try (and fail) to deflect or talk past the point of the article.
I don’t know how many people who read this blog are actually undecided on the topic of antisemitism or prejudice. If I had to bet on Michael or these ad hoc critics trying to change minds, my money is on Michael all the way.
Thank you Michael for your articulate thoughts.