Montreal Planet magazine

 

For over forty years, the Canadian Government has knowingly and willingly subsidized racism and Apartheid and a “Canadian cover-up to a war crime” by granting and maintaining “charitable” status for the Racist Jewish National Fund (“JNF”)

 

Racism isn’t charitable!

Land theft isn’t charitable!

A “Canadian cover-up to a war crime” isn’t charitable!

 

Revoke the “charitable” status of the Racist JNF!

 

 1) Video: CBC TV 1991 Documentary on the Racist JNF's

“Canadian cover-up to a war crime”:

 

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-2500957394773313398

 

 2) Complaint filed with the Canadian Human Rights Commission concerning

the Canadian Government’s subsidizing of JNF’s racial discrimination:

 

a)  Part 1 of 3, filed December 24, 2007

 

Reference: Saba, Ronald vs Canada Revenue Agency (Government of Canada) 20071408

 

I am hereby filing a complaint against the Canada Revenue Agency (Government of Canada) for violating the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Canadian Human Rights Act and Canada Revenue Agency Policy Statement CPS-021 by subsidizing racial discrimination through granting and maintaining charitable status for the Jewish National Fund ("JNF"), an organization whose bylaws and operations have been deemed to represent racial discrimination by the United Nations Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (1998) and the Attorney General of Israel (2005).  The following facts are relevant to this complaint:

 

1) The following excerpt is Article 2.1 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination as it appears on the Government of Canada Canadian Heritage webpage: 

 

http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/pdp-hrp/docs/cerd/cn_e.cfm

International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination


Adopted by General Assembly resolution 2106(XX) of December 21, 1965

Entry into force January 4, 1969, in accordance with Article 19


Article 2

1. States Parties condemn racial discrimination and undertake to pursue by all appropriate means and without delay a policy of eliminating racial discrimination in all its forms and promoting understanding among all races, and, to this end:

(a) Each State Party undertakes to engage in no act or practice of racial discrimination against persons, groups of persons or institutions and to ensure that all public authorities and public institutions, national and local, shall act in conformity with this obligation;

(b) Each State Party undertakes not to sponsor, defend or support racial discrimination by any persons or organizations;

(c) Each State Party shall take effective measures to review governmental, national and local policies, and to amend, rescind or nullify any laws and regulations which have the effect of creating or perpetuating racial discrimination wherever it exists;

(d) Each State Party shall prohibit and bring to an end, by all appropriate means, including legislation as required by circumstances, racial discrimination by any persons, group or organization;

(e) Each State Party undertakes to encourage, where appropriate, integrationist multi-racial organizations and movements and other means of eliminating barriers between races, and to discourage anything which tends to strengthen racial division.

 

2) According to the Canadian Human Rights Act, discriminatory practices include the following:

 

Discriminatory Practices

 

Denial of good, service, facility or accommodation

 

5. It is a discriminatory practice in the provision of goods, services, facilities or accommodation customarily available to the general public

 

(a) to deny, or to deny access to, any such good, service, facility or accommodation to any individual, or

 

(b) to differentiate adversely in relation to any individual,

 

on a prohibited ground of discrimination.

 

1976-77, c. 33, s. 5.

 

Denial of commercial premises or residential accommodation

 

6. It is a discriminatory practice in the provision of commercial premises or residential accommodation

 

(a) to deny occupancy of such premises or accommodation to any individual, or

 

(b) to differentiate adversely in relation to any individual,

 

on a prohibited ground of discrimination.

 

1976-77, c. 33, s. 6.

 


3) In 1998, the United Nations Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights indicated that the JNF practices an "institutionalized form of discrimination", as stated in the following excerpt from their report:

 

http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/0bc7883100a95730852569af00575179!OpenDocument

 

 

"11. The Committee notes with grave concern that the Status Law of 1952 authorizes the World Zionist Organization/Jewish Agency and its subsidiaries including the Jewish National Fund to control most of the land in Israel, since these institutions are chartered to benefit Jews exclusively. Despite the fact that the institutions are chartered under private law, the State of Israel nevertheless has a decisive influence on their policies and thus remains responsible for their activities. A State Party cannot divest itself of its obligations under the Covenant by privatizing governmental functions. The Committee takes the view that large-scale and systematic confiscation of Palestinian land and property by the State and the transfer of that property to these agencies, constitute an institutionalized form of discrimination because these agencies by definition would deny the use of these properties by non-Jews. Thus, these practices constitute a breach of Israel’s obligations under the Covenant."
 
4) In 2005, the Attorney General of Israel ruled that the Government of Israel will no longer do business with the JNF because of the discriminatory practices of the JNF, as stated in the following excerpt from an article in The Jewish Daily Forward:

 

http://www.forward.com/articles/zionist-groups-facing-legal-problems/

 

 

"Even more devastating was the decision two months ago by Israel’s attorney general, Menachem Mazuz, requiring the Israel Lands Authority to open its land sales to all Israeli citizens regardless of ethnicity or religion. The decision effectively forced the lands authority to stop marketing properties owned by JNF, whose bylaws require it to lease its properties to Jews only. The attorney general’s ruling followed appeals to the Supreme Court by two Israeli civil-rights organizations, claiming that the exclusion of Arab Israelis from JNF properties — some 13% of Israel’s territory — was racist and violated the principle of equality before the law. In its reply, the lands authority noted that JNF properties are “intended for the development of Jewish settlement in the Land of Israel,” and that “all the funds of the JNF are from Jewish donors.” Mazuz declined to defend the case, concluding that the authority’s claim would not hold up in court. The justices had ruled in an earlier case that “Jews-only” clauses were illegal."
 
here are two other related articles 


http://www.forward.com/articles/in-watershed-israel-deems-land-use-rules-of-zioni/
 
http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=11080 


5) On September 2, 2003, Canada Revenue Agency Policy Statement CPS-21 concerning Registering Charities that Promote Racial Equality became effective.  The following is taken from the Government of Canada webpage describing this Statement:
 
"This policy focuses on organizations whose purpose is to educate about, or to promote racial equality in Canada. Organizations that want to address other forms of discrimination prohibited by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and human rights legislation may also qualify for charitable registration. Although they do not fall within the scope of the current policy, the grounds for recognizing or denying charitable status to such organizations would likely parallel those in this policy. Guidelines will be developed for organizations whose purpose is to eliminate other forms of discrimination.
The current policy states that programs qualifying under the 'advancement of education' category can undertake such activities outside Canada. However, the policy does not presently address programs intending to operate abroad that qualify under the 'other purposes beneficial to the community' category. CCRA will consider such applicants on a case by case basis until guidance which clarifies these circumstances becomes available."

 

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tax/charities/policy/cps/cps-021-e.html

 

 

Summary

 

By subsidizing racial discrimination through granting and maintaining charitable status for the JNF, the Canada Revenue Agency (Government of Canada) is violating the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Canadian Human Rights Act and Canada Revenue Agency Policy Statement CPS-021. 

 

The JNF's discrimination is directed towards members of the Arab race. 

 

I am an Arab-Canadian.  I am a member of the Arab race.

 

By subsidizing the JNF’s discrimination towards Arabs, the Canada Revenue Agency (Government of Canada) is discriminating against me and members of my race.

 

I and many of my fellow Canadians are fully aware that the Canada Revenue Agency (Government of Canada) is subsidizing discrimination against Arabs.  The knowledge that my government is willing to do that demeans me and all other Arab-Canadians. 

 

By subsidizing discrimination against Arabs, the Canada Revenue Agency (Government of Canada) is sending a signal to Canadians and indeed to the whole world that the Government of Canada supports discrimination against me and all other Arab-Canadians.  That fact demeans me and all other Arab-Canadians.

 

In order to halt this discrimination against me and all other Arab Canadians, the Canada Revenue Agency (Government of Canada) must immediately revoke the charitable status of the JNF.

 

 

b)  Part 2 of 3, filed April 4, 2008

 

April 4, 2008

 

Ms. Ginette Bellefeuille

Early Resolution Analyst

Canadian Human Rights Commission

425 de Maisonneuve West, suite 903

Montreal, Quebec H3A 3G5

 

Ref : Saba, Ronald vs Canada Revenue Agency (Government of Canada) 20071408

 

Dear Ms. Bellefeuille,

 

This morning I received a letter from Mr. Stéphane Brisson of the Canadian Human Rights Commission which indicated that I could write a submission of up to ten pages addressed to your attention.  This letter is my submission.

 

This submission consists of nine pages.  I have signed and numbered each page.

 

As shown below, it is well known amongst human rights organizations that the Jewish National Fund practices racial discrimination.  Indeed this fact is often repeated in the Israeli and international press.

 

 

1)   In March of 2008, Human Rights Watch published a report titled “Off the Map, Land and Housing Rights Violations in Israel’s Unrecognized Bedouin Villages”.  The following are two excerpts from this report:

 

http://hrw.org/reports/2008/iopt0308/

 

 

from page 3:

 

IV. Discrimination in Land Allocation and Access

 

Land Ownership and Distribution in Israel

 

Unlike most industrialized countries, which have widespread private land ownership

and a free real estate market, in Israel the state controls 93 percent of the land.53

 

This land is owned either directly by the state or by quasi-governmental bodies that the

state has authorized to develop the land, such as the Development Authority (DA)54 and the Jewish National Fund (JNF).55 A governmental body, the Israel Land

Administration (ILA), administers all of this land.56 This gives the government an

exceptionally decisive role in land allocation, land-use planning, and development.

According to Israel’s Basic Law, state land cannot be sold. The ILA usually leases

land to individuals or institutions for periods of 49 or 98 years.57

The JNF has a specific mandate to develop land for and lease land only to Jews. Thus

the 13 percent of land in Israel owned by the JNF is by definition off-limits to

Palestinian Arab citizens,58 and when the ILA tenders leases for land owned by the

JNF, it does so only to Jews—either Israeli citizens or Jews from the Diaspora.59 This

arrangement makes the state directly complicit in overt discrimination against Arab

citizens in land allocation and use, and Israeli NGOs are currently challenging this

practice in Israel’s Supreme Court.60 The ILA’s Governing Council is comprised of 22

members—12 representing government ministries and 10 representing the JNF, giving

the JNF a hugely influential role in Israeli land policies generally and the overall

allocation of state lands.61

Notwithstanding the prohibition on sale of state land, the law allows the state to

transfer directly owned state land to the JNF.62 The JNF acquired approximately 78

percent of its land holdings from the state between 1949 and 1953,63 much of it the

land of Palestinian refugees from the 1948 war that the state confiscated as

absentee property.”64

While by law Arab citizens can lease land owned directly by the state and not

transferred to the JNF, in practice numerous obstacles limit Arab citizens’ access to

land, as described below. According to Adalah, a human rights organization

representing the Arab minority in Israel, Arab citizens are blocked from leasing about

80 percent of the land controlled by the state.65

Bedouins’ lack of access to land occurs in a wider context affecting Israel’s

Palestinian Arab population generally. Not only has the state confiscated pre-1948

Palestinian Arab lands, it has not allowed Arab citizens to establish new towns; nor

has it approved adequate expansion of existing ones. Since 1948 the state has

authorized the creation of about 1,000 Jewish communities, but not a single Arab

community except for the seven government-planned townships and the nine new or

newly recognized villages, which concentrate the Bedouin in limited areas in the

Negev, and some similar towns in the Galilee.66 The state rarely grants expansion

requests to Arab local authorities.67 While Arab citizens of Israel comprise roughly 20

percent of the country’s population, just 2.5 percent of the land of the state is under

the jurisdiction of Arab local governments.68 In the northern Negev region, Bedouin

municipalities have jurisdiction over 1.9 percent of the land, while Bedouin citizens

comprise 25.2 percent of the population in that area.69"

 

2)  The Al-Haq human rights organisation has special consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council.   Please find below an excerpt from pages 67 and 68 of Al-Haq's 94 page report which discusses the Canadian Government's complicity in the Jewish National Fund's illegal "Canada Park":

 

http://www.alhaq.org/pdfs/Where%20Villages%20Stood.pdf

 

“The displacement of the Palestinian population of Latroun, which the JNF of Canada is helping to perpetuate through its sponsorship of Ayalon/Canada Park is a clearly illegal activity. Similarly, the acquisition of land for the exclusive benefit of a particular racial, national, ethnic or religious group seeking to consolidate its territorial and demographic majority within a particular territory by the KKL-JNF (from which the JNF of Canada cannot be viewed separately) amounts to discriminatory and partisan political activity.

 

On the basis, therefore, of the JNF’s continuing relationship with the State of Israel and the JNF of Canada’s breach of the regulations governing its actions under domestic Canadian law, it is submitted that the charitable status of the JNF of Canada ought to be rescinded. The planting of forests and development of recreational parks over ruins of destroyed villages in occupied territory is synonymous less with charitable activities and more with complicity in violations of basic principles of public international law, international human rights law and international humanitarian law.

  

Despite appeals to this end, however, the Canadian authorities have failed to amend the status of the JNF. Thus, by indirectly supporting the establishment, maintenance and expansion of a recreational park on occupied territory, Canada, far from fulfilling its positive obligation to put an end to the illegal situation created by Israel in this part of the OPT, is responsible for breaching its duty of non-recognition and is complicit in the creation of facts which consolidate the illegal situation and prejudice the realisation of the Palestinian right to self-determination.  

 

In addition to Canada as a third State, the JNF as a third party actor is also operating contrary to basic principles of international law in general, such as respect for human rights and equality, and the specific provisions of international humanitarian law in relation to its actions in Latroun.”

 

3)  On June 29, 2006 Ha’aretz, Israel’s leading newspaper published the article “A ridiculous war against the gaps” by Meron Benvenisti, Israeli scholar and previous deputy mayor of Jerusalem.  The following is an excerpt from the article:

 

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=732551

 

 It's very surprising since it's well known that the "national institutions" - the Jewish Agency and Jewish National Fund - primarily exist to enable institutional discrimination based on ethnicity while clearing the state from accusations that it deviates from universal norms common to liberal democracies.”

 

4) The racist nature of the Jewish National Fund and the negative impact it has on Canadian society was highlighted recently in an article by four Professors from the University of Western Ontario in an article titled “JNF Award Incompatible with Diversity & Tolerance” which appeared in the March 2008 CAUT/ACPPU Bulletin published by the Canadian Association of  University Teachers.  This article is reproduced on the following four pages.

 

http://www.cautbulletin.ca/en_article.asp?articleid=402

 

CAUT/ACPPU Bulletin Online

CANADA'S VOICE FOR ACADEMICS
Vol 55 | No 3 | March 2008

 

JNF Award Incompatible with Diversity & Tolerance

 

altkeyword4

Universities must not endorse organizations that act contrary to the institution's mission, say University of Ontario professors Michael Lynk, David Heap, Rebecca Coulter and Randa Farah. [Photo: Richard Gilmore]

By Michael Lynk, Rebecca Coulter, David Heap & Randa Farah

The University of Western Ontario announced in December that university president Paul Davenport would be the 2008 honouree at the Jewish National Fund’s Negev dinner. This is not an isolated case. At least two other Canadian university presidents — at McGill and McMaster — have accepted similar “honours” from the JNF in recent years. But is the JNF an organization which universities should publicly endorse?

Let us state at the outset that we are all supportive of a campus, a community and a world that is tolerant, embraces diversity and advances justice and social equity. Many organizations do so, and are worthy of support and endorsement. The JNF is not one of them. It promotes exclusion, dispossession and institutionalized discrimination, a point which has been made by the United Nations and by human rights organizations representing Palestinian Arabs in Israel and the occupied territories. Even the attorney general of Israel has expressed the view that the JNF’s discriminatory land practices would not stand up to a legal challenge in court.

Four points need to be made.

First, the JNF holds 13 per cent of the land in Israel, and it is reserved by law for exclusive benefit and use by Jews worldwide. Palestinians, who formed a majority in Mandatory Palestine before the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict and today constitute 20 per cent of Israel’s population, are forbidden by the JNF covenant from leasing these lands.

As Israeli historian Ilan Pappe observes, the JNF also acts as the “custodian” responsible for guarding the “Jewishness” of other lands in Israel that it doesn’t own. It does this by playing an influential role in the directorship of the Israel Lands Authority, a state body that manages another 80 per cent of the lands in Israel. Together, these two interlocking institutions control almost all of the land in Israel, which — with a few short-lease exceptions — is not available to Palestinian citizens of the country.

Much of the land originally belonged to externally displaced Palestinians who were expelled or fled under threat in 1948 and had their properties expropriated by Israel. Other property holdings owned by Palestinian refugees inside Israel (classified by the Jewish state as “present absentees”), who left their homes, even if for a short time during the conflict and subsequently, were confiscated under the Absentees Property Law of 1950.

A series of legislative measures allows the JNF and the ILA to act as agents for a disguised state policy of dispossession. In the words of Adalah, the Legal Centre for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, “this discriminatory policy contributes to the institutionalization of racially-segregated towns and villages throughout the state.”

These discriminatory practices — reserving in law almost all of the nation’s lands for the Jewish majority, to the detriment of the dispossessed Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel — are contrary to the values of a modern liberal and democratic state. In 2000, the Supreme Court of Israel issued a ruling (the Qa’dan case) that challenged the JNF’s exclusionary policies and practices.

In July 2007, the Israeli Knesset passed the first reading of the Jewish National Fund Bill, which seeks to undo the 2000 Supreme Court ruling. The proposed statute states that: “leasing of Jewish National Fund’s lands for the purposes of the settlement of Jews on these lands will not be seen as improper discrimination.” The bill was denounced as “racist” legislation in an editorial published last July in Ha’aretz, one of Israel’s most influential newspapers, which noted “The Jewish National Fund’s land policy counters the interests of the state and cannot discriminate by law against the minority living in Israel.”

Second, the discriminatory policies and practices of the Jewish National Fund have been criticized by a number of respected bodies.

In 1998, the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights reported that the “large-scale and systematic confiscation of Palestinian land and property by the State and the transfer of that property to these agencies constitute an institutionalized form of discrimination because these agencies by definition would deny the use of these properties by non-Jews. Thus, these practices constitute a breach of Israel’s obligations under the (International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights).”

In 2005, Israeli Attorney General Menachem Mazuz suggested the Israel Land Authority should cut its ties with the JNF because the JNF excludes Palestinian citizens of Israel from leasing its property. Two Israeli civil-rights organizations had appealed to the Supreme Court claiming the exclusion of Arab Israelis from JNF properties was racist and violated the principle of equality.

The Land Authority noted that JNF properties are “intended for the development of Jewish settlement in the Land of Israel,” and that “all the funds of the JNF are from Jewish donors.”

According to an article that appeared March 18, 2005 in the Jewish Daily Forward, Mazuz declined to defend the case, concluding the authority’s claim would not hold up in court. The justices had ruled in an earlier case that “Jews-only” clauses were illegal.

Third, JNF-Canada is the sponsoring organization of Canada Park, which has been built in the occupied Palestinian territories on the ruins of three Palestinian villages (Imwas, Yalu and Beit Nuba). The villages were deliberately destroyed by Israel in 1967. The destruction of the Palestinian villages, and the denial of the villagers’ right to return to their homes, are grave violations of the 4th Geneva Convention of 1949.

In 1986, a United Nations special committee reported to the secretary general it was deeply concerned “that these villagers have persistently been denied the right to return to their land on which Canada Park has been built by the Jewish National Fund of Canada and where the Israeli authorities are reportedly planning to plant a forest instead of allowing the reconstruction of the destroyed villages.”

The tragedy of Canada Park has also been the subject of a critical investigative documentary that aired in 1991 on the CBC’s The Fifth Estate. The documentary established that Canada Park in Israel was built entirely within the occupied territories, that Imwas, Yalu and Beit Nuba were intentionally destroyed in order to prevent the villagers from returning and that JNF-Canada is the principal funding body for the park.

In the documentary, former Israeli Knesset member Uri Avnery calls the destruction of the three Palestinian villages a “war crime under international law, and the endorsement of the naming of the park after the name of Canada as implicating Canada with giving a cover to war crimes.”

Al-Haq, a Palestinian human rights organization affiliated with the International Commission of Jurists, pointed out in a June 2007 legal brief that Canada Park “was funded by donations to the Jewish National Fund in Canada, which were subsidised as tax-deductible by the Canadian government. Thus Canada, far from fulfilling its obligation to put an end to the illegal situation created by Israel in this part of the occupied Palestinian territory, is responsible for breaching its duty of non-recognition and is complicit in the creation of facts which consolidate the illegal situation and prejudice the realisation of the Palestinian right to self-determination.”

Fourth, the JNF is currently promoting the settlement of significant numbers of Jews in Israel’s Negev Desert to the detriment of the indigenous Bedouin Arab population.The Bedouins in southern Israel have had their traditional grazing lands confiscated by the Israeli government, and many Bedouin villages are unrecognized by the government in order to justify Israeli policies that deny them basic services like running water, electricity, garbage collection, proper education and social services.

The JNF’s project, “A Miracle in the Desert,” is intended to settle half a million Jews on land once owned by Bedouins in 25 low-density housing communities over the next decade. This project is being challenged legally and politically by Bedouins wanting to reclaim their land.

Like indigenous peoples in other countries, the Palestinian population, including the Bedouins in the Negev, have been and continue to be dispossessed of their land, their resources and their livelihood for the near exclusive benefit of the occupying population.

While countries like Canada move slowly towards reconciliation with aboriginal peoples through land settlements and compensation, the Bedouins instead face further dispossession, which is materially aided and abetted by the JNF. Funds raised at events, such as the dinners at which university presidents are honoured, contribute to projects which serve to further dispossess the Bedouins and other Palestinians.

Unfortunately, the discriminatory and exclusionary features of the JNF’s practices and policies in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories are not well known in North America. And it is important to note that the JNF’s discriminatory record stands in sharp contrast to that of other Israeli organizations that promote equality and nondiscrimination between Palestinians and Israeli Jews, such as the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, Adalah, Zochrot and B’Tselem.

When a university president chooses to accept an invitation to be a JNF honouree, this amounts to a statement endorsing its work and is thus contrary to the mission of a modern university in a diverse and tolerant society. Public endorsements are not given to other organizations which discriminate against indigenous, ethnic or racialized groups. They should not be given to the JNF.

Michael Lynk (law), Rebecca Coulter (education), David Heap (French studies) and Randa Farah (anthropology) are faculty members at the University of Western Ontario. Correspondence between 36 concerned faculty members and the president of UWO can be found at http://publish.uwo.ca/~djheap/equalityforall/ along with several related letters and links to background documentation.

The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily CAUT.

Commentary: CAUT welcomes articles between 800 and 1,500 words on contemporary issues directly related to post-secondary education. Articles should not deal with personal grievance cases nor with purely local issues. They should not be libellous or defamatory, abusive of individuals or groups, and should not make unsubstantiated allegations. They should be objective and on a political rather than a personal subject. A commentary is an opinion and not a “life story.” First person is not normally used. Articles may be in English or French, but will not be translated. Publication is at the sole discretion of CAUT. Commentary authors will be contacted only if their articles are accepted for publication.
Commentary submissions should be sent to Liza Duhaime.

Les opinions exprimées sont celles des auteurs et ne reflètent pas nécessairement la position officielle de l’ACPPU.

Commentaires destinés à la rubrique Tribune libre : L’ACPPU invite les lecteurs à soumettre des articles de 800 à 1 500 mots qui portent sur des questions d’actualité liées directement à l’enseignement postsecondaire. Les articles ne doivent traiter ni de dossiers de griefs particuliers ni de questions d’intérêt strictement local. Ils ne doivent pas comporter des allégations non fondées ni des propos diffamants, calomniateurs ou offensants envers des personnes ou des groupes. Les articles doivent être empreints d’une objectivité totale et aborder des sujets de nature politique plutôt que personnelle. Un commentaire est avant tout l’expression d’une opinion et non pas le « récit d’une vie ». Il convient normalement de le formuler à la première personne. Les articles peuvent être soumis en français ou en anglais, mais ils ne seront pas traduits. L'ACPPU se réserve le droit de choisir les articles qui seront publiés. La rédaction ne communiquera avec les auteurs de commentaires que si elle décide de publier leurs articles. Les commentaires doivent être envoyés à
Liza Duhaime.

 

© 2007 - 2009 CAUT. All rights reserved. Legal disclaimer.
Web development and Web design by Envision Online Media Inc.

 

Summary

 

As I indicated in my complaint, by subsidizing racial discrimination through granting and maintaining charitable status for the JNF, the Canada Revenue Agency (Government of Canada) is violating the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Canadian Human Rights Act and Canada Revenue Agency Policy Statement CPS-021. 

 

The JNF's discrimination is directed towards members of the Arab race. 

 

I am an Arab-Canadian.  I am a member of the Arab race.

 

By subsidizing the JNF’s discrimination towards Arabs, the Canada Revenue Agency (Government of Canada) is discriminating against me and members of my race.

 

I and many of my fellow Canadians are fully aware that the Canada Revenue Agency (Government of Canada) is subsidizing discrimination against Arabs.  The knowledge that my government is willing to do that demeans me and all other Arab-Canadians. 

 

By subsidizing discrimination against Arabs, the Canada Revenue Agency (Government of Canada) is sending a signal to Canadians and indeed to the whole world that the Government of Canada supports discrimination against me and all other Arab-Canadians.  That fact demeans me and all other Arab-Canadians.

 

In order to halt this discrimination against me and all other Arab Canadians, the Canada Revenue Agency (Government of Canada) must immediately revoke the charitable status of the JNF.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

Ronald J. Saba

 

c)  Part 3 of 3, filed June 6, 2008

 

 

 

June 6, 2008

 

Ms. Ginette Bellefeuille

Early Resolution Analyst

Canadian Human Rights Commission

425 de Maisonneuve West, suite 903

Montreal, Quebec H3A 3G5

 

Ref : Saba, Ronald vs Canada Revenue Agency (Government of Canada) 20071408

 

Dear Ms. Bellefeuille,

 

I received a letter dated May 15, 2008 from Mr. Michel Bibeau of the Canadian Human Rights Commission which indicated that I could address to you a submission of up to ten pages in connection with the respondent’s submission dated May 9, 2008.  This letter is my submission.  This submission consists of ten pages.  I have signed and numbered each page.

 

The respondent’s submission validates my complaint.  The respondent is fully aware that the Jewish National Fund (“JNF”) has been deemed to be a racist organization by the United Nations Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (1998) and by the Attorney General of Israel (2005).   It is matter of record that I have documented these facts in my complaint.  That the JNF is a racist organization and that its bylaws are racist cannot be disputed.  With full knowledge of the racist nature of the bylaws and operations of the JNF, the respondent has made clear it’s intention and desire to continue subsidizing and promoting the JNF’s racial discrimination against people of my race through maintaining charitable status for the JNF.  For as the respondent states in its submission, “we have no objection to the recommendation not to deal with the above noted complaint”. 

 

With this statement, the respondent is in effect stating that it sees nothing wrong with subsidizing and promoting racism against people of my race.  This is the signal which the respondent has sent to the people of Canada and to the people of the world for the past forty years since the respondent granted charitable status to the JNF in 1967.  This is the signal which the respondent continues to send.  This constitutes a pattern of racial discrimination by the respondent against me and all people of my race.

 

In late 2006 and early 2007, I wrote to the Minister of Finance on Government policy concerning racist organizations and in particular concerning donations to the racist JNF.  A copy of the Minister’s response appears on the next page.  As the Minister states:

 

“Generally, an organization is not considered charitable if its activities are illegal or contrary to public policy”

 

Racial discrimination is illegal under Canadian law and is contrary to public policy.  Therefore it is clear that the racist nature of the JNF’s bylaws and operations would

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: <re-FINEMail@fin.gc.ca>

To: <humanite@videotron.ca>

Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 1:19 PM

Subject: Your December 10, 2006 and January 27, 2007 e-mails

 

May 15, 2007



  2006FIN205672
2007FIN210672




Mr. Ron Saba
Editor
Montreal Planet Magazine
humanite@videotron.ca
Dear Mr. Saba:
Thank you for your correspondence of December 10, 2006 and January 27, 2007, in which you expressed concern regarding donations made to organisations that may contravene anti-discrimination laws.  Please excuse the delay in replying.

In order for an organization to qualify as a "registered charity" under the Income Tax Act (Act), it must demonstrate to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) that it satisfies principles of charity law.  These principles set out four main categories of charitable objects:  the relief of poverty, the advancement of religion, the advancement of education and other purposes of a charitable nature beneficial to the community as a whole. 

Generally, an organization is not considered charitable if its activities are illegal or contrary to public policy.  However, the presence of some politically controversial objects may not necessarily be sufficient to deny registered charity status to an organization.  Thus, whether a particular organization that purports to have a charitable purpose will qualify as a registered charity depends on the circumstances.

As Minister of Finance, I am responsible for matters concerning tax policy and the drafting of legislation implementing that policy.  As such, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the specifics of any particular charity or any particular activities of a charity.  The CRA on the other hand, is responsible for the administration and enforcement of the Act with respect to specific facts and circumstances.  As the administration of the CRA is the responsibility of my colleague, the Honourable Carol Skelton, Minister of National Revenue, I have forwarded her a copy of our correspondence, so that she may be aware of your concerns.
Thank you for communicating your concerns.   
Sincerely,
James M. Flaherty
c.c.: The Honourable Carol Skelton, P.C., M.P.

 

 

disqualify it from being “considered charitable”.  In addition, it is clear that under Article 2.1 of the International Convention for the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (to which Canada is a signatory) that Canada has a positive obligation to eliminate racial discrimination:

“1. States Parties condemn racial discrimination and undertake to pursue by all appropriate means and without delay a policy of eliminating racial discrimination in all its forms and promoting understanding among all races, and, to this end:

(a) Each State Party undertakes to engage in no act or practice of racial discrimination against persons, groups of persons or institutions and to ensure that all public authorities and public institutions, national and local, shall act in conformity with this obligation;

(b) Each State Party undertakes not to sponsor, defend or support racial discrimination by any persons or organizations;

(c) Each State Party shall take effective measures to review governmental, national and local policies, and to amend, rescind or nullify any laws and regulations which have the effect of creating or perpetuating racial discrimination wherever it exists;

(d) Each State Party shall prohibit and bring to an end, by all appropriate means, including legislation as required by circumstances, racial discrimination by any persons, group or organization;

(e) Each State Party undertakes to encourage, where appropriate, integrationist multi-racial organizations and movements and other means of eliminating barriers between races, and to discourage anything which tends to strengthen racial division.”

http://www.canadianheritage.gc.ca/progs/pdp-hrp/docs/cerd/cn_e.cfm#Article%202

 

The racist nature of the JNF’s bylaws and operations is well known around the world.  On the following pages I have copied two articles which provide further background on the racist nature of the JNF.  These two articles are:

 

“In Watershed, Israel Deems Land-use Rules of Zionist Icon ‘Discriminatory’ JNF Scored Over ‘Jews-only’ Sales” from the Jewish Daily Forward, February 4, 2005 (U.S.A.) n NF Scored Over ‘Jews-only’ Sales” from the Jewish Daily Forward, February 4, 2005 (U.S.A.)

http://www.forward.com/articles/in-watershed-israel-deems-land-use-rules-of-zioni/

The 'right' to discriminate A new bill in the Knesset seeks to perpetuate discrimination against Israel's Arab citizens” from the Guardian, July 27, 2007 (UK)

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/jul/27/therighttodiscriminate

 

Jewish Daily Forward

 

In Watershed, Israel Deems Land-use Rules of Zionist Icon ‘Discriminatory’


JNF Scored Over ‘Jews-only’ Sales

 


Fri. Feb 04, 2005

 

In a landmark decision, Israel’s attorney general ruled last week that one of the fundamental tenets upon which the Jewish state was built — acquiring and reserving land for Jews to live on — is discriminatory and should not continue with state assistance.

Attorney General Menachem Mazuz was responding to a Supreme Court case involving Jewish National Fund, an organization that helped build the Jewish state by purchasing land for Jewish settlement — largely with funds donated by Jews in America. Land owned by the fund is designated as public land and leased by the government to homeowners. In his January 26 ruling, Mazuz said that the government may no longer market the land if the fund allows only Jewish tenants.

Among American Jews, Jewish National Fund is best known for its iconic blue tin collection boxes and for its trademark work planting trees in Israel. But the fund helped write Israeli history with its land purchases, which were crucial in determining the borders of the nascent state. Today, JNF owns 13% of Israel’s land, home to 70% of the population. Through a 1962 agreement with the government, it has leased that land to Jews through the government’s Israel Land Authority. The attorney general’s decision throws that historic role into flux.

The chairman of JNF told the Forward that his organization is in talks to sever its official relationship with the state in order to preserve its mission of protecting the land for Jews.

“The state is obliged to treat all its citizens equally,” Chairman Yehiel Leket said, “but we are not the state.”

Beyond the consequences for JNF, the attorney general’s ruling could be pivotal in a larger debate over how to reconcile Israel’s status as a Jewish state with its commitment to equal rights for all its citizens. This is not the first case in which the government’s treatment of Israeli Arabs has been challenged, but legal experts say this case could be a breakthrough for advocates of Israeli Arab rights, who have long complained of unequal government treatment.

“You’ll see a progression of cases now, trying to challenge those pockets of discrimination that now have a basis in law,” said Hebrew University law professor David Kretzmer, author of the “The Legal Status of Arabs in Israel.” “One by one they will come up, and we will have to work out a new kind of social contract.”

Aside from debates over land rights, citizenship rights are the other main arena in which Israel’s treatment of its Arab citizens faces challenges. The Supreme Court is currently reviewing a challenge to a recent Israeli law that bars non-Jewish spouses of Israeli citizens from coming to live in Israel under family reunification policy.

Many defenders of the traditional vision of Zionism, including Leket, fear that extending identical land and citizenship rights to Arabs could weaken Israel’s Jewish majority and threaten its Jewish character.

“Zionist ideology is not in favor of discrimination,” Leket said. “But we ought to look after Jewish interests, and sometimes there might be a conflict between Jewish interests and Arab interests.”

Leket appears to have public opinion on his side. In a poll commissioned by JNF last month, 70% of respondents moderately or strongly objected to JNF land being offered to Arab Israelis.

The issue of land rights in Israel heated up recently when the Bush administration protested a plan, disclosed two weeks ago, to confiscate lands in East Jerusalem that are owned by Palestinians living in the West Bank. The plan, drafted last June by a two-man Cabinet committee on Jerusalem, including ministers Natan Sharansky and Zevulun Orlev, treats Jerusalem property owned by West Bank Palestinians as “absentee property” under 1948 rules aimed at Arab refugees. Mazuz ruled Monday that the absentee rules could not apply to individuals separated from their land by a “unilateral” Israeli government action.

The absentee dispute does not involve Israeli citizens, however, so it has fewer implications for the Israeli legal landscape than the JNF case. The complaint against JNF stems from April 2004, when six Israeli Arab families won Lands Authority bids for plots in the Galilee town of Carmiel. Later, after learning that the plots were owned by JNF, the authority froze the deal, citing fund rules.

Leaders of American groups that supported the Arab families’ legal appeal acknowledged that there were sound historical reasons for JNF restrictions. “In 1948 and before, a few hundred thousand Jews were pitching their tents in a hostile Middle East,” said Ami Nahshon, president of the New York-based Abraham Fund Initiatives.

But he said historical circumstances have changed, and so should JNF. “History doesn’t stand still,” Nahshon said, “and the need for Israel to work out the sharing of the land with Arab Israelis is all part of the process of maturing.”

For now, the attorney general is permitting the Lands Authority to go on marketing JNF land as long as it swaps parcels of land with the fund when an Israeli Arab wins a bid, ensuring JNF control of a consistent percentage of Israel’s land. The compromise is opposed by Arab-rights groups that brought the case.

Leket said that in order to maintain its mission, the fund has initiated talks to cut ties with the government and to begin marketing its own land.

Israel, unlike America, has no clear laws limiting private landowners’ discretion in how they market their land. But experts said a privatized Jewish National Fund would likely still face legal challenges, in part because of the intricate web that connects JNF to the state. One key link is the 1960 Basic Law that defines all JNF land as “Israel lands” along with the 80% of the country’s land owned by the government.

Because of these links, said Supreme Court justice Itzhak Zamir, a former Israeli attorney general, privatization is “not very realistic.”

Even if official ties are severed, further problems could be created by the source of some JNF land. Some 60% of the fund’s 550,000 acres was purchased from the government in a special deal soon after the 1948 War of Independence. Arab-rights advocates say this should preclude JNF from marketing this land only to Jews.

“It can’t be regarded as private land, where the Jewish National Fund will be given a free hand to do whatever it pleases,” said Dan Yakir, chief legal counsel for the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, one of groups that brought the case.

Leket, however, said the fund had fairly bought the land it owns, with donations from Jews around the world — donations that were “designated for the purchase of land to be owned by the Jewish people and held in trust by the Jewish National Fund.” He said he would not allow that historic covenant to be broken.

“We are still fighting for our future existence as a Jewish state,” Leket said. “In order to strengthen the Jewish state it’s justified to have a Jewish organization strengthening our presence here.”

Fri. Feb 04, 2005

 

 

guardian.co.uk

 

 

The 'right' to discriminate

A new bill in the Knesset seeks to perpetuate discrimination against Israel's Arab citizens.

Richard Silverstein

 

guardian.co.uk, Friday 27 July 2007 20.00 BST

A fixture in the lives of all children who have ever attended Hebrew school is the blue Jewish National Fund (JNF) pushke (or charity box), into which parents and teachers encouraged us to throw our pennies, nickels, dimes and quarters. They taught us to perform a mitzvah by giving tzedakah to support the building of the Jewish homeland. Thus, the Jewish National Fund was the Red Cross of Jewish life, a "mom and apple pie" charity doing nothing but good for our people.

How times change! Last week, the Israeli Knesset passed, on first reading, the Jewish National Fund bill which allows the JNF to refuse to lease land to Arab citizens. The JNF is a quasi-public charity established to raise funds to purchase land for Jewish settlement within Israel. In 1961, the Israeli government transferred 13% of Israeli land to the JNF. Included in this were one million dunams expropriated from Arab residents who fled Israel in 1948.

The government had sold the land to the JNF at bargain-basement prices in order to remain at arm's length from the tainted process. Historically, the JNF has maintained a ban against Arab use of its land. But the Israeli supreme court, in a landmark ruling, said that the JNF can no longer discriminate against the Arab population. The Court maintained that such a ban defies the norms of a democratic state and must be ended.

The Knesset bill, co-sponsored by a ruling party Kadima Knesset member, is an attempt to get around the court ruling. While it would allow the JNF to resume discriminating against Arabs, the other 80% of Israeli land administered by the ILA would continue to be governed by the supreme court ruling. On first reading, the bill passed 64-16, with only 10 Jewish MKs voting No. One of those voting Yes was Ami Ayalon, recent candidate for Labour party leader and partner with Sari Nusseibeh in a dialogue seeking Israeli-Palestinian peace.

This bill certainly does make for strange bedfellows. Opposition within the Diaspora has been slow to develop. The only US Jewish group to protest publicly was Ameinu, which wrote a letter to Zeev Elkin, the Kadima bill sponsor. The Union for Reform Judaism is also preparing a letter expressing its opposition. MeretzUSA is circulating an online petition as is a group of Jewish bloggers - including this author, Dan Fleshler (Realistic Dove) and Jerry Haber (Magnes Zionist) - who have created an online campaign against the bill.

The other major Jewish groups like the Anti Defamation League and American Jewish Committee have sat on their hands so far. First, they cannot rock the boat against a fellow American Jewish group (the JNF); second, their rather conservative membership sees little wrong with discrimination in favour of Israeli Jews.

Haaretz excoriated the legislative effort in an editorial, A Racist Jewish State:

This bill reflects an abasement of the Zionist enterprise to lows never imagined in the Declaration of Independence. Even though the Jewish National Fund purchased the lands for the Jewish people in the Diaspora, the State of Israel has already been established and these lands must now serve all its citizens. For those living for tomorrow and not the past, the aim is to create in Israel a healthy, progressive state where the needs of the two peoples should concern the leaders and legislators. The Jewish National Fund's land policy counters the interests of the state and cannot discriminate by law against the minority living in Israel.

Ronald Lauder, the cosmetics heir and national JNF chair released a crowing statement which praised the Knesset for reaffirming the JNF's right to discriminate:

We are gratified that the government of Israel ... recognised that the land purchased by the Jewish people for the Jewish people should remain in the hands of its rightful owners. This Knesset decision reaffirms the vision and the dream of Theodor Herzl and the millions of Jews over the past 106 years who contributed and participated in the rebirth of a Jewish nation after 2,000 years. The land of Israel is part of the very existence of the Jewish people from as far back as Abraham. We are a people linked to our land. Now and forever.

Jerry Haber, a liberal Orthodox Israeli-American blogger, pointed out the bogus nature of this response in a private email to me:

This argument is invalid for two reasons: First, the vast majority of land owned by the Jewish National Fund was not purchased by Jewish individuals but rather was expropriated by the Israel government in the early years of the state from absentee Palestinian owners and transferred to the fund so that the Israel government could not itself be accused of discriminatory land leasing - a legal fiction of dubious morality. Second, no parallel mechanism for the settlement needs of Arab citizens was ever established. On the contrary, as the Or Commission set up after the Israeli Arab protests in 2000 noted, "Arab settlements have been surrounded by security zones, Jewish district councils, national parks, nature reserves, and highways, that prevent or inhibit the possibility of future expansion."

The reason this issue is so complicated is that Israel considers itself the homeland of the Jewish people. As such, it currently discriminates in many ways in favour of its Jewish citizens. But at the same time it considers itself a democracy and includes a sizable minority of Arab citizens. These two elements have always co-existed in a tense relationship. While there undoubtedly remains a high level of prejudice against Israeli Arabs, social developments - which include the High Court ruling - have been very gradually eroding some of the more odious discriminatory regulations.

This legislative attempt to restore to the JNF its right to discriminate in favour of Jews may be seen as a rump effort by the Israeli right to take back its prerogatives and return to the era when Jews predominated and there was never a doubt that Arabs were second-class citizens. Is it too much to expect a majority of the Knesset to see this and put down this attempt to enshrine Jewish dominance into the law of a state otherwise proud to call itself a democracy?

 

The illegal nature of the JNF’s operations is not a secret in Canada.  In 1991, the CBC, a Canadian Crown Corporation, broadcast the Fifth Estate Documentary “Park With No Peace: Canada Park” which made it clear that the JNF’s Canada Park was illegal. 

 

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-2500957394773313398

 

The Minister of Finance indicated in his response that he forwarded the information I had provided concerning the racist nature of the JNF to the Minister of National Revenue “so that she may be made aware” of my concerns.  Despite this, the pattern of discrimination against me and members of my race by the respondent through its subsidizing of the racist JNF has continued to this day.  The respondent’s submission makes it clear it intends to continue this pattern of discrimination.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

Ronald J. Saba