Barbara Kay: Bondi Beach shows Canadians can no longer shy away from the immigration debate

Canada’s post-October 7 antisemitism crisis mirrors Australia’s. It’s small wonder that the Bondi Beach Hanukkah pogrom is perceived by numerous Canadian observers as a bullet dodged.

If it had happened here, we would be sifting through the same forensic breadcrumbs that helped pave the road to Bondi: principles bent for Muslim votes, calculated tolerance for criminal activity directed against Jews and the demonization of Israel in high political and cultural places.

The question now is: what can we do to prevent such a tragedy in Canada?

We should start by believing what Islamists say. Hamas has stated that, “Killing Jews is worship that draws us close to Allah.” We should also acknowledge that the phrase, “Globalize the Intifada,” is incitement to violence against Jews. We should prosecute, imprison or, when feasible, deport those who preach it.

Second, we must remove the cone of heresy over debates about multiculturalism and immigration. Following the massacre, former Australian prime minister Tony Abbott told Sky News that, “Some versions of Islam are not really compatible with life in a liberal, democratic, pluralist society.” He said it and the sky didn’t fall. Fear of radically antisemitic jihadists is rational.

As former Alberta premier and federal immigration minister Jason Kenney said in a recent debate with columnist Andrew Coyne about immigration, “Social cohesion (is) hard to measure, hard to quantify and sometimes a dangerous thing to discuss. But we damn well should.” He’s right. Mental comfort on this file is a luxury we can no longer afford.

Lawyers for Secure Immigration (L4SI) is a non-partisan advocacy organization made up of seasoned immigration lawyers. While supportive of safe and orderly immigration, its mission is to strengthen national security through tightened immigration protocols.

A roster of its recommendations is available on its website. I recommend it to journalists, policy wonks and all Canadians who worry (rightfully) about the porousness of the “humanitarian” pipeline into our country. Last month, for example, L4SI called for “immediate government action,” following reports that “alleged Hamas operatives may be present in Canada.”

The federal government’s program to bring Gazans to Canada is of particular concern to L4SI members. They believe individuals coming to Canada as temporary residents (many of whom will likely stay) are not receiving appropriate security and background checks.

Given that Gaza is not only governed by Hamas, but harbours a number of other terrorist entities — such as Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades and Palestinian Islamic Jihad — it would be wise to refuse further entry to Canada by Gazans.

Winnipeg-based lawyer David Matas, a member of L4SI and senior honorary counsel to B’nai Brith Canada, published a report last year,  “Myths & Facts: Canada’s Gaza Temporary Residence Program,” that makes exactly this case.

The report argues that the Gaza program is, in one highly significant way, unlike any others that Canada has created for people fleeing conflicts in countries such as Ukraine, Afghanistan and Syria. In these cases, we did not see the conflicts they fled re-enacted here.

For example, Ukraine was not the aggressor in its war, as Hamas was in Israel’s. Nor, in spite of Russian forces’ war crimes, have Ukrainian refugees demonstrated collective animosity or violence against ethnic Russian-Canadians.

Only in this conflict, Matas says, citing skyrocketing rates of antisemitic incidents since October 7, have “Canadians been presumed, just because of their identity – Jewish, to be on one side of the conflict, Israel, and attacked because of that presumption.”

Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, Matas informs us, where there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person entering Canada may commit an indictable criminal offence, that person should be inadmissible.

Advocating genocide is an indictable offence, as is promoting genocide. “Public incitement of hatred, wilful promotion of hatred and wilful promotion of antisemitism through downplaying, denying or condoning the Holocaust are hybrid indictable offences,” he writes.

Matas notes that other indictable offences include: “mischief in relation to religious property, educational institutions, buildings used for cultural, administrative, sports or social events or residences for seniors if the commission of the mischief is motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on, amongst other grounds, race, religion, national or ethnic origin.” Furthermore, the offences of “intimidation of a journalist, or justice system participant” are indictable.

Matas wonders “how many persons could survive the scrutiny” if the inadmissibility provisions relating to terrorism and criminality were rigorously applied to the Gazan population, “as they should be.” It makes sense to apply this standard to Gazans. It will help prevent a bad situation from worsening.

But the pressing challenge is to defuse our combustible situation rapidly. It can’t have escaped readers’ notice that most of the Criminal Code offences Matas cites have occurred regularly since Oct. 7, 2023, right here in Canada, with negligible consequences.

The restoration of justice, beginning with law enforcement and based on the proven “broken windows” principle, will turn out to be the simplest, fastest and most effective tool we have for preventing the hate-filled pot from boiling over.

May the memories of the Bondi Beach massacre victims be for a blessing. Specifically, for Canadians, the blessing of a return to the “peace, order and good government” that made Canada, for quite a long time, an optimistic, high-trust society.

National Post
kaybarb@gmail.com
Twitter.com/BarbaraRKay