Jewish Court reminds B’nai Brith: Canada is a democracy
by: Reb Arie on August 2nd, 2009 | 4 Comments »
The Jewish Court for Social Justice, by unanimous decision, rejects the opinion of B’nai Brith Canada with respect to the matter of Dr Hassan Diab’s employment at Carleton University. We remind B’nai Brith that Canada is a common law democracy and that an accused is presumed innocent, most especially in these circumstances, inasmuch as Dr Diab has not been accused of a crime in Canada.
B’nai Brith Canada (BBC), in a press release issued on July 27, asserts:
“We find it deplorable that university officials believe that there is nothing wrong with employing Diab. The safety and security of the community as a whole, and of the Carleton University campus in particular, are of great concern to us.”
The Court most assuredly agrees with BBC as regards public security. The Court, however, does not agree with another assertion made by BBC, namely that “The conditions of Diab’s bail do not even allow him to leave his home alone or to own a cell phone…”
The bail conditions under which Dr Diab continues to comply since they were issued in March are matters of public record. The Court fails to understand how BBC can correctly assert that Dr Diab is not permitted to leave home alone and then (incorrectly) suggest that he is a security risk if he is under the escort of at least one surety.
The Court wishes to comment on one final assertion made by BBC: “The last place in the world where this man belongs is in a university classroom, in front of impressionable students.”
One would think that this is the very best place for Dr Diab to be, inasmuch as any controversial remarks he made would likely be immediately reported, by students if not by his escort, who under the terms of the surety has a duty to report any breach of conditions.
Of the three most likely sureties to escort Dr Diab, two are sociologists. He is, furthermore, allowed employment under the terms of his bail conditions. We would be less sanguine about Dr Diab teaching graduate seminars, because the bodies of knowledge involved are more discrete and rarefied. Teaching graduate students is, we think, much more subversive than teaching undergraduates: the information delivered to graduate students is much harder for the judicial system to assess.
The Court respects the understandable and admirable caution exercised by Carleton University with respect to Dr Diab’s temporary teaching assignment. We recommend that Dr Diab be reinstated to his temporary teaching assignment. We would support the placement of auditors in Dr Diab’s classroom so as to assure he is teaching his Introductory Sociology course in accordance with the known canons of undergraduate sociology. We feel certain that B’nai Brith Canada could make such arrangements, including the arrangement of a suitable stipend for the auditors.
You state: “The Jewish Court for Social Justice, by unanimous decision…”
Just who are the judges who have made this unanimpus decision?
Thanks for writing, Helen.
There are presently three members and there will be a fourth, I think, in the next couple of months. I am also looking for members from elsewhere in Canada.
The Court is a division of the Canadian Beth Din Institute of the Metivta of Ottawa. It speaks with one voice, as in the posting you read, but our members have a right of dissent and can publish minority opinions.
There is no institutional process (yet) for the public identification of the BD’s membership. You will understand, I assume, if I place the security of my associates above your desire to know who they are?
It’s bad enough that I personally know any number of people targeted by Masada2000 and know many others by reputation. I will not subject my associates to scrutiny by you or anyone else if there is even the faintest possibility of their being targeted.
Kindest regards,
Reb A.
Do you honestly expect anyone to accept the authority of an anonymous “court”? Are your judges rabbis or are they lawyers or what? Do they represent a pluralistic perspective?
Those are excellent questions. Thank you for asking them.
By “pluralistic” one can mean politically diverse, which I doubt we are; Jewishly diverse, which we most assuredly are not; or that we generally agree with each other on various issues — which we definitely do not! There will soon be a 3-2 majority of women — presently it is 2-2.
As to the Court’s authority. The Court is a voice for traditional and liberal Jewish perspectives on matters of social justice and social policy relevant to Jews in Canada. The Court does not seek nor desire to impose any type of conformity.
The Beth Din of which the Court is a division has sat once to effect a conversion to Judaism. It then immediately recessed to study both conversion and kashrut; the BD will decide over time what standards are applicable for each brief.
With respect to anonymity we again need to distinguish the Court from the BD of which it is a part. The Court and the BD are organised so as to have divergent memberships. A member of the BD may sit on the Court but the opposite is not possible.
Halakha does not require that judges be rabbis. That’s quite important — In Israel, unfortunately, a professional (and corrupt!) class of rabbinic judge has evolved.
We just now have our fourth member. A fifth will soon join. Of these five, three are women. Two members are rabbis. One is a spiritual director. One is completing rabbinical training in the next year; and one is a professional engineer.