Distinguishing dissent from hatred

The vandalism that took place at Congregation Shaarey Zedek on Jan. 2 and Habibiz Cafe on Jan. 4, should be unequivocally condemned as acts of hate and intimidation motivated by religion, ethnicity or racialization.

The motivations of the assailants (or assailant) are currently not known to the public. Some may assume political motivations and some may go further and say that such potential motivations are understandable. Their actions should nevertheless be condemned.

There is a critical difference between constructive political dissent, on the one hand, and hate speech or acts of intimidation on the other. Unfortunately, they are too often confused for each other. The more confusion there is, the less people are inclined to engage in constructive and necessary dissent, for fear of possible consequences. The fact that constructive political dissent is often mischaracterized as hate makes it all the more difficult to identify when actual hate is taking place.

A possible way through the confusion is to ask two questions: first, who or what is the target and second, what form has the act taken?

Constructive political dissent, even if expressed with anger, is directed at institutions, governments, systems of rule and those in society with material and ideological power (government leaders, owners of the largest corporations and so on). People may protest the actions taken by governments and elected leaders that have affected their lives for the worse. The most clarity is gained from those protests when their targets are actions, consequences and perpetrators. Some may go further and name the systems of power that led to those actions. For the dissent to remain constructive, the actions and consequences remain the focus.

Hate speech, by contrast, decentres these principles and shifts the target to specific groups of people, based on unfounded prejudices, assumptions and myths, rather than concrete events or actions. It generalizes negative attributes (real or perceived) to a group. It is clearly not about political dissent when no factors (for example, actions that the people in those groups take in real life) are capable of altering those perceptions.

For example, actual antisemites have no interests on whether Jews do or do not politically support the Israeli state, because from their standpoint, it is their Jewishness that is the problem. Anti-Muslim, anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian racism all function similarly. They are based on prejudices about perceived inherent traits, not about the actions or experiences of the people themselves or about the political positions they take. Focusing on these perceived insurmountable essential characteristics of a group of people is a denial of the basic principles of human dignity and equality.

Regardless of their motivations, racially or religiously-motivated acts of intimidation and vandalism like these also tend to function as a regressive political force. Social movements such as those for Palestinian liberation have, for example, been blamed for the massacre by two shooters in Sydney (my home city), even where there is no evidence they had any part in that movement.

The overwhelming responses by western states and institutions to the massacre shows how widespread and vicious a reaction against an international liberation movement can be when these kinds of confusions are not resolved. It is vital if we want to uphold freedom of political expression, especially in fighting global injustice, that we be forceful in denouncing such acts. At the same time, hate, intimidation, and in the case of Bondi Beach, violence, provide an easy excuse for governments and institutions to accelerate repression of political dissent that in many cases they are already undertaking. Preventing people from expressing political dissent is not going to prevent further violence.

There should be no confusion that peacefully protesting the actions of a nation state is not the same as marking a synagogue with swastikas. Nor is leaving a written note of anti-Palestinian, Islamophobic abuse against a Canadian-Palestinian café owner an example of constructive political dissent.

Both are clearly forms of intimidation, based on prejudices about two groups.

It is necessary for people engaging in political dissent against all oppression to call out hate and intimidation when we see it. The events of the weekend serve as a reminder that Jews and Muslims in Winnipeg could form a strong and steadfast alliance against racism and hate in all its forms. Thankfully, many of us already do. The best thing that all Winnipeggers can do at this time is to provide unqualified solidarity with all who have been affected by these attacks.

Tami Gadir is a member of Independent Jewish Voices Winnipeg and United Jewish People’s Order/Jews for Social Justice Winnipeg.