Exactly six years ago this week, the late Rabbi Lord Sacks participated in a debate in the British House of Lords on the role of education in building a flourishing society. (GAJE reported on Rabbi Sacks’ debate remarks after he spoke them in the House of Lords.)

In a precise four-minute speech entitled “The world our children will inherit tomorrow is born in the schools we build today”, Rabbi Sacks pleaded for an educational system that instils in children knowledge and values.

“We need to give our children an internalised moral Satellite Navigation System so that they can find their way across the undiscovered country called the future. We need to give them the strongest possible sense of collective responsibility for the common good…. There is too much “I” and too little “We” in our culture and we need to teach our children to care for others, especially those not like us.”

Rabbi Sacks words echoed in the air this week like a clanging, piercing fire alarm against the unnerving and disheartening testimony at a congressional hearing in the US by the presidents of Harvard University and the University of Pennsylvania. Neither could find it in her respective world view or conscience to state categorically that calling for the genocide of Jews amounted to harassment, bullying or intimidation. Each equivocated and dissembled, preferring to state that before the words amounted to intimidation they had to evolve into conduct. As if publicly, loudly advocating for the slaughter of Jews were not itself conduct. The context of the call for genocide was also determinative for the presidents in deciding whether Jews – as individuals or as a group – would feel harassed or intimidated when a mob of people or even a single person, urged others to kill Jews.

When the leaders of Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania, fail to grasp that actively calling for the genocide of Jews is more a matter of unpleasantness than of intimidation, we are entitled to ask of them: What sort of schools are they building today? And it thus becomes imperative to ask of our law-abiding, freedom-loving, democracy-imbued society, and indeed, of ourselves: what hate-laden world will our children inherit, as a result?

The questions are not speculative. In the aftermath of October 7, they take on a pressing urgency for us and for our society.

These are dark days, figuratively and literally. All of us who care to preserve and to strengthen our free and democratic way of life, have a role to play in lessening the darkness. The candles we light during Chanukah will be an unsubtle reminder that since we are all involved, we must all respond. We are all on the front lines in fighting to save our Judaism and our Jewishness from

those who resent us and who hate our religion and resulting peoplehood. As a result, we are all on the front lines in fighting to save our society.

The late Rabbi Joseph Kelman of Toronto often reminded congregants that the etymological root of the Hebrew word Chanukah was the same as that for chinuch, ie, education. The homiletical connection, he pointed out, was obvious: Education is – and has always been – the light by which every Jewish generation has kept aglow the eternal flame of Judaism. This is no mere rhetorical flourish. It is an observable truth that all of us – in some form and at some time – have witnessed and understood deeply in our hearts.

The responsibility of ensuring Jewish continuity is only partially fulfilled in holding dearly onto what we received from our forebears. Its fuller realization is in passing forward to our own children, before the end of our days on this earth, the values, traditions and beliefs our parents and grandparents attempted lovingly, as best they could, to entrust to us.

Since October 7, joining the battle to ensure Jewish continuity means also joining the battle to ensure the continuity of our free, tolerant, law-abiding society.

•••

Am Yisrael Chai. The People of Israel lives and will always.

Chag Urim Samayach. Shabbat shalom

Grassroots for Affordable Jewish Education (GAJE)

December 8, 2023

Last week we reminded readers that GAJE awaits a ruling from the Divisional Court on a motion by Ontario seeking permission to appeal the 46-page decision of Judge Eugenia Papageorgiou that allowed GAJE’s case to proceed through the courts to a hearing on its merits.

In the document it filed with the Divisional Court, Ontario argues in various iterations that Judge Papageorgiou misapplied the principles of law that governed Ontario’s attempt to throw GAJE’s case out of court before it could be heard on the merits.

In response, of course, GAJE’s legal team argues that it is Ontario, NOT Judge Papageorgiou, that incorrectly applies the legal principles that determine whether GAJE should be allowed to argue its case in all of the circumstances of 2023.

The following is excerpted from the Overview of the argument presented to the court by GAJE’s lawyers in response to the Attorney General of Ontario. It explains, in broad terms, why Ontario is wrong in impugning the correctness of Judge Papageorgiou’s decision.

“2. Ontario brought a motion to strike the application, arguing that it was plain and obvious the Applicants had no reasonable prospect of success. Justice Papageorgiou dismissed Ontario’s motion. In her decision, [Justice Papageorgiou] found that it was not plain and obvious that the Applicants could not meet the test set out by the Supreme Court of Canada…..based on the overall combined impact of a number of changes in circumstances as well as developments in the law since the decision in Adler v. Ontario.. was released. Accordingly, [Justice Papageorgiou] found that there is a reasonable argument to be made that the factors raised by the Applicants fundamentally shifts how jurists would understand a number of legal issues including:

a) Whether section 93 of the Constitution and section 29 of the Charter should be interpreted so as to immunize government action from Charter scrutiny in light of international treaty obligations, the duty of state neutrality, and the section 93A amendment;

b) Whether the failure to fund other faith-based schools violates the Applicants’ freedom of religion in light of the principle of state neutrality, increased existential threats to the Jewish community, increased emphasis on diversity and minority rights, and the Vriend decision;

c) Whether the failure to fund other faith-based schools violates the Applicants’ equality rights in light of international treaties which engage the principle of non-discrimination in education, the principle of conformity as well as other advancements in international law;

d) If there is a basis to revisit (a), and the scope of Charter rights, and if a violation is found to occur, the analysis under section 1 of the Charter will be much richer now than it was in 1996 when Adler was released.

3. The decision of [Justice Papgeorgiou] involved a careful analysis of the Supreme Court precedents referred to by Ontario, including an analysis of the application of the…. tests to the facts and law presented in this case. Rather than contradicting these precedents, [Justice Papageorgiou] applied these principles. The discussion regarding the application of international law and the corresponding principles of interpretation will all be weighed and determined by the judge on the Application. Justice Papgerorgiou’s decision merely suggests that the Application is not doomed to fail on these grounds – that it is not plain and obvious that the Application will fail.”

It is important to bear in mind: Judge Papageorgiou was not asked to make a decision about the fairness of Ontario’s educational funding policies. She was asked to decide whether GAJE should be allowed the opportunity to argue in court that Ontario’s educational funding policies are unfair and thus, possibly, illegal in the year 2023. And she determined, indeed, GAJE should be allowed that opportunity.

The shocking, unfolding aftermath of hatred toward Jews and Israel on the streets of Canada since October 7, makes quite clear that the long-term, permanent stakes involved in GAJE’s application are very high.

•••

Am Yisrael Chai. The People of Israel lives and will always.

Shabbat shalom

Grassroots for Affordable Jewish Education (GAJE)

December 1, 2023

As all of us know, neither war, tragedy nor travesty arrests the rise and fall of the sun. And so, we must still keep our eyes on the legal process which GAJE has launched against the Government of Ontario, even as the State of Israel defends itself against those who would destroy it and as the Jews of the world defend themselves against those who would harm, if not destroy, us also.

On August 20, Judge Eugenia Papageorgiou delivered a 46-page ruling that GAJE’s application for fairness in educational funding should proceed to a full hearing despite Ontario’s attempt to have it thrown out of court before such a hearing could take place.

Unhappy that the court had decided against it, Ontario filed a motion on September 5 to the Divisional Court seeking leave to appeal Judge Papageorgiou’s ruling. As of next week, the Attorney General for Ontario and GAJE have filed the documents that the Court will rely upon to rule upon the AG’s motion.

After Judge Papageorgiou’s decision was released, Allan Kaufman, the noted lawyer, lecturer, professor, labour arbitrator wrote a brief op-ed explaining the background to and the import of GAJE’s application to an unaware public. October 7 and its aftermath, and other considerations however, prevented a timely publication of Kaufman’s essay.

To bring GAJE’s lawsuit back into the communal spotlight, we now publish Kaufman’s article.

•••

“The Atlantic provinces of Canada refrain from providing government funding for any religious schools. I respect that point of view, and no court can force them to do otherwise. Quebec plus the four western Canadian provinces provide some funding to all of the religious schools in those five provinces. Ontario is an outlier. The Ontario government is the only province or state in all of North America that fully funds not only its public schools, but also the schools of only one religion (Catholic), but no other religion. When I tell my American friends about this anomaly, they think I must be making it up, since it is well established in law throughout North America that all governments must refrain from discriminating in favour of only one religious denomination.

How does Ontario get away with it? The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in the Adler case in 1996 that Ontario’s funding of Catholic schools, but no other religious schools, is legally justified under the Constitution of Canada. A condition of Ontario and Quebec joining Canada in 1867 was that the Canadian Constitution would require Quebec to protect its Protestant minority schools, and Ontario would protect its Catholic minority schools.  In the Adler decision, many of the justices waxed eloquent about this “grand constitutional compromise,’ and how it must now be immune from any challenge under Canada’s antidiscrimination laws.

But then a funny thing happened.  Less than a year after the Supreme Court of Canada had decided Adler, the Quebec government repealed the constitutional protection that its Protestant schools had enjoyed since 1867, and the Canadian parliament approved that constitutional amendment.  That left the “grand constitutional compromise” (on which the Adler decision had been based) in tatters. That may mean Ontario’s refusal to extend funding to any religious schools other than the Catholics, can no longer be shielded from antidiscrimination and freedom of religion scrutiny.

As a result, an Ontario Jewish community group called Grassroots for Affordable Jewish Education (“GAJE”) has brought a recent court challenge. GAJE submitted a study to the court to show why Jewish day school education is essential for the long-term survival of the Jewish community. The Judge in the GAJE case pointed out that GAJE’s court case does “not seek any order or declaration which could adversely affect the funding of Roman Catholic schools. Rather [GAJE] seeks to obtain the same benefit the Roman Catholic schools and public schools receive…”

The Ontario government tried to knock the GAJE case out of court at its inception by asserting that GAJE had no reasonable prospect of success – since the Adler case had already decided the same issue back in 1996. That same argument had always been a winner for the previous McGuinty government of Ontario any time any religious group in Ontario had sought to challenge Ontario’s school funding. In the GAJE case, however, Justice Papageorgiou of the Ontario Supreme Court recently ruled that GAJE’s court case could proceed forward against Ontario for a final decision. Not only is the “grand constitutional compromise” that underpinned the Adler decision no longer in place, but after Adler had been decided the courts articulated a new doctrine where funding of only one religion would violate the principle of “state neutrality” on religions. The Adler decision may no longer be consistent with this new principle, wrote Justice Papageorgiou.

Furthermore, GAJE’s international law lawyer, David Matas, demonstrated in court that the funding of only Catholic schools to the exclusion of all of Ontario’s many other religious schools, is not in conformity with a number of international treaties signed by Canada that prohibit government discrimination in favour of any one religion. Justice Papageorgiou suggested in the GAJE case that Ontario may need to bring its laws into conformity with those international obligations. This point had never been considered when the Adler case was decided in 1996. This does not mean that Ontario needs to repeal its funding for Catholic schools, but instead to extend funding to all other religious schools – just as we have seen that the Provinces of Quebec and all four of the western Canadian provinces currently do.

All of the many other non-Catholic religion schools in Ontario, including the Protestant religious schools, have been relegated to second class status in Ontario for many decades. All of those other religious schools would benefit if the Jewish community is eventually successful in the GAJE court case. Since such a court decision would not threaten the funding of Catholic schools in Ontario, the Ontario government should do the right thing now by extending funding for all religious schools in the province before the courts end up dragging the province kicking and screaming into the 21^st century.”

•••

As soon as GAJE receives the decision of the Divisional Court, we will report it to you.

Am Yisrael Chai. The People of Israel lives and will always.

Shabbat shalom

Grassroots for Affordable Jewish Education (GAJE)

November 24, 2023

Since Hamas’ onslaught of October 7 and the alarming, unsettling, enraging reaction by so many individuals and institutions at home and abroad, to Israel’s fighting back against the genocidal perpetrators, most of us have sought “navigational guidance” from selected commentators and commentaries to help us find our way, if not also, our balance through these darkening days.

In this update we call readers’ attention to one such commentary that is superbly informative and strengthening. It is a podcast from Sapir Conversations, presented on October 20 entitled, American Jewry and the War in Israel: What Do We Do Now? The participants were Bret Stephens, columnist, writer, Editor-in-Chief, Sapir: A quarterly journal of ideas for a thriving Jewish future, Rabbi Elliot Cosgrove of Park Avenue Synagogue, and Rachel Fish, co-founder of the non-profit, Boundless, discuss the geopolitical impact of the war in Israel, the implications for the American Jewish community, and our collective responsibilities during this crisis and beyond.

The podcast is 1 hour and 16 minutes in length. Rabbi Cosgrove moderates an electric discussion with Stephens and Fish that is wide-ranging, substantive, impassioned and direct. It is an outstretched hand extended to a shell-shocked community. We will not attempt to summarize the podcast. It contains too much that is worthy. Rather, we will provide two nuggets on the subject of the difficulties facing Jewish youth on campus.

Fish synthesized the needs of our children on campus as that of content and courage. “Students need to know content” and then be able to deliver what they know, Fish said. “They need an operating system that is one of Jewishness. But it all begins before they walk onto campus” she emphasized.

Stephens forthrightly called for the Jewish community to create new “institutions” to replace the existing ones that have clearly failed to be true to the values they purport to teach. He pleaded with philanthropists to be as entrepreneurial, i.e., risk-taking and purposive in their philanthropy as they are in business. And then, picking up on Fish’s cue regarding an operating system that is one of Jewishness, Stephens said “the biggest thing that an engaged Jewish community can do is make it possible for every Jewish family to afford a first-class K-12 Jewish education. Nothing better guarantees a proud Jewish individual.”

With this bold, unequivocal formulation, Stephens echoed what community leaders here understand and are trying assiduously to achieve. It also echoes GAJE’s oft’ expressed mission.

•••

Readers can listen to the podcast at:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/american-jewry-and-the-war-in-israel-what-do-we-do-now/id1583771945?i=1000632045133

•••

Am Yisrael Chai. The People of Israel Lives and will always.

Shabbat shalom

Grassroots for Affordable Jewish Education (GAJE)

November 17, 2023

Twenty years ago, on November 13, 2003, the following editorial entitled, From the past, a warning, appeared in The CJN. That it is as relevant today as it was then, is piercingly sad.

•••

“Jewish history is such that there is nothing left to shock our sensibilities. Jews have been vilified, abused and maligned in every imaginable manner of human depredation. The horrific, dark nadir of depredation came in the last century.

Sixty-five years ago this week, on Nov. 9-10, violence against the Jews of Europe became more than an ominous Nazi threat. It became real, very horribly real.

In his book, The Holocaust, (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1985), eminent historian Martin Gilbert described some of the events that unfolded on that terrible day. “Bonfires were lit in every neighbourhood where Jews lived. On them were thrown prayer books, Torah scrolls and countless volumes of philosophy, history and poetry. In thousands of streets, Jews were chased, reviled and beaten up.

“In 24 hours of street violence, 91 Jews were killed. More than 30,000 – one in 10 of the remaining Jewish population – were arrested and sent to concentration camps. Before most of them were released two to three months later, as many as 1,000 had been murdered, 244 of them in Buchenwald. A further 8,000 Jews were evicted from Berlin: children from orphanages, patients from hospitals, old people from old peoples’ homes. There were many suicides, 10 at least in Nuremburg, but it was forbidden to publish death notices in the press.

“It was not by the killing however, not by the arrests or the suicides, that the night of Nov. 9 was to be remembered. During the night, as well as breaking into tens of thousands of shops and homes, the Stormtroops set fire to 191 synagogues; or, if it was thought that fire might endanger nearby buildings, smashed the synagogues as thoroughly as possible with hammers and axes. The destruction of the synagogues led the Nazis to call that night Kristallnacht, or night of broken glass: words chosen deliberately to mock and belittle.”

It is important for us to recall that day. Seven years later, European Jewry would be almost entirely destroyed, and millions of men and women from the Allied fighting forces, underground and partisan fighters would sacrifice their lives in a cruel, harsh war to defeat Kristallnacht’s planners and executioners. Remembering, therefore, is a profound moral and existential debt we owe to the victims of the Shoah and to the vanquishers of the Nazis.

One of the most unsettling aspects of the terrorist war launched against Israel some three years ago, is the anti-Semitism that has resurfaced in Europe in its wake and that appears ubiquitous, alas, throughout the Muslim world. Indeed, in many respects, Muslim authorities have simply swallowed whole the crude anti-Semitism of Medieval Europe and are now spitting out the familiar, bitter bile at their own peoples.

Although some people today are very worried about signs and images of anti-Semitism they see recurring from the last century, there is no parallel. But we are wise to view the events of 65 years ago as a warning, lest we become complacent.”

•••

Despite our knowledge of Jewish history, it appears that a great deal yet remains within the heated hatred of Jews that can indeed shock our sensibilities anew. The events of October 7 proved this with terrible force.

But because of our knowledge of Jewish history, we know that the best way to respond to the haters who would deprive Jews of our lives and the world of Jews, is for Jews to celebrate our Judaism and for us all to “do Jewish”, for our own sakes as well as for the sake of the world.

•••

Legal scholar and human rights activist, Adam Hummel, ties the bloodletting of Kristallnacht to that of October 7 in a moving article on Catch entitled, Commemorating Pogroms.

Readers can find the article at:

https://catchjcp.substack.com/p/commemorating-pogroms?utm_campaign=email-half-post&r=rvbar&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

•••

Am Yisrael Chai. The People of Israel Lives and will always.

Shabbat shalom

Grassroots for Affordable Jewish Education (GAJE)

November 10, 2023

The State of Israel is fighting against foes who seek its annihilation. Anyone who characterizes the October 7 war as one of resistance to the “occupation” is, of course, lying. Israel did not occupy Gaza on October 7, nor has it since the summer of 2005. 

Israel’s foes along the Gaza border are the trained murderers of Hamas and the theocratic rulers of Iran who underwrite Hamas’ terror. Iran’s other surrogates – in Lebanon, Syria and Yemen – are also enthusiastic participants in Hamas’ declared mission of “wiping the Jewish state off the map”.

Hamas is the vanguard of a malevolent force of hardcore, resolute haters of Israel and of Jews. They are not freedom fighters. They are not liberators. Their mission statement makes this plain. They demonstrated the depth and the beastly depravity of their hatred for Jews and for Israel in the ghoulish manner in which they attempted to “liberate” the Gaza-area communities on October 7. The mass slaughter on October 7 was in addition to Hamas’ fighting protocols that demands rockets be fired at Israeli civilians from behind the cover of Palestinian civilians.

The truth about Hamas should be easily obvious to people of “ordinary” conscience or moral compass. Sadly however, many people are blind to the obvious. Worse, many people deny it. Many more actually campaign to distort and rewrite the obvious.

After the first wave of revulsion with the October 7 horror, followed immediately by the eruption of anti-Jewish protests around the world, members of the Jewish community expected lay and professional faith leaders to condemn calls for the genocide of the Jews of Israel.

For the most part, however, the leaders of the other faiths have remained silent. That silence has been a shivering cold blow to Jews throughout the world, adding to our increasing sense of isolation.

But not all faith leaders have been silent.

Rev. Dr. Andrew Bennett, the Faith Communities Program Director at Cardus, effectively “shouted” his moral outrage against Hamas’ vile murderous sadism. In an article entitled Failing to Condemn the Murder of Innocents Is a Sign of Moral Rot, originally published in The Hub on October 18, 2023, Rev. Dr. Andrew Bennett wrote: “Prudence rightly exercised shapes my conscience so that I recognize that celebrating (or being silent about) mass atrocities against Jews is abhorrent and beneath me as a human being. Fortitude shapes my conscience such that I stand up and speak out courageously against evil and lies wherever I encounter them, for the good of our human life together. Justice is what I aim to promote when I see these deep ills of society and desire their remedy. Let us stem the moral rot we see and begin to build true solidarity in a more human culture in this country.”

We commend and thank Father Bennett for speaking out so forcefully, so publicly and with such moral gravity. We hope his voice will be heard by other faith leaders and persuade them to speak out in similar fashion.

Father Bennett’s article is available at:

Failing to Condemn the Murder of Innocents Is a Sign of Moral Rot

•••

Am Yisrael Chai. The People of Israel Lives and will always.

Shabbat shalom

Grassroots for Affordable Jewish Education (GAJE)

November 3, 2023

Very often in this weekly update, as readers know, GAJE has written forcefully, if not also pleadingly, beseeching the Government of Ontario to end its unfair educational funding policies. We have been critical of Stephen Lecce, the Minister of Education for maintaining a system that no longer hues true to the values of Ontario in 2023.

Today we commend Minister Lecce. We thank him and we praise him.

Last week in the Legislature, during a debate on Motion No. 38 Defence of Israel, Minister Lecce delivered a resolute, ringing, principled statement about the justice of the war Israel is now fighting against Hamas.

Minister Lecce’s remarks deserve wide distribution. They should be studied and discussed in the classroom and in the corridors of government throughout Canada. His speech in the Legislature contains many important lessons. We highlight only three and provide brief excerpts from each.

His description of the true nature of Hamas.

There is no equivalence between Israel and Hamas. Hamas has dehumanized an entire people and committed a pogrom against defenceless civilians. It also oppresses the Palestinians. This is a struggle of right versus wrong, of good versus evil.

His criticism of the supporters and promoters of Hamas, especially here in Ontario.

The failure or refusal to recognize the Hamas bloodlust validates terror. It demonstrates a lack of moral courage and a shocking indifference to Jewish victimization. There is no justification to the barbarism of Hamas.

His prescription for action by people who care about protecting democracy

We have to learn from humanity’s worst chapters if we wish to avoid them again.

We have to speak with moral decency, with moral courage.

We will not be bystanders. We will use our power for good. We must be on guard for all manners of hate and fight hate and haters.

“Never again” is our collective legacy to the generations to come. For the sake of freedom, human rights and democracy, I ask us all: Do we possess the moral courage to do what is right even if it is not easy? Do we possess the moral courage to stand up to evil?

We are standing for fundamental Canadian values that transcend partisan politics. We must pick the right side of human history.

Again, we thank and praise Minister Lecce for setting the example of moral courage and clarity.

GAJE urges everyone to view Minister Lecce address the Legislature.  It can be seen at:

•••

Am Yisrael Chai. The People of Israel Lives and will always.

Shabbat shalom

Grassroots for Affordable Jewish Education (GAJE)

October 27, 2023

Last week we wrote: “All Jewish communities, all Jewish life, all Jewish causes (GAJE included) – wherever situated on the planet – must be conscripted at this moment to the cause of fighting for Israel. Israel is us. All of us. Our past. Our present. And our future.” That statement is true this week as well and will likely remain so, alas, for a considerable period of time.

The State of Israel is at war. Jewish life in all its forms and in all its places, cannot return to “normal” until the fighting has ended and all the weaponry aimed at Israel have become silent. And, as we see some of the shocking reactions by people at home and abroad to the attempted genocide of Jews by Hamas, who knows what “normal” Jewish life will look like then?

We often talk and write about “Jewish history” as if we are its observers watching a documentary unfold on a screen or as if we are raconteurs reciting stories of events and of individuals from a time long ago to listeners trying to imagine the details of the stories we are asking them to learn.

We understand, however, deeply and with certainty, that the events of October 7 and what was unleashed, have swept us all into the very midst of a new, raging torrent of Jewish history. And so, rather than be swept away by its force, we must try to steer through the dangers.

In the immediate aftermath of the October 7 attack, Adam Hummel, a lawyer and human rights activist, wrote a remarkable article for his blog “Catch” (https://catchjcp.substack.com/p/in-the-region-of-slaughter)

in which he turned to the Jewish history – specifically, the slaughter of Jews in Kishinev in April 1903 – to try to “deal with”, “understand”, “contextualize” what happened on October 7. He referred to the seminal poem by Hayim Nachman Bialik about the pogrom, City of Slaughter, as a reference point for October 7, 2023. Bialik’s poem is one of the most influential in the canon of Jewish literature.

This week, Samantha Vinokur-Meinrath, the senior director of knowledge, ideas and learning at The Jewish Education Project, did the same thing as Hummel. She too turns to Bialik’s poem as a guidepost.

In an essay entitled, “Past, Present and Future: Making meaning of this moment”, Vinokur-Meinrath explains to readers that the Simchat Torah massacre of October 7 is a stormy vortex of Jewish history, grabbing us, attaching to us in a manner that requires understanding and response.

She writes: “To make meaning of this moment is to shape the Jewish future. We are at a turning point. The Jewish choices being made today will be lasting. Some people are making the choice to cling to the Jewish community, craving connection and understanding like never before, while others are shutting themselves down to try to block out the pain. Those who are feeling the silence. Those who are filling it with words. The work of today is to wind the thread between all of the above. 

“Kishinev was our past. The Simchat Torah massacre is our haunted present. Jewish education, and our Jewish choices, will shape our future.” 

And as we noted last week in the name of the late Michael Brown, the future has not yet been written. It falls to us to write our future. Vinokur-Meinrath strongly asserts that it is Jewish education that will determine that future.

In the year 2023, our community joins the fight for Israel and for the Jewish people, inspired and informed by Jewish education, by being, knowing, doing and celebrating Jewish. 

Am Yisrael Chai. The People of Israel Lives and will always.

Vinokur-Meinrath’s article is available at:

Past, Present and Future: Making meaning of this moment

•••

Shabbat shalom

Grassroots for Affordable Jewish Education (GAJE)

October 20, 2023

All Jewish communities, all Jewish life, all Jewish causes (GAJE included) – wherever situated on the planet – must be conscripted at this moment to the cause of fighting for Israel. Israel is us. All of us. Our past. Our present. And our future.

As we know from our history and as the horrific bloodlust of murder and mayhem last week against Israelis proved again – there are governments, organizations, and individuals whose singular, obsessive purpose is to prevent Jews from having a future. Hamas is one such organization.

Not everyone understands this. Indeed, it is hard to understand.  It should be hard to understand.

But in the early awakening sunrise of October 7, Hamas swarmed across the border between Gaza and Israel and launched what it hoped would be a War of Annihilation against the State of Israel (the Jews).

A great many people gainsay or gaslight Hamas’ evil purpose despite the evidence. For example, in describing Hamas’ goals in attacking Israel last Shabbat, The New York Times wrote: “Mounting grievances fueled Hamas’s decision to attack Israel, but the nature of the surprise assault was shaped by a deep thirst for revenge built up over decades of conflict.”

This is patently false. It is a breathtaking ennobling of cruelty and sadism. Worse. It is a dangerous justification of genocide.

What grievance is calmed by the butchering of babies? For Hamas, it is the very existence of the Jewish state.  A sovereign Jewish state in the Middle East offends their theology.

Thus, what fueled Hamas’ decision to attack Israel was the perceived opportunity to kill as many Jews as possible. They hoped to draw their fellow haters into the “holy” battle of finally destroying the Jewish state.

Hamas’ Charter of 1988 and its “revised” edition of 2017 make plain the organization’s single purpose and motivation. The former leaves nothing to the imagination. The latter is a fanciful flight of the imagination. The following are two brief, illustrative statements. There are many in the documents.

(1988) “Palestine is an Islamic land… Since this is the case, the Liberation of Palestine is an individual duty for every Moslem wherever he may be.” (Article 13)

(2017) “The establishment of “Israel” is entirely illegal and contravenes the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and goes against their will and the will of the Ummah (s.18)

The news and the images we – and the world – saw of Hamas’ manifesting their “mounting grievances” were sickening and frightful. Hamas aspires to deprive Israel – Jews – of its and our future. But as the late teacher, historian, thinker, Michael Brown always reminded his students: the future has not yet been written. It falls to us to write our future.

The heartbreak and the fear we felt when we saw the scenes of the slaughter last Shabbat were normal reactions of normally decent, feeling human beings.

In 2023, the Jewish People of Israel, wherever we are situated, fight back. Fighting for Israel here, now – in our community – requires us to transform our fear into anger, our anger into resolve, and our resolve into “being, knowing, doing and celebrating Jewish”. 

That is our debt to the past and our obligation to the future.

Shabbat shalom

Grassroots for Affordable Jewish Education (GAJE)

October 13, 2023

This week we reproduce yet another aspect of Judge Papageorgiou’s decision that warrants 

reiteration and even emphasis. It is important that our readers and the wider public understand the exhaustive lengths to which Judge Papageorgiou went in order to explore and to analyse the issues underlying counsels’ arguments. Her decision is significant and potentially historic.

In her 46-page judgement Judge Papageorgiou concluded that “there is a reasonable chance that the Grassroots Applicants will be able to satisfy the test in Bedford and Carter.” (That is: the legal test that must be met to allow the courts to begin the process of re-assessing the full applicability of the 1996 Adler case in the societal and legal situation today).

It was the Supreme Court’s decision in Adler that enabled Ontario to fund the religious education of the children of one religion alone to the exclusion of children of other religions. The court did not prohibit Ontario from funding the religious educations of children of other religions. Nevertheless, ever since that decision, Ontario has adamantly and insistently refused to provide any funding to independent schools including the schools of other religions.

As most readers however know, all the western provinces and Quebec, do provide some funding to their independent schools. Ontario is the outlier.

In arriving at her decision to allow GAJE the opportunity to begin the “Adler discussion” in court, Judge Papageorgiou created a path of ten discrete stepping stones of evidence and logic. The eighth stepping stone dealt with “the arguments presented by the Grassroots Applicants regarding social, political and legal developments in support of their position that they meet the test in Bedford and Carter.” This part of the judge’s reasoning comprised 20 of the 46 pages of her judgment and was itself divided into eight different categories of social, political and legal developments.

The third category the judge cited was: “The Constitutional Amendment s. 93A.”

This section deals with the lynchpin argument of the government of Ontario that funding only Catholic schools, but no other religious schools, is legally justified under the Constitution of Canada. That Constitution of 1867 enshrined an agreement that Quebec would protect its Protestant minority schools, and Ontario would protect its Catholic minority schools. The Supreme Court in 1996 ruled it was that agreement of 1867 that prevented any challenge to its ongoing validity based on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms adopted in 1982. It is on this basis that Ontario refuses to reconsider the fairness of its current educational funding policy.

Less than a year after the Adler decision, however, the Quebec government abandoned the 1867 agreement through a Constitutional amendment that was subsequently approved by parliament, as required by law.

GAJE raises the possibility that this Constitutional amendment by Quebec is an important new development that should be taken into account when assessing the application of the Adler case to the society that has evolved in Ontario since 1996.

The following is excerpted from Judge Papageorgiou’s decision on this argument by GAJE.

•••

“[142] As noted by Myers J. in Havercroft v. Ontario, 2022 ONSC 6651, 519 C.R.R. (2d) 351,

at paras. 55-57, there was a change in the amending formula in 1982 such that all provinces

could alter the constitutional rights of their own residents without affecting anyone elsewhere by

agreement between that province and the federal government. This is set out in s. 43 of the

[143] In April 1997, just months following the Adler decision, Quebec repealed the constitutional protection afforded to Protestant schools in Quebec: see Constitution Amendment, 1997, (Québec), SI/97-141 (the “Quebec Amendment”).

[144] The federal government readily agreed to this amendment and on December 19, 1997, the Constitution Act, 1867 was then amended by adding s. 93A, which states, “subsections 93(1) to (4) do not apply to Quebec.”

[145] Therefore, the provision interpreted by the Supreme Court in Adler was different than the current s. 93 of the Constitution. The Grassroots Applicants argue that if the purposive approach begins with the language of the provision in question, then it is plain that courts must consider the whole of the Constitution, including this amendment, as part of the interpretive exercise.

[146] Further, the Supreme Court has indicated that while the primary interpretative approach is one that begins with the text, it also takes into account Canadian law and history: Quebec v. 9147, at paras. 7-8. That law and history arguably includes Quebec’s subsequent decision to amend s. 93, supported by the Canadian government, to remove half of the bargain that was made at Confederation.

[147] The Grassroots Applicants argue that the historical compromise no longer exists in the same way it did in 1867 or at the time of the Adler decision in 1996. They assert that Quebec and the federal government walked away from the compromise when they authorized the 1997 constitutional amendment. They argue that it is no longer possible to shield Ontario’s failure to fund other religious schools by relying on a historical compromise that has already been amended with the Canadian government’s consent to reflect modern social and political realities.

[148] Ontario argues that the Adler Court was aware of Quebec’s proposed amendment and implicitly took it into account because Sopinka and Major JJ. referenced an “upcoming amendment”: Adler, at paras. 164-165. This appears to be what Myers J. also understood in Havercroft.

[149] However, Canada’s submissions on the issue indicates that prior to Adler, it was Newfoundland that was pursuing a constitutional amendment to Term 17 of the Terms of Union between Newfoundland and Canada, which applied “in lieu of section 93”: see Constitution Amendment, 1998 (Newfoundland Act), SI/98-25 (the “Newfoundland Amendment”).

[150] Canada says that it was shortly thereafter that Quebec initiated an amendment to s. 93 which became s. 93A.

[151] It is not entirely clear on this record whether the Adler Court was aware of the upcoming Quebec Amendment or the Newfoundland Amendment. It seems to me that it is unlikely that it was aware of s. 93A because the decision focusses so heavily on the constitutional bargain involving Quebec and Ontario. Had Quebec been about to walk away from that bargain, in my view, this would have been reflected in the decision.

[152] Therefore, based on the record before me, there is a reasonable argument that the Adler Court did not take into account s. 93A in its interpretation of s. 93.

[153] There is also a reasonable argument that the above changes made by Quebec and Newfoundland, with the federal government’s consent, demonstrate their collective acknowledgement that the constitutional bargain made in 1867 is no longer reflective of current social and political realities in Canada. These changes are relevant to the “living tree” analysis because the Supreme Court has reiterated that changes in social facts and legislation can shape the development of constitutional analysis: Comeau, at para. 33.

[154] The Moving Parties also argue that the interpretation of s. 93 cannot be affected by an amendment that only affects one province. I agree with the Grassroots Applicants’ position that there is nothing in s. 43 of the Constitution that states any such amendments do not affect the interpretation of s. 93. Indeed, since such amendments require the consent of the federal government, there is a reasonable argument that they are relevant to the interpretation of the Constitution.

[155] The Moving Parties also point out that s. 93A has been referenced in other cases without

any change in interpretation. However, none of these cases considered the arguments made by

the Grassroots Applicants here, in the context of the specific case and issue advanced by the

Grassroots Applicants.

[156] While these cases may have relevance if the matter is argued on its merits, they are not binding precedents which have decided that the amendment in s. 93A is irrelevant to the overall interpretive exercise. There is a reasonable argument that the amendment in s. 93A, as well as the social and political changes that led to it, are relevant to the interpretation of s. 93.

[157] Finally, there is a legitimate question as to why Ontario should continue to be immunized given the amending formula which gives Ontario almost full control over s. 93, in light of all the changes asserted by the Grassroots Applicants, and the principle of state neutrality in particular.

•••

We have provided this extensive quotation from Judge Papageorgiou’s decision because her reasons cut to the heart of Ontario’s reliance on the Adler decision’s affirmation of the agreement of 1867 enshrining reciprocal protection of minority rights in Quebec and in Ontario.

“Finally,” Judge Papageorgiou wrote, “there is a legitimate question as to why Ontario should continue to be immunized given the amending formula which gives Ontario almost full control over s. 93, in light of all the changes asserted by the Grassroots Applicants, and the principle of state neutrality in particular.”

In other words, Judge Papageorgiou agreed that, by bringing our application to court, GAJE is raising “legitimate questions.” All we ask at this stage, is that we be given the opportunity to raise those questions in court. The Government of Ontario, however, does not want GAJE to have that opportunity. It has brought a motion for leave to appeal Judge Papageorgiou’s decision.

•••

If you are upset that Ontario is trying to shut down GAJE’s case before we have had a hearing on the merits of the case, we urge you to let your Member of the Provincial Parliament know.

And if you wish to support GAJE’s lawsuit, please click here.

For further information, please contact Israel Mida at: imida1818@gmail.com

Charitable receipts for donations for income tax purposes will be issued by Mizrachi Canada. Your donations will be used for the sole purpose of underwriting the costs of the lawsuit.

•••

Shabbat shalom and chag samayach.

Grassroots for Affordable Jewish Education (GAJE)

October 6, 2023