[Editor's note: The University of Manitoba is working to formalize a freedom of expression statement and has asking for community participation. Below is my submission. I have B.A. with Distinction, and an LL.B from University  of Manitoba. I am a former Crown Attorney who practiced in the field of  Constitutional Law, MB Dept of Justice. I was called to the Bar in Israel in 1996, after articling at the head office of the  Association for Civil Rights, Jerusalem.]

Bullet Points:

-Freedom of expression and the right to protest do not encompass an encampment on campus to the exclusion of others  

-In taking the position for months that the pro-Palestinian encampment was lawful freedom of expression and protest, the UM arguably discriminated against Jews/Zionists on the basis of their political belief.

- The UM prioritized the rights of outsiders to encamp on its space, over the rights of freedom of expression and access to University space of all students and faculty, including Jewish UM students and faculty who are actually directly part of the UM community.

-UM arguably failed to enforce its own policies in allowing the encampment.  

 -The UM ought to recognize antisemitism as a matter of concern in applying its EDI (Equity, Diversity, Inclusion) policies. EDI policies can never be applied in such a way so as to define Jews (who have Israel as a tenet of their religious and/or cultural identity) as being “white” and “privileged” “non-indigenous” oppressors, while Palestinians are deemed to be non-whites, “indigenous” who are “oppressed.” Jews are “indigenous” to the land of Israel as per historical, DNA and archeological evidence. There ought to be no discrimination in the future against self- affirming Jews/Zionists in regard to hiring practices by UM or when Jews/Zionists apply to enter into faculties.

- U of M must commit to hiring without political and ethnic discrimination, including against supporters of the rights of Israel to exist, and without discrimination against Jews- including the vast majority of Jews, who do support Israel's right to exist.

-UM violated institutional neutrality when the Institute of Humanities used funds to pay for a free lunch for protesters to augment the pro-Palestinian at City Hall

-Should UMSU pass a broad definition of anti-Palestinian racism as per the definition of the Canadian Arab Lawyers Association or such similar definition, that severely infringes on the freedom of expression of Zionists/Jews on campus to present their viewpoints, UM ought to declare that such a definition violates UM’s Respectful Work and Learning Environment Policies. UM cannot allow UMSU to pass a definition of anti-Palestinian racism that denies Israel's right to exist, and or denies that Jews have the right to self- determination, like other peoples, in their ancestral homeland.

-No students or faculty at UM ought to make any public generalized statements such as “All Zionists are racists” as this is a form of group defamation

-Freedom of expression does not mean that class valedictorians can engage in divisive political diatribes, that prevent students who disagree with those diatribes from being able to fully celebrate their graduation day. A crucial point about Dr. Newman's diatribe is that not only  was it directed to a captive audience, but that it was not in a context that permitted anyone to provide any kind of response, including putting forward corrections of fact and more balanced perspectives.   The University is a forum for reasoned debate, but not a platform for one particular faction, including an extremist one. Further, Dr. Gem Newman suggested in a post on X on May 22 that "Every platform is an appropriate platform" to insert his views and "call for an end to genocide." This approach is wrongheaded. There are reasonable limits on freedom of expression and it is not appropriate for any doctor to insert his/her/their political views into the doctor-patient relationship as it destroys the essential trust that is at the foundation of this relationship.

Full Submission:

1. Freedom of Expression does not encompass the right of one group of people to express themselves by taking over university space by encamping on such space, thereby occupying that space (including sleeping there) to the exclusion of others. The pro-Palestinian encampment that UM allowed on its quad for months did not fall within any possible definition of freedom of expression, nor the right of protest. A protest where protesters express themselves freely for a limited duration of time is one thing. An encampment is quite another thing. The UM’s stated position for months that the encampment was not illegal because the quad was “public space,” had no reasonable basis in law, or in fact. UW by comparison acknowledged by May 2024 that the encampment which had been set up on its grounds was illegal and not authorized. In taking the position for months that the pro-Palestinian encampment was lawful freedom of expression and protest, the UM arguably discriminated against Jews/Zionists on the basis of their political belief.( See the link to the article by Harry Laforme and Karen Restoule, Anishinaabe people who wrote "Exclusion, bigotry, harassment, antisemitism, lawlessness, and hate are being permitted on and throughout our Treaty Lands. All of which is contrary to The Seven Sacred Teachings, the Rule of Law in Canada, and disregard the duty to consult and the essence of land acknowledgements."  https://nationalpost.com/opinion/opinion-we-are-anishinaabe-zionists-hateful-anti-israel-camps-disrespect-our-lands ).

2. Furthermore, freedom of expression on a University Campus ought to be limited and curtailed more quickly if those seeking to exercise this right are outsiders, who are not students, faculty or staff of the institution. Notwithstanding this obvious principle, UM allowed the Canadian Palestinian Association of MB, and related outside groups, to descend on the encampment, on a repeated basis, without considering the effect this would have on Jewish students and faculty who identify as Zionists (Zionism is the belief in the right of Israel to exist, and the right of the Jewish people to self -determination, like other peoples). The UM therefore prioritized the rights of outsiders to encamp on its space, over the rights of Jewish UM students and faculty who are actually directly part of the UM community.  Moreover, outsiders brought food onto the encampment, which was against the UM’s guidelines and arguably did not meet public health bylaws, but UM did not enforce said public health bylaws. The UM deciding to selectively non-enforce its own policies. UM was in fact one of the last universities in the county to declare the encampment as not legal, but by the time it did so UM had infringed on the freedom of expression of other UM  students and faculty who wanted to have access to the quad. Additionally, the UM granted these outsiders access to its indoor washrooms, whereas if it had said washrooms were not to be used by outsiders occupying its spaces to the exclusion of others, this would have resulted in the encampment ending far more quickly. Also note the encampment meant that the bus routes were altered such that people with disabilities had more a difficult time in that they had to walk further than they otherwise would have.

3. Jews have historically been a discreet and insular minority, and subject to antisemitism known as the oldest, most enduring, hatred in the world. The vast majority of hate crimes in Canada are against Jews. The UM ought to recognize antisemitism as a matter of concern in applying its EDI policies. EDI policies can never be applied in such a way so as to define Jews (who have Israel as a tenet of their religious and/or cultural identity)  as being “white” and “privileged” “non-indigenous” oppressors, while Palestinians are deemed to be non-whites , “indigenous” who are “oppressed.” Jews are “indigenous” to the land of Israel as per historical, DNA and archeological evidence and the fact that 3 times a day we pray facing East, in the direction of Jerusalem, where the Jewish Temple stood. There ought to be no discrimination in the future against self- affirming Jews/Zionists in regard to hiring practices by UM or when Jews/Zionists apply to enter into faculties. (Note the recent comments of former Canadian Justice Minister Irwin Cotler, "Antisemitism is not only the oldest, longest, most enduring and most lethal hatred, but one that mutates and metastasizes over time and which reflects whatever the zeitgeist is at any given moment. When the zeitgeist was religion, the Jews were guilty of deicide, when it was the black plague, the Jews were the poisoners of the wells. When it was anti-racism, the Jews were racist white supremacists.")

4 U of M must commit to hiring without political and ethnic discrimination, including against supporters of the rights of Israel to exist, and without discrimination against Jews- including the vast majority of Jews, who do support Israel's right to exist.

5. Freedom of expression must be tied to the principal of institutional neutrality. The UM Institute of Humanities ignored this principal by funding a free dim lunch on Feb 3,2024 to augment the number of protesters at the Pro- Palestinian rally at City Hall. This was explained by UM to the Winnipeg Jewish Review in a rather unacceptable way as “community engagement”, but in fact in engaging in this one-sided political activity, UM violated the freedom of expression of those who disagree with the position of the Palestinian rally, specifically those who believe that the Jewish people have the right to self-determination in their ancestral land. In violating the principal of institutional neutrality, the UM Institute of Humanities, has arguably encouraged the infringement of freedom of expression of those students who will now feel intimidated to speak their minds about the war in Gaza, because the UM Institute of Humanities has engaged in such one-sided inappropriate political activity, that arguably they will reasonably fear getting lower grades if they freely express their thoughts.

6. The University of Manitoba Student Union is currently considering passing an extremely broad definition  of anti-Palestinian racism proposed by the Canadian Arab Lawyers Association which will make it virtually impossible to present a pro-Israel view on campus, including stating that Israel ought to exist, and that Jews have the right to self- determination, like other peoples. If such a definition or a similar definition is passed by UMSU, it will severely infringe freedom of expression and be incumbent on UM to protect the rights of freedom of expression of Zionists/ and or Jews by declaring such a definition as violating UM’s Respectful Work and Learning Environment Policies. UM cannot allow UMSU to pass a definition which denies the legitimacy of the Jewish people to any right to self -determination and the legitimacy of Israel as the indigenous homeland of the Jewish people. Such a definition will violate the rights of Zionists/Jews to freedom of expression on campus.

7.No students or faculty at UM ought to make any public generalized statements such as “All Zionists are racists” as doing so will mean that anyone who believes in Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish homeland (the Jewish  nation-state) will automatically be defined as a racist, subjecting them to hatred, ridicule and contempt. Since studies show that over 80 % of Jews are Zionists, this statement will mean that Jews are racists. This is a form of group defamation and under these extreme circumstances the UM ought to curtail such speech.  It is speech which is anti-Semitic, and ought not be tolerated.

8. Freedom of expression does not mean that class valedictorians can engage in divisive political diatribes,  that prevent students who disagree with those diatribes from being able to fully celebrate their graduation day.  Gem Newman suggested in a post on X on May 22 that "Every platform is an appropriate platform" to insert his views and "call for an end to genocide." Such a statement arguably showed animus to one community (Zionist Jews). This approach is wrongheaded. There are reasonable limits on freedom of expression and it is not appropriate for any doctor to insert his/her/their political views into the doctor-patient relationship as it destroys the essential trust that is the foundation of this relationship. A crucial point about Dr. Newman's diatribe is that not only  was it directed to a captive audience, but that it was not in a context that permitted anyone to provide any kind of response, including putting forward corrections of fact and more balanced perspectives.   The University is a forum for reasoned debate, but not a platform for one particular faction, including an extremist one

9.Freedom of expression does not exist in a vacuum, and as with all rights and freedoms must be addressed in light of the relevant factual context.

Sincerely, Rhonda J. Spivak, B.A. with Distinction, LL.B, UM 

former Crown Attorney in Constitutional Law, MB Dept of Justice,

Call to the Bar in Israel in 1996, after articling at the Association for Civil Rights, Jerusalem.