Readers weigh in after an officer asked a rabbi who was wearing a kippah to leave the area of a pro-Palestinian protest.
Let me understand this. If a rabbi goes downtown with his family and a pro-Palestinian protest is taking place nearby, he should not let the protesters see him because his kippah could be a provocation?
The protesters regularly disrupt businesses and make the lives of area residents miserable. They have the right to create mayhem, but the peaceful kippah-wearing rabbi should hide from them lest the sight of a Jew might incite them to violence?
This is the message the police are giving the Jewish population of Montreal?
Ruth Khazzam, Westmount
Distrust to linger after protests
I find it shocking and a reflection of our collapsing society that police asked Rabbi Adam Scheier to remove himself from peacefully observing a pro-Palestinian demonstration.
We want to believe we live in a nation governed by laws, and we want to trust those who enforce those laws. But when we witness what looks like two-tier policing, our respect for authority lessens. As more such incidents occur, our trust in law enforcement diminishes.
I believe it is not the demonstrations and lawlessness that will do permanent damage to our society; rather, distrust of our institutions will linger long after the demonstrations end. And I expect that distrust will contribute to a devolving society in which each of us will feel less secure.
This, I believe, will be the lasting legacy of the current demonstrations.
Ronald G. Macfarlane, Pointe-Claire
Not easy being a Montreal cop
The police have a duty to protect citizens by any means possible and available in given situation. Citizens have a duty to respect and follow police orders. Therefore, I believe the officer who asked the rabbi to leave to avoid a possible confrontation with protesters was doing his job.
The officer was trying to keep the rabbi out of harm’s way. Is this offensive? Not in my mind.
On the other hand, if the rabbi had been harmed, the officer likely would have been blamed for not providing sufficient protection.
It is not easy to be a police officer in Montreal.
Mike Rusinowicz, Beaconsfield
Singling out rabbi is chilling
An argument can be made that Rabbi Adam Scheier was asked by a police officer to leave the site of a pro-Palestinian protest for his own protection.
However, the fact that he alone, among many other onlookers, was asked to move is discomforting, to say the least. He was wearing a kippah, identifying him as a Jew.
Why should any citizen — regardless of race, religion or ethnicity — be denied the right to stand on a street whereas rowdy, sometimes menacing protesters are allowed to take over city streets, periodically engaging in acts of vandalism?
Something is seriously wrong when police protection appears to skew in favour of protesters and against a member of an identifiable group who should have the right to walk or stand wherever he likes — just like any other citizen watching the protests.
Goldie Olszynko, Mile End
‘Blame the victim’ a familiar pattern
I was disgusted to learn of a police officer asking Rabbi Adam Scheier — identifiably Jewish because of his kippah — to move away from one of those nasty demonstrations.
This reminds me of people who blame victims of rape — “You were dressed provocatively”; “You shouldn’t have been in that neighbourhood at that time of night” — rather than going after the criminal.
Let’s put an end to these hostile demonstrations and hate speech before someone gets hurt, or worse.
Louise Halperin, Westmount
Delicate situation handled tactfully
I say kudos to the police officer who seems to have handled the rabbi as diplomatically as possible, saving him and his family from potential harm.
Jim McDermott, St-Laurent
Violent forces given free rein
While one may assume that the police were concerned for the safety and security of the rabbi and his family, to me the most disturbing aspect of it all is that Mayor Valérie Plante and the Montreal police force seem to have given free rein to violent and destructive forces running amok in our city.
This is unconscionable.
Gerry Raven, Hampstead
Stop ‘tolerance of intolerance’
Police asking Rabbi Adam Scheier to leave the area where pro-Palestinian protesters were marching is an example of how extremist ideologies can take advantage of a free and democratic society to infiltrate and take power.
By allowing longstanding encampments on our university campuses and hate-filled protests to occur under the protective umbrella of free speech, our leaders have given the green light to those who seek to classify, polarize and divide us. This is exactly what happened when the rabbi, who was wearing a kippah, was identified as being Jewish and was asked to move away from the protesters.
We have only to look to the past to see where this tolerance of intolerance leads. The Nazis took full advantage of democratic institutions to gain power in Germany in 1933 and used propaganda and terror to foment hate toward Jews and other minorities, leading ultimately to the Holocaust.
It’s time to draw the line between free speech and demagogy in order to protect our citizens, and not those spreading terror and hate.
Marcy Bruck, The Foundation for Genocide Education, Montreal
Size of a riot is not the point
Toula Drimonis’s attitude seems to be: “What’s all the big fuss about? Only a few windows at the Palais des congrès were smashed and only a few cars were set on fire and, after all, it was all over by 7 p.m.”
I wonder whether Drimonis would have felt comfortable taking a stroll during the mayhem as it occurred. Would she have said to herself: “Well, this is really nothing compared to what we’ve seen with Stanley Cup riots?”
Am I only the one who thinks that violence, vandalism, intimidation and the burning of cars should be condemned?
The size of a riot has nothing to do with the fact that these violent actions are not only illegal, they make our city a scary and dangerous place to live.
Cheryl Casino, Dorval
Welcome voice of calm reason
Thanks to Toula Drimonis for exposing the hysterical nonsense surrounding Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s attendance as a private citizen with his daughter at the Taylor Swift concert in Toronto.
And shame on his opponents for crossing a line and making political hay of Trudeau’s private life, cynically relating this to the protests in Montreal.
It is a welcome relief to have a columnist calmly note the facts rather than mouthing the exaggerated and often false statements of some politicians, most notably Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre.
Print, online and social media should take their cues from her rational comments.
Patricia Riley, Westmount
Sorry, we’re not always so nice
I have been reading Josh Freed and enjoying his humour-laced commentary for as long as I can remember. But I find that his reflection on keeping Canada “nice” in the face of Donald Trump’s win is too kind on our country.
A very Canadian smugness often rears its head when we look across the border. Even worse is the Montreal pretence, often voiced by Mayor Valérie Plante, about this beacon of inclusion and joie de vivre. It seems anything bad that might happen is an anomaly. It just “isn’t who we are.”
But a Second Cup franchisee giving Nazi salutes and threatening Jews with the “final solution” is, unfortunately, a part of our society, too. Cancelling innocuous illustrations at city hall because they depict a woman in a hijab seems quintessentially Quebec.
Being nice is good, but let’s have the honesty to admit when we’re not.
Christopher Adam, Ottawa
Submitting a letter to the editor
We prioritize letters that respond to, or are inspired by, articles published by The Gazette. If you are responding to a specific article, let us know which one.
Letters should be sent uniquely to us. The shorter they are — ideally, fewer than 200 words — the greater the chance of publication.
Timing, clarity, factual accuracy and tone are all important, as is whether the writer has something new to add to the conversation.
We reserve the right to edit and condense all letters. Care is taken to preserve the core of the writer’s argument.
Our policy is not to publish anonymous letters, those with pseudonyms or “open letters” addressed to third parties.
Letters are published with the author’s full name and city or neighbourhood/borough of residence. Include a phone number and address to help verify identity; these will not be published.
We will not indicate to you whether your letter will be published. If it has not been published within 10 days or so, it is not likely to be.
Please send the letter in the body of an email, not as an attachment.