Court Issues Injunction Against University of Toronto Encampment on Trespass Grounds, Finds “No Doubt That Some of the Speech on the Exterior of the Encampment Rises to the Level of Hate Speech”
With the court finding abhorrent hate speech on the exterior of the encampment including calls for death to Jews, this is hardly the exoneration some suggest with regard to antisemitism
Ontario Superior Court of Justice Markus Koehnen issued his much anticipated ruling involving the encampment at the University of Toronto late yesterday, granting the University its requested order that can be used to remove the encampment. Under the order, protesters have until 6:00 pm today to clear the encampment. If they fail to do so, the court ruled that the University can levy the full range of sanctions, including “physical enforcement of the order, prosecution for trespass, liability for contempt of court and the full range of disciplinary sanctions at the University.” The basis of the order lies in trespass with the court concluding that “there is ample judicial authority that says protesters have no right to set up camp on or otherwise occupy property that does not belong to them, no matter how much more effective their protest would be if they were able to do so.”
Trespass combined with evidence of irreparable harm if the order was not granted provided the legal foundation for the decision. The University of Toronto had also raised violence and antisemitic hate speech as grounds for the order, but the court did not find sufficient evidence to conclude that the encampment was violent or antisemitic. The court’s conclusion on antisemitism has been seized upon encampment supporters, but the reality is that it did find hate speech at the exterior of the encampment, which from the perspective of Jewish students and faculty surely requires University action (it is not clear if this is signage on the perimeter of the encampment or threats uttered outside of it). In fact, the court finds that “that there have been incidents of hate speech and physical harassment of people, predominantly but not exclusively directed at people wearing kippahs or some other indicator of Jewish identity in the general vicinity of the encampment” and that “the possibility of further escalation based on past physical altercations and past use of actual hate speech outside the encampment amounts to some level irreparable harm but not significantly so.” This is hardly a full exoneration of what has been taking place on campus.
Further, the court’s analysis of terms such as “river to the sea” and “glory to the martyrs” acknowledges that “these expressions are perceived as hurtful and threatening to many Jews”, but proceeds to find alternative explanations for the intent of the speech, leading to the conclusion that “I was not taken to any evidence to suggest that any of the named respondents or encampment occupants were using these slogans or symbols with any intention of violence, antisemitism or hatred.” However, University policies say that what matters is not what the speaker or initiator intended, but rather the impact on the affected individual. Once again, in the case of Jewish students, they are told that how they perceive the speech or campus actions is irrelevant, effectively meaning Jews do not get to decide for themselves what is antisemitic and giving licence to others to cause harms on the basis of their professed intent. This is simply not how other groups are treated.
The court may improbably stop short of concluding there is antisemitism, but leaves no doubt there is hate speech targeting Jews on the exterior of the encampment:
There can be no doubt that some of the speech on the exterior of the encampment rises to the level of hate speech. This has included comments like: “kike”, “baby killer”, “get away and go be with the Jews.”, “We need another holocost” [sic], “Jews in the sea Palestine will be free”, “Jews belong in the sea Palestine will be free”, “Death To the Jews, Hamas for Prime Minister”, “You dirty fucking Jew. Go back to Europe”, “Jews should go back to Europe”, “fuck the Jews”, “I hate every fucking one of you people” (to a group of people carrying Israeli flags), and “Itbach El Yahod” ( “slaughter the Jews”).
The key distinguishing factor is that the judge says the evidence did not link the hate speech directly to an encampment protester. For the purposes of Jewish students, Jewish faculty, and the enforcement of University codes, hate speech on campus – whether from within the encampment or on its exterior – raises the same threat for those who are the targets. We would never tolerate on-campus hate speech toward any other group calling for their death or slaughter and we should not tolerate it when targeted toward the Jewish community.
Indeed, it seems to me that whether the hate speech emanates from the encampment or on its exterior is largely a distinction without difference. For Jewish students or faculty targeted by the hate, the threat is the same. For the University, its responsibility to ensure there is a safe, hate-free environment for the entire community applies in the same manner given that this is all taking place on university grounds. In fact, given the manner in which the encampment operated by vetting entrants and refusing entry to some individuals, if there was hate speech (and the court concludes there was) it would be expected to occur on the exterior of the encampment since many visible Jewish students and faculty would be prevented from entering the encampment. It strains credulity to argue that the hate speech occurring on on the exterior of the encampment is simply a coincidence with no correlation to the encampment, when there was speech from within the encampment that the court itself concludes are perceived by Jews as threatening.
Regardless, the finding of hate speech on campus grounds on the exterior of the encampments should be reason enough for the University to act to ensure that all community members are safe. The court has provided a roadmap for other universities – including my own – to ensure that all university campuses in Canada do a better job of balancing freedom of expression with the right of all community members to a safe, non-discriminatory environment. If there is similar evidence, trespass provides the legal foundation and combatting hate speech provides the moral grounds.
Post originally appeared at https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2024/07/court-issues-injunction-against-university-of-toronto-encampment-on-trespass-grounds-finds-no-doubt-that-some-of-the-speech-on-the-exterior-of-the-encampment-rises-to-the-level-of-hate-speec/
Find me on:
Are you actively defending claimed impact as the operative definition of actionable speech? This is exactly the operative definition around every single cancellation of women who reject genderism, myself included. “Her speech made me feel unsafe”.
Do you want to live with the implications of this outside the case of Israel criticism? If not, how can criticism of Israel be a special case?
The puzzling judicial order is another example of how "woke" Canada's judiciary has become. It's disheartening. And yet some poor sot wrote a text to his mom that had the word "war" in it and he's being subjected to the full wrath of the law. It's a weird world. Weird not in a good way. The UOT ruling gives tacit (and maybe not so tacit) acceptance to the pro-palestinian antisemetic rhetoric. I'm ashamed to be Canadian, mostly, these days.