"We expect that any reasonable reader would agree that it is reductive, misleading, and untrue to summarize the language used in the definition as “any criticism.” To be clear, there are many opinions expressed in Hopper’s article that we disagree with, but would not challenge because they are clearly expressed as opinions. Unfortunately, this particular claim is stated as fact, and even uses language like “technically deems” to reinforce the notion that the sentiment is not an opinion, but being stated as if factual. We therefore request the article to be updated to resolve this issue."
March 12, 2025
Dear Tristin Hopper and Rob Roberts,
I'm writing on behalf of Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME, cjpme.org) to express our concern about Tristin Hopper’s March 11 article, “Federal report deems it 'racist' to criticize Canadian anti-Israel activists.”
Errors related to CJPME
We were glad to see that the National Post included reference to CJPME’s position on the Canadian Guide to Understanding & Combatting Islamophobia. However, we are disappointed by how this information was presented.
- CJPME was referred to as the “Centre for Justice and Peace in the Middle East.” We request that our name be corrected. It should read “Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East.”
- The article states that the report “was praised” by CJPME and provides a hyperlink on that phrase. However, rather than link to our press release, as readers should expect, the link instead leads to aToronto Sunarticle that has nothing to do with the new federal report or CJPME’s position on it. Furthermore, the hyperlinked article is by a journalist who is publicly hostile to our work. We feel this hyperlink is deliberately misleading and unfair, even in the context of an op-ed, and should be dropped or replaced with a link to our press release.
- We are referred to as an “anti-Israel” organization. We reject this reductive framing.CJPME’s Mission and Vision statementare clear, “We insist on equal expectations under international law of all parties in conflict.” Our many criticisms of the state of Israel are made on this basis. The label “anti-Israel” is often used in the national discourse to disparage those advocating for Palestinian human rights and reframe the intent. We request that this unfair label be dropped.
Errors in defining anti-Palestinian racism (APR)
Hopper writes, “The report endorses the idea of ‘anti-Palestinian racism,’ an activist term with such a broad definition that it technically deems any criticism of Palestinians or ‘their narratives’ to be racist.” This is false. The definition of APR does not “technically deem any criticism” of Palestinians or their narratives to be racist. The APR definition as put forth by the Arab Canadian Lawyer’s Association (ACLA) states that “Anti-Palestinian racism is a form of anti-Arab racism that silences, excludes, erases, stereotypes, defames or dehumanizes Palestinians or their narratives.”
We expect that any reasonable reader would agree that it is reductive, misleading, and untrue to summarize the language used in the definition as “any criticism.” To be clear, there are many opinions expressed in Hopper’s article that we disagree with, but would not challenge because they are clearly expressed as opinions. Unfortunately, this particular claim is stated as fact, and even uses language like “technically deems” to reinforce the notion that the sentiment is not an opinion, but being stated as if factual. We therefore request the article to be updated to resolve this issue.
Sincerely,
Jason Toney
Director of Media Advocacy, Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East