Is museum too Jewish?

Editorial

Anyone who reads the National Post or follows current affairs with any degree of observance knows that plans are under way for a Canadian Museum of Human Rights in Winnipeg. The plans have received special attention from the Post and other CanWest media because the museum is the pet project of the Asper family, who control the media company.

Of course, the museum, when completed, will be a Winnipeg gem and any corporation based in Winnipeg, as CanWest is, would be poor corporate citizens indeed if they didn't endorse major initiatives like this one.

Those of us who have personal or familial connections to Winnipeg may have a special affinity for this project. Despite the more than occasional smug West Coast aspersions cast against the Paris of the Prairies, many of us appreciate that the Manitoba capital is not only the geographic centre of the country, but the proven centre of the known universe. Though Winnipeg may not yet be recognized as the cultural hub of Canada, those who are familiar with the city know that its galleries, museums, architecture and cultural facilities are among Canada's most notable. To be blunt, a climate that is uninhabitable several months of the year has made it necessary to create some spectacular indoor attractions.

It may have something to do with the longstanding grudge match between our two national newspapers that a strange article appeared in the Globe and Mail April 20. While not coming right out and saying so, the Globe article seemed to imply there was something vaguely sinister about the planned museum.
In the story, by arts columnist James Adams, questions were raised (though not answered) about the mandate of the Canadian Museum for Human Rights. It felt, to perhaps a biased reader, that the article was implying that there was something too Jewish about the museum.

The article attributes to the late Israel Asper, patriarch of the publishing and television empire, an "aversion to the idea of Palestinian statehood." This non sequitur is not backed up by the accompanying quote, which deals with the security of Israel and makes no mention of a Palestinian state, as if support for a secure Israel is in any way contradictory with an independent Palestine. It also seems irrelevant to the discussion of the new museum.

The article also makes much of the fact that the Asper family and its foundation have made sizeable contributions to Yad Vashem and that one of the "overarching themes" of the museum in Winnipeg is that "the modern idea of human rights emerged as a response to the Holocaust."

Most Bulletin readers will see this last statement as a self-evident truth. The United Nations emerged out of the (overly optimistic, perhaps) urgency to prevent a repeat of the inhumanity of war. From that global parliament came the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – a document whose founding principles are imbued with the newfound knowledge of humanity's capability for inhumanity, as evidenced by the Shoah. Anyone with an understanding of the history of the last half-century will not be surprised by the statement that the global movement for civil rights that emerged after 1945 has its genesis in natural human reaction to the knowledge of the Holocaust.

It may not seem self-evident to some non-Jewish observers that a museum of human rights would be significantly influenced by recent Jewish history. Heaven knows Jewish people wish history had not made it so, but our historical experience is the ideal case study for discussion and education about human rights, personal dignity and security of the person.

The Canadian Museum of Human Rights has already been allocated $140 million in federal, provincial and municipal funding and is therefore a very legitimate topic of public critique. As the Gomery inquiry shows, the public needs to be ever-vigilant toward the government's spending. But the Globe article, justifiable as it may be in analyzing the content and mandate of the proposed museum, just seemed to have a hint of something else.

If it seems that the museum might be overly concerned with things Jewish, that's not a sign of some Jewish attempt to usurp the broader mandate of human rights, it's an acknowledgement of the unique lessons Jewish history offers on these urgent and vital issues.

^TOP