Superior Court Judge Patrick Ferland

By Joel Goldenberg
The Suburban

Superior Court Judge Patrick Ferland ruled recently that a former McGill student can use a report by Concordia professor emeritus Ira Robinson as part of the plaintiff’s case against the Students’ Society of McGill University.

The student, who was a member of the SSMU, is represented by lawyers Michael Bergman and Patrycja Nowakowska.

The plaintiff, who is asking the court not to allow the adoption of the SSMU’s “Policy Against Genocide in Palestine” as well as for $125,000 in moral and punitive damages, argued that the anti-Israel policy “violates the SSMU’s constitution and breaches its obligation to represent all its members, that it contains false statements and that it promotes antisemitism.”

The SSMU argued that Robinson’s report is “not based on any specialized knowledge, not likely to inform the court, that “he does not have the required qualifications to act as an expert” and that “the admission of his report risks diverting the debate and prolonging the proceedings.”

Robinson, who was asked to determine whether the SSMU policy contained antisemitic tropes, said he “adhered to generally accepted principles in the humanities and social sciences.”

Robinson’s report argues that the SSMU policy’s references to Israel “must be seen as a reference to its Jewish character,” and that claims of genocide by Israel “allegedly omit to address certain aspects of the situation in the Gaza Strip.” He adds that use of the terms, in relation to the Israel-Palestinian issue, such as “settler colonialism”, “apartheid” and “ethnic cleansing” all “originate in contexts unrelated to Israeli-Palestinian relations, and that they are used in the policy without making the necessary distinctions.”

Robinson’s report concluded that “virulent criticism of Israel has become a convenient substitute for antisemitism, which is no longer acceptable [and] the pro-Palestinian discourse frequently uses symbolic language drawn from other contexts in order to shock and evoke feelings of hatred and revulsion against Israel.”

The judge found that the SSMU can “hardly maintain that Professor Robinson is insufficiently qualified to provide an analysis that it otherwise considers requires no specialized knowledge,” as he is a Professor Emeritus in the Department of Religions and Cultures at Concordia University, and has written books on antisemitism.

“Professor Robinson’s training, professional experience, and publications suggest that he likely has specialized and in-depth knowledge of several of the concepts discussed in his report, beginning with the notion of antisemitism and its various manifestations, including what his report calls antisemitic tropes, antisemitic clichés and stereotypes.”

On the other hand, the judge did agree with the SSMU that the report opines on the intentions of its authors.

“The report does not identify on what basis Professor Robinson would express such opinions—neither the qualifications that would allow him to draw such conclusions, nor the information on which he would base his judgment.”

But the judge added that this does not mean the report should be declared inadmissible.

“A report should therefore only be rejected on the basis of an alleged insufficiency of qualifications in clear cases which is not at all the case here.”

The judge concluded that the SSMU policy and Robinson’s report “deal with complex concepts, susceptible to different interpretations but always inevitably laden with weighty significance.

“Their use in the Policy also takes place within a historical, social, cultural, and political context that is itself complex and that gives rise to vigorous debate, including, presumably, among student members of the SSMU. In such a context, it cannot be concluded that expert evidence on these issues would be of such limited utility that it would necessarily be outweighed by its prejudicial effect.”

For this reason, the court rejected the SSMU’s claim, and ordered legal costs to be paid after the outcome of the original lawsuit. n