Listen to this article:
The Social Justice Centre (SJC), a student group at the University of British Columbia (UBC), and the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM) have recently filed a lawsuit against Hillel B.C., a non-profit Jewish organization. The SJC has been active in different ways in response to the genocide in Gaza and is known for its advocacy for Palestine.
The legal action took place after defamatory stickers that say “I [heart] Hamas” and display the SJC logo were put up around the university’s campus and shared widely on social media late last year by someone affiliated with Hillel.
In a public statement on Instagram, Hillel B.C. said “An independent contractor has participated in the distribution of offensive stickers around [the] UBC campus,” and the organization has “terminated” its contract with them upon this incident.
The SJC has initially denied creating or distributing these stickers. However, this defamatory act has led to “significant damage to the SJC’s reputation and has resulted in harassment of its personnel,” said NCCM member Shawn Ullah, and taking legal action was, hence, necessary.
Spheres of Influence has interviewed Matthew Cheesman, an undergraduate student and SJC member, to explore further the rationale behind the message SJC aims to convey through this legal action.
What role has the UBC Social Justice Centre been playing as a student group in response to the situation in Gaza?
Matthew: I like to say that the SJC looks in many directions at once. We work with many groups on campus and have many different internal working groups that tackle local problems such as housing justice and drug safety to international solidarity with Palestine. Lately, much of our focus has been on Gaza. We have worked with UBC SPHR to host Palestine 101 and a talk with Dr. Gabor Maté, a Holocaust survivor and physician who is a leading voice for a just peace. We have also focused on more direct action, pointing out the university’s complicity in the violence in Palestine. In the last several years, we have pushed for UBC to divest from specific companies known to violate Palestinian human rights.
How do you consider the impact of this activism?
Matthew: I think the last several years have seen a shift in campus awareness and support of Palestine. While the UBC administration has remained staunchly opposed in all forms, we have seen increased student support and willingness to learn and advocate for the rights of Palestinians. As the current generation of organizers has learned from the last, nothing happens quickly and without sustained effort. We will continue to apply pressure until our institutions acknowledge their complicity; then, the university can deliver on its promise of being a place of learning and just, ethical values. This work long-preceded October 7th and will continue long after. The urgency is all that has changed for us.
Would incidents like the defamatory stickers impede your group from continuing to support Palestinian human rights? Has this affected your work at all?
Matthew: They certainly do. That incident led to weeks of emotional labour defending our group and ourselves as individuals. Every year, we discuss a list of goals and rarely make it past the first two. Every year, we are [overwhelmed] with volatile, unanticipated problems that force us on the defensive. [About] the stickers, we received an unprecedented amount of hate online. We are unpaid student organizers, and there is only so much time in a day. People who work against our values know this and seek to destabilize the SJC and stop us from organizing.
Can you elaborate on the decision to take legal action against Hillel B.C.? What are the main objectives you hope to achieve through this lawsuit?
Matthew: In the last decade, Hillel has taken legal action against multiple groups on campus on several different occasions. Students, be they student union politicians, organizers, or simply members of allied student societies, are rightly intimidated by the threat of a lawsuit. As is the university administration. Hillel uses this fact to intimidate us out of our free speech rights and to shut down discussion and dissent. We see this as a pattern — one [case] we can now address through the law. The true character of those that Hillel employs was revealed through our defamation, proving that using the law will hopefully curtail the bold intimidation tactics they mobilize.
More than that, the lawsuit serves a separate purpose. Over the four years I have worked with the SJC, I have watched the fickle international spotlight drift on and off of Palestine. We must not forget that amidst all this, people are dying by the thousands. Children, entire family lines, homes, and hope are all being destroyed by the Israeli state. These atrocities must be reckoned with and never forgotten. This lawsuit is a small way that our small group of students can help remind people why this is an outrage and why we cannot allow the deadly status quo to continue. In the end, it has less to do with Hillel and more to do with right and wrong. On the scale of Palestinian freedom, it is a drop in the bucket. But that is what we all owe to ourselves and our beliefs.
Why is the National Council of Canadian Muslims involved in this lawsuit? And how important is the support from other organizations in situations like these?
Matthew: We were connected with the NCCM by allies at the BC Civil Liberties Association. They have been spectacular[ly] support[ive] and allowed us to guide the ship while providing necessary advice. It would be impossible for a student organization like the SJC to enter a lawsuit without a group of competent and well-intentioned professionals behind us. They have been very gracious in consulting us and [ensuring] that this lawsuit remains in our control and is about our values, and I am very grateful for that.
How do you think incidents like these reflect on the broader issue of campus safety and freedom of speech, especially concerning the Palestinian issue?
Matthew: Independent Jewish Voices released a brilliant and concerning report called Unveiling the Chilly Climate: The Suppression of Speech on Palestine in Canada. I had the opportunity to interview one of the co-authors, Dr. Sheryl Nestel. She described [how] institutions, individuals, and our social discourses at large begin to self-censor and conform under such suppressive conditions of speech. At universities, in Parliament, and perhaps, most importantly, at home, our ability to critique Israel and support Palestinian human rights has grown homogenous and stale. We have developed a culture of repressed speech on this issue, burdened by defamatory and harmful events like the one we endured this past winter. It is our role to resist this suppression and challenge the “chilly climate” by boldly stating what we believe.
In a press statement, you mentioned that the university has done nothing about this situation. What specific actions or responses had you hoped to see from the university administration in response to the incident?
Matthew: If we had a nickel for every time we attended a useless meeting with the UBC administration, we could fund this lawsuit ourselves. We met with every different body and administrator we could, and nothing came of it. No investigation. No reprimanding of Hillel’s actions. No support for the members of the SJC. During the Divestment Campaign in which we attempted to get UBC’s money out of weapons companies operating in Israel, we met multiple times with the administration. They never once considered giving us access to actual decision-makers, the board of governors, the investment managers, etc. They know they can wait us out with bureaucracy, and they do. That has been our experience with this incident as well — plenty of meetings, no action.
What message do you wish to convey to the UBC community and other academic institutions regarding the handling of defamatory actions and the importance of maintaining a respectful and inclusive environment?
Matthew: In his 2022 statement regarding our Divestment campaign, former UBC president Santa Ono said the following:
“Positions on complex geo-political issues that protect human rights are best made by guarding academic freedom and freedom of expression in an environment that supports constructive and respectful debate.”
The irony of this statement is clear to anyone. UBC is not a free academic place. The Divestment Campaign garnered this response and many other condemnations from the administration [as] the public and aggressive defamation of UBC students for expression of speech garnered no response from the university. Further, I think it is pure cowardice to presume that “constructive and respectful debate” should lead nowhere. [Indeed, if] that debate results in awareness and evidence of a gross violation of human rights, should a place of learning not be able to speak against that? We are owed a university that respects everyone’s speech but also acts when the evidence is clear. That is not the case on most campuses today.
Edited by Bethlehem Samson
