I would like to comment on the column written by Lawrence Hart, “Time to reclaim our campuses,” (CJN, Dec. 20). As a Jewish professional who works on the university campuses in Toronto, I feel I should speak out against those who wish to turn the campus environment into a battleground, playing out the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And this goes for both sides of the debate.
Hart comments that those who advocate for dialogue on campus do so wrongly because dialogue with anti-Israel activists is a “futile exercise.” I would agree wholeheartedly; however, Hillel’s dialogue building has never targeted this group. Instead we look to the large majority of students who are uninformed or undecided, those who believe that both sides are to blame, and the moderates.
Anti-Israel activists make arguments about lack of rights; we engage students with a table displaying information about the many rights that exist for Arab Israelis, for women, for gays and lesbians. Anti-Israel activists espouse divestment campaigns; we ensure that the broader student body knows about the many things Israel has to offer the world in various areas such as the many medical and technological advances. These are but a few examples of dialogue building.
And if you still don’t believe me, then sit with me when we are at a table in Vari Hall at York University with the video game Peacemaker and witness the hundreds of students who come up to us and thank us for the very type of programming that Hart criticizes, while condemning those programs that incite hatred.  
Rebecca Woods Baum
Director of Israel Affairs
Hillel of Greater Toronto

The Supreme Court of Canada recently decided that a husband would be liable for damages for breaking his agreement to the court that he would give his wife a get as part of his civil divorce (“Damages upheld for denied get,” CJN, Dec. 20). This decision holds three important lessons for our community.
1) Religious freedom is a basic right in our society – but it is not an unlimited right. It is not acceptable (civilly or Jewishly) to hurt another person or to renege on a promise and claim religious freedom to rationalize your behaviour. Those who protest the reasonable accommodation of minorities, claiming that basic human rights may be trampled, should rest easy knowing that the Supreme Court will not allow outrageous and offensive behaviour under the guise of religious freedom.
2) A get is not a weapon. Once a Jewish couple decides their marriage must end, it is required by Jewish law that the husband agree to give and the wife agree to accept a get. It is never acceptable to use the get to extort the other spouse for money, for custody, or for vindictive anger. All legitimate pressure must be used to dissuade an angry, stubborn spouse from abusing others by refusing a get.
3) The best way to prevent the terrible situation of agunah is with a prenuptial agreement that creates a valid, binding contract to follow the advice of a beit din in case the marriage irreparably fails. In the case of a couple already married, a post-nuptial agreement can be executed.
I call upon my colleagues throughout Canada to require this document before they will officiate at any wedding ceremony. I also urge every Jewish person considering marriage to require of their officiating rabbi the execution of such a document.
Rabbi Michael Whitman
Montreal

In “Azrieli Foundation launches survivor memoir series,” (CJN, Dec. 6), it was stated that in the past the memoirs of survivors had usually been recorded in the form of interviews that “remain in archives or libraries and are only seen, read or heard by students and scholars, not the general public.”
In 2001, the Polish-Jewish Heritage Foundation, began publishing memoirs of survivors.  To date, we have published 12 books that we have distributed to 50 libraries and Holocaust centres worldwide. Eight of the memoirs are in Polish, three in English, and one in both languages. We welcome the contribution of additional memoirs. Not being a foundation of great financial means, we are unable to widely publicize the work we are doing.  
Ilona Gruda
President
Polish-Jewish Heritage Foundation
Montreal

We would like to acknowledge Rabbi Howard Morrison for the time and effort in helping our son Zachary succeed at his bar mitzvah (“Autistic teen uses sign language for bar mitzvah,” CJN, Dec. 6). His words and his actions the day of the event were profound, touching and special. He deserves a lot of credit for making this day happen and allowing us to celebrate as so many other families do.
The Sone Family
Evan, Marla, Ariella, Joshua and Zachary
Toronto

The Supreme Court of Canada recently decided that a husband would be liable for damages for breaking his agreement to the court that he would give his wife a get as part of his civil divorce (“Damages upheld for denied get,” CJN, Dec. 20). This decision holds three important lessons for our community.
1) Religious freedom is a basic right in our society – but it is not an unlimited right. It is not acceptable (civilly or Jewishly) to hurt another person or to renege on a promise and claim religious freedom to rationalize your behaviour. Those who protest the reasonable accommodation of minorities, claiming that basic human rights may be trampled, should rest easy knowing that the Supreme Court will not allow outrageous and offensive behaviour under the guise of religious freedom.
2) A get is not a weapon. Once a Jewish couple decides their marriage must end, it is required by Jewish law that the husband agree to give and the wife agree to accept a get. It is never acceptable to use the get to extort the other spouse for money, for custody, or for vindictive anger. All legitimate pressure must be used to dissuade an angry, stubborn spouse from abusing others by refusing a get.
3) The best way to prevent the terrible situation of agunah is with a prenuptial agreement that creates a valid, binding contract to follow the advice of a beit din in case the marriage irreparably fails. In the case of a couple already married, a post-nuptial agreement can be executed.
I call upon my colleagues throughout Canada to require this document before they will officiate at any wedding ceremony. I also urge every Jewish person considering marriage to require of their officiating rabbi the execution of such a document.
Rabbi Michael Whitman
Montreal