The speakers are prominent religious figures in Israel: Sheikh Ekrima Sabri, former Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, and Attallah Hanna, a Greek Orthodox Bishop.

Recent media reports attributed disturbing statements to Sheikh Sabri, stirring controversy about his speaking engagements here in Canada. Those words by Sheikh Sabri, if accurate, must be rejected in no uncertain terms. They are divisive and inflammatory.

Debates about the Middle East conflict tend to evoke fierce emotions. The conflict has been raging for more than 60 years, while lives on both sides have been threatened with violence. Each side perceives this conflict as a threat to their existence and is willing to passionately promote their cause or vigorously criticize their opponent.

Regrettably, the Middle East region occasionally can be dominated by dogmatic slogans that would never be condoned in Canada. 

There is an intense and ongoing discussion within the various communities about how best to approach the debate about the conflict in the Middle East, as Canadians. Some, on both sides of the debate, fall into the trap that in order to demonstrate one’s commitment to their cause one has to reflect the polarizing discourse that may take place over there. Meanwhile, others — I believe the majority — try to engage this discussion in a civil manner by squarely focusing on facts and universal values.
 
These two approaches are often competing for attention and occasionally trying to outbid each other. This dynamic reflects the complexity of this highly sensitive debate. Understanding this reality will help us advance this discussion and support reasonable voices that advocate for fair solutions.

To outright ban speakers because of their politics or over-heated rhetoric will only embolden the hard-liners by giving them the opportunity to claim that they are being denied one of the most basic elements of democracy, free speech. Sheikh Sabri should be allowed to speak and his audience should not be accused of anti-Semitism. British MP George Galloway should’ve been allowed to speak as well. 

We must have enough confidence in our society that we allow different points of view to be expressed. The same rule should also apply to pro-Israelis who may use excessive rhetoric. Otherwise, we may find endless cycles of protests and censorship.

Having said that, free speech is not absolute. Any speaker who uses intolerable language that discriminates, promotes hate or glorifies violence must be held accountable under Canadian laws.

These discussions are understandably difficult, but that’s exactly why laws were created. Laws were established to help us navigate through tough situations, not just comfortable ones. We should not succumb to the temptation of suspending our tradition of dialogue the first moment it is tested.