In its September issue, Elle Canada published its annual report entitled: ‘Changemakers’, a list of eight Canadian women who are ‘paving the way’ for those behind them, and ‘[breaking] the glass ceiling.’ The original version of this list – since modified – included politician and Ontario MPP Sarah Jama for her work as an ‘advocate’ for the Palestinian cause.

Jama was previously a member of the NDP Ontario caucus, but was removed following uproar as a result of a post on X (Twitter) which was widely seen as excusing Hamas’ massacres. She has sat as an independent since. She has also publicly denied that Israeli women were raped by Hamas, and, in a visit to the now-dismantled anti-Israel occupation at McMaster University, called to “globalize the intifada,” a reference to a campaign of Palestinian terrorism against Israeli civilians. Jama was also removed from the Ontario legislature for refusing to take off her keffiyeh following the ban on the garment earlier this year.

Predictably, Canadian media has focused their coverage of these events not on the outrageous inclusion of Jama on the list to begin with, but rather on her subsequent removal, following alleged ‘threats’ against the magazine’s publishers. When asked to explain what kind of threats were made, Elle Canada refused to comment, citing an effort “to stop nourishing such hatred.” To be clear, the ‘hatred’ they refer to here is readers being upset that a member of Ontario’s legislature accused over and over of spreading antisemitism and anti-Jewish sentiment was included on their published list to begin with, not the sentiments that Jama herself made to warrant people’s outrage.

On September 5, the CBC radio program “Commotion” with host Elamin Abdelmahmoud, hosted a panel of guests to discuss the controversy. To little surprise, given Abdelmahmoud’s long history promoting a one-sided anti-Israel agenda, the panel, consisting of Niko Stratis, Michelle Cyca, and Matt Amha, unanimously agreed that altering the list seemed unfair. In his opening explanation of events, Abdelmahmoud said that the outrage over Jama came from the fact that her statement regarding the October 7 attacks “didn’t mention the hostages” and that in the article she referred to the war in Gaza as a “genocide” – a “controversial” word. Of course, it’s not “controversial,” it’s factually wrong, but that didn’t seem to be important to the discussion on this program.

Listen to the full segment below:

The panel focused much of their discussion on the wording of the disclaimer Elle Canada added to the online edition of the story, whereby they made it clear that the “article represents the opinions of a political personality but does not reflect the opinions of the publishers of ELLE Canada and its parent company.” It would appear that the magazine wanted to make it clear that they do not agree with the characterization of the war in Gaza as a genocide, and that this position is upsetting to those who would prefer to see the Jewish State demonized – including, evidently, the author of the list itself, who, according to this interview, wanted her byline removed because she did not approve of the edits.

Later in the week, the Hamilton Spectator and the Toronto Star ran a story about Jama’s removal from the list, penned by reporter Kate McCullough. In her piece, McCollough described Jama as being “muzzled in the legislature by a censure vote,” saying that Jama “claimed [her censure] was a result of pressure from a ‘Zionist lobby.’” McCollough went on to say that “[Jama’s] actions and comments, which have been billed by some as antisemitic, have been met with both criticism and applause in recent months.”

Imagine this discussion, phrased like this and being made in regards to any other marginalized or racialized group, whether LGBTQ+ or for members of the black community. Suggesting that a ‘Zionist lobby’ has the power to remove a sitting MPP is bad enough, but suggesting that actions “billed by some as antisemitic” could rightly be “met with applause” is astounding.

McCullough (along with the editors of Elle) fail to note the nature of the supposed ‘threats’ received around the inclusion of Jama, despite using those threats as justification for her removal. By characterising it as a concern for the safety of the publishers and those involved in publication, it further entrenches the idea that Jews, Zionists and Israeli interests are inherently violent and on the attack. The language used here furthers the rhetoric of Palestinian victimhood and Jewish aggression.

Readers were understandably and justifiably outraged that someone who has so vehemently and gleefully demonized Jews and the Jewish state would be included on a list of “people who do … good around them.” Rather than accepting the very real and serious reasons for the Jewish community and their allies being upset, the Elle Canada editors – enabled by these Canadian media outlets – position themselves as victims being threatened by the big, bad, Zionist lobby for having the bravery to speak against it.