Canadian museums are becoming platforms of hatred

Margaret MacMillan, professor emeritus at Oxford University and provost of Trinity College, University of Toronto, recently wrote that museums “should not tell people what to think, but instead provide enough information for visitors to form their own conclusion.” Indeed, museums and galleries are not meant to be partisan entities which exist to promote particular ideological positions, but rather purveyors of objective information that invites viewers to reflect and come to their own conclusions, free of interference from activist curators who have personal agendas they wish to promote. In a recent article in the National Post, journalist Lynn Herzeg clearly exposes this phenomenon of curatorial activism as witnessed through the virtual exhibit on the 50th anniversary of the Montreal Olympics at Montreal’s McCord Stewart Museum. One panel describes the “tragedy” of the preceding 1972 Munich Olympics because of a terrorist attack that killed 17 people. Not identified whatsoever was the fact that 11 of the victims were Israelis, targeted precisely because they were Israelis, or that five were not victims but the terrorists themselves. This is selective and antisemitic curation at its best. Meanwhile, Fredericton’s Beaverbrook Art Gallery displayed artist Andres Serrano’s “Piss Christ”—a picture of a crucifix in the artist’s urine. Highly objectionable to and offensive to Christians, yet displayed under the guise of freedom of expression and curatorial independence. Activism above all else I have argued elsewhere that the arts and culture fields have been hijacked by activist curators untethered from the truth but free to espouse whatever politically partisan views they wish. But nowhere is this clearer than in the one-sided and biased Nakba exhibit at the Canadian Museum of Human Rights (CMHR), where I up until recently sat on the board, before leaving in protest. The exhibit purports to tell stories of Palestinians displaced in Israel in 1948 and present-day Gaza. It has been argued that the general notion of curatorial independence is a sacrosanct concept beyond the scrutiny of politicians, boards of trustees, or even the CEOs of the institutions. But curators should never be granted full immunity. Principles of integrity, honesty, truth, and historical accuracy should still be the guiding lights against which the validity of curation are measured. It is also important to note that the curator’s work is not simply what the public sees. This is only part of an exhibit. There are also attendant resources or study guides and accompanying social media commentary. Together, these form the various parts of the exhibit that a museum platforms. Graphic credit: Janice Nelson. The Museums Act of Canada calls for the Canadian Museum for Human Rights to explore the subject of human rights in order to “promote respect for others and to encourage reflection and dialogue.” The Nakba exhibit has definitely created dialogue, but of a nature not contemplated by its governing legislation. The exhibit has unleashed a torrent of Jew-hatred in multiple fora. While a board member, I argued strenuously that this outcome was not only inevitable but dangerous. I was told that the museum leadership should have risk strategies to mitigate against what I worried would be irreparable damage to the museum’s reputation. These calls went unanswered. The article critiques the Canadian Museum for Human Rights for allegedly promoting a biased narrative through its Nakba exhibit, which focuses on Palestinian displacement while omitting key historical facts. It argues that this curatorial activism fosters antisemitism and anti-Zionism, contradicting the museum’s mandate to promote respect and dialogue. The piece highlights the dangers of selective curation and the responsibility of museums to provide objective information. It raises concerns about the impact of such exhibits on public discourse and the reputation of cultural institutions in Canada. Ask about this article — or anything in Canadian politics, economics, and public policy — powered by The Hub’s 5,000-article archive and deep area expertise. Comments (8) The extreme, narcissistic self-righteousness of the anti-Israel voice in practice means there can be no discussion of the issue, no two sides to be considered, no answers to important questions about the culpability of both sides to the current situation. Many of these activists, if they aren’t Muslim, also came up with the “trans women are women…no debate allowed” dictum and other progressive memes. They know absolutely they are right and consider anyone who disagrees with them below contempt. They are the first to use personal insult to discourage any discussion and the last to acknowledge any errors in the facts they use to support their views. They are a poison to a free-thinking society.