THE FOOTSTONE OUTRAGE

​

With the main legal proceedings relating to their late Father’s estate having concluded in their favour, the Kwinter Brothers addressed the issue of the design and placement of a footstone at their Father's gravesite.  In recognition of their Father's military service in the RCAF during World War II and the ultimate success in securing justice for the late David Kwinter's family through years of contentious and bitter legal proceedings, the Kwinter Brothers designed the following footstone that they planned to mark  and honour their late Father's final resting place:

​

​

​

​

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In most cases the design, approval and placement of a footstone at a loved one’s gravesite is a simple task.  However, Aaron Gelber, bitter from his stinging legal defeat in his efforts to enforce the contested option agreement, coupled with the Courts' embarrassing characterization that he was an untruthful witness,  proceeded to maliciously interfere with the Shaar Hashomayin's Cemetery Committee's usual and perfunctory approval process and pressured the Cemetery Committee to deny the Kwinter Brothers' requested design for their Father's footstone.  When their request for approval of the proposed design for the footstone was denied, the Kwinter Brothers  spoke to the manager of the cemetery and the chair of the Cemetery Committee who all studiously denied any third party influence in their decision to deny approval of the proposed design. The Cemetery Committee asked for an explanation and clarification as to the meaning and context of the planned wording. Without acknowledging the Cemetery Committee’s right to inquire into this very personal matter, the Kwinter Brothers explained that their late Father faced many challenges in his life (the Great Depression, World War II, matrimonial problems and business setbacks) and that the Kwinter Brothers had  been at their late Father’s side supporting him for most of the challenges he faced in his later life. The Kwinter Brothers’ position and response to the Cemetery Committee’s outrageous interference in what was a highly private and personal matter was set out in their following letter to the Cemetery Committee:

​

Cemetery Manager,

Congregation Shaar Hashomayin

​

Without acknowledging the appropriateness of your request, I will merely repeat the advice that my brother and I provided you during our recent telephone discussion. The meaning and context of the phrase is simple: it acknowledges the challenges both in world history and in his personal life that my late Father encountered and struggled against.

​

I would note that the wording on the footstone is personal in its expression and intent, as it should be, and the fact that you and the Rabbi are uncertain as to its meaning and context provides ample confirmation that our goal of creating a private and personal inscription has been successfully achieved. Frankly, whether outsiders understand our intent is irrelevant. Would we have to provide ‘meaning and context’ if we wanted to use, for example our, father’s nickname? Our late Father’s footstone is not a national monument that requires public scrutiny and approbation, but will merely serve as a lasting memory to the important role that our late Father played in many lives.

​

We really doubt that such scrutiny is exercised with other applications for approval. Our engravers have advised they have never encountered such delays in their nearly 50 years of business. We can only conclude that the continuing delays are maliciously motivated. We stand by our earlier demand that you provided your consent and approval to the submitted design by 5:00 PM this coming Monday, November 20, 2017. Should you fail to provide the required approval by then, the matter will be decided by the courts where the issue of your bona fides will be examined to be determined whether you are truly confused or merely acting at the behest of others.

 

Yours truly,

​

 

Stephen Kwinter LL.B.

​

​

​

Like Pharoah’s response to Moses, the Cemetery Committee’s heart remained hardened and continued to reject the Kwinter Brother’s proposed design arguing that the chosen wording was very unusual and thus required closer scrutiny. The Kwinter Brothers responded by sending the Cemetery Committee pictures of other tombstones in the cemetery where reference to justice was used including one that stated “he died in the pursuit of justice”. The Kwinter Brothers then asked with some tartness: “is it the Cemetery Committee’s position that it is acceptable to ‘die for justice’ but improper to ‘see justice done.’ The Cemetery Committee then stated that they had concerns that the reference was not to the deceased directly. To which the Kwinter Brother replied that there were countless footstones that had wording and statements where no reference is made to the deceased including one that simply had a quote from Shakespeare who, the Kwinter Brothers reminded the Cemetery Committee, was a noted anti-semite.  With no rational excuse available, the Cemetery Committee finally admitted that the true reason for their rejection was that the Synagogue could not be seen as acting partially towards any of their congregants.  This admission resulted in the Kwinter Brothers sending the following pointed letter to the Cemetery Committee:

​

Cemetery Manager,

Congregation Shaar Hashomayin

​

We are now in receipt of your e-mail dated December 7, 2017 advising of the Cemetery Committee’s rejection our family’s  chosen inscription on the grounds that the phrase, whose sons lived to see justice done, could be perceived as ‘partiality on the part of the synagogue’.  The bona fides of your position may have had significantly more merit if this reasoning was advanced at the beginning of our dialogue rather than your hiding behind the artifice of your supposed lack of understanding or the phrase’s apparent unusualness.   It appears that you and your august committee no longer have problems in understanding the meaning and context of the phrase.  In fact, your understanding is now so fulsome that you fear its mere utterance may draw the congregation into a conflict and convey an offensive partiality to some unknown persons.  As if the word justice could ever be seen as offensive except to those of the most narrow of minds.  It is however quite clear what the true reason behind your decision is: that specific individuals with selfish motives have interceded and directed the committee to frustrate the desires of a family’s attempt to honour the life of their father.

​

It is a sad commentary on the moral leadership of one of North America’s most famous synagogues that it will abide and support elements who, for purely selfish reasons, are maliciously interfering with a family’s efforts to honour a war veteran who was beloved by so many.  The inscription on a family member’s monument is one of the most personal and solemn decision any family makes.  For you to allow any third party to interfere with such an important decision is shameful and a clear betrayal of your duty to exert communal and moral leadership.

​

While we consult with our counsel and determine what our family’s next actions will be in this unfortunate matter, we would remind you and your committee of the biblical admonishment proclaimed in Deuteronomy: justice, justice you shall pursue.  The real tragedy in this matter is that you, the leaders of our community, have forsaken this imperative in the name of expediency. 

 

Yours truly,

 

Hirsh and Stephen Kwinter

​

​

In response to the Kwinter Brothers’ letter, the Cemetery Committee suggested that the Kwinter Brother’s speak to the synagogue’s then new, youthful Rabbi, Adam Scheier, who the Kwinter Brothers were advised was a progressive force and who had a good reputation for community engagement and fairness.

​

At an arranged meeting with Rabbi Scheier, the Kwinter Brothers explained their concerns as to the true motivation for the delays they had encountered in getting approval for the design of their late Father’s footstone. The Kwinter Brothers reminded Rabbi Scheier that the proposed design was not for a national monument and the very fact that the Cemetery Committee couldn’t understand the intent, context or meaning of the inscription was confirmation that the footstone could not be offensive to any third party. The Kwinter Brothers stressed that the very fact that the meaning is not openly understandable to an outsider reflects the very personal nature of the footstone: that it should only have meaning for the late David Kwinter’s immediate family and should not serve as a form of Rosetta Stone that allows outsiders an understanding of the feelings being expressed in this most personal family memorial. The Kwinter Brothers concluded by advising  Rabbi Scheier that the engravers who had been retained to prepare the footstone had stated that in their nearly 50 years of experience they have never seen any delay in the approval process like the one the Kwinter Brothers were encountering. More importantly, the Kwinter Brothers stated that the engravers had  advised that they saw nothing offensive or controversial in the wording and if they had, they would not have agreed to prepare  the footstone.

​

After Rabbi Scheier stressed that he had not spoken to anyone other than the Cemetery Committee with respect to this matter and that he had never received any direction from Aaron Gelber or any other member of Gelber Family as to the approval process, Rabbi Scheier went on to explain his and the Cemetery Committee’s role in ensuring the propriety of all tombstones in the Synagogue’s cemetery. Rabbi Scheier sounded impartial and wise until he said that he had a duty to ensure that any congregant that had any relationship with the late David Kwinter, including anyone who may have been part of the recent litigation process, was not offended and suggested that the Kwinter Brothers consider alternate wording for the footstone. With that statement, the Kwinter Brothers had confirmation that Aaron Gelber’s continuing sensitivity to his unexpected loss at trial and on appeal coupled with his substantial financial support of the Synagogue were the true motivating factors at play in the Cemetery Committee’s denial of approval for the proposed footstone. Hirsh Kwinter wryly noted that despite Rabbi Scheier and the Cemetery Committee’s professed efforts at impartiality, the moment  they decided to withhold their approval of the Kwinter Brothers’ proposed design for their late Father’s footstone, they had abandoned any pretext of impartiality.  They had, by this decision, Mr. Kwinter stated, chosen to support Aaron Gelber’s bidding.  Stephen Kwinter  advised Rabbi Scheier that the word ‘Justice’ plays an important ethos in the Jewish tradition (probably only second to ‘Life’) and for any Jewish person to take offence with its use or reference was shameful.  Rabbi Scheier replied that he had a lot to think about and consider and that he would be discussing this matter further with the Cemetery Committee. To date, the Cemetery Committee has yet to approve the Kwinter Brother’s proposed design for their late Father’s footstone.

​

The Kwinter Brothers after canvassing the option to seek a declaratory judgement that would compel the Synagogue to allow the Kwinter Brothers the right place the footstone of their choice at their late Father’s grave, chose not to proceed with any legal course of action.  Too much time and treasure had already been expended in this unfortunate family dispute.  Instead, they decided to wait until passions had abated and, with the inevitable changes brought on through the passage of time, perhaps have an opportunity to deal with other, less obdurate parties, in this matter. The Kwinter Brothers have asked for and have received a solemn promise from Stephen Kwinter’s two sons that if this matter is not resolved before the death of the last of the Kwinter Brothers, they will take up the struggle to see that the late David Kwinter’s memory is honoured in a manner that his sons so desired. It is now become an inter-generational matter and as long as there is one surviving member of the Kwinters of Montreal, the Kwinter Brothers will, as they did at the trial in this long and supremely unnecessary family dispute, emerge triumphant.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​