This Friday, McMaster University will be the scene of a Toronto-organized protest in favour of useless rhetoric.
McMaster University denied the Palestinian “solidarity movement” the ability to hang banners screaming “Israeli Apartheid.”
This attack on inflammatory and inaccurate words cannot be tolerated. How dare the university require truth in advertising!
Not to worry, the York Federation of Students (Canadian Federation of Students Local 68) and the Ryerson Students Union (Canadian Federation of Students Local 24) will not tolerate this action.
They are paying for buses to ship protesters from Toronto to McMaster University on Friday to let the administration of McMaster know what they think.
Great, just what McMaster needs, outsiders coming in and spreading their intolerant rhetoric.
This year has been different from past years in terms of the actions of the “Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights” group. In previous years, they stuck to spreading their literature, hosting nights condemning Israel, but always maintained a level of decorum.
This year, the leadership is more radical and in your face. It’s a shame, I used to be able to respectfully disagree with them. I used to be able to accept them spreading their propaganda as they were careful to not make other students uncomfortable. This year, that seems to be their goal.
In terms of the decision by the university Provost to not allow the display of the phrase “Israeli Apartheid,” I believe it was the right decision. Israel is not an apartheid state. We all know that. There must be some standard of truth on a campus.
What effect did the decision have on the “solidarity movement” – none. They were still able to hold their event, they were still able to rant and rave, their funds were not cut. In short, beyond having a requirement for some level of honesty, the university did not stop this group from holding their event.
The group appealed to the campus human rights office. The campus human rights office stated of the university decision: “The university has taken the position that literature which refers to “Israeli apartheid” and activities promoted under the banner, “Israeli Apartheid Week” are unacceptable. The university takes the position that this phrase is in violation of the university’s efforts to ensure that all people will be treated with dignity and tolerance.”
In short, the human rights office agreed that they were not being discriminated against. The McMaster office is extremely independent of the administration. This should have told the “solidarity movement” that this time they were in the wrong.
Instead, they have gone out and requested that other “solidarity” groups come to McMaster to help them. (The radical element on campus is small and most students at McMaster prefer respectful tolerate debate.) So, this Friday, they will ship in protestors by the bus load. Rant and rave about how horrible everyone else is. Demand the privilege of being intolerant and call all kinds of people names. Should be an interesting show to watch.
All of this will be made possible using student fees paid by students at Ryerson and York. It’s nice to know that Locals 24 and 68 are looking after their students.
Wow. This online diary post is a perfect specimen of the Macleans.ca “On Campus” formula:
1. Ignore the most salient issue (in this case, academic freedom).
2. Demonize students’ unions.
3. Contort the story to make a gratuitous and negative reference to the Canadian Federation of Students.
Don’t call it journalism!
PS. Israel is an apartheid state. At least, I think so. Jimmy Carter agrees. So does Noam Chomsky. Check out their books. And countless others agree, too — many of whom are embedded within academia, and many of whom are not. So, no, Joey, we do not “all know” that Israel is not an apartheid state. Here’s to working against your “standard of truth!”
I’m not sure about the idea of “standard of truth” here. Let’s say you have a claim about some facts in Israel, say this military operation happened, this was the result, such and such laws were passed, etc. That’s something you can probably assess to be lies or not.
Whether Israel is an apartheid state is part an academic/semantic debate, part an attempt to draw similarities which some people might or might not agree to. However, that’s not about the fact themselves, it’s about an analysis of them. It’s like asking whether a behavior is racist or not, or is sexist or not. There is some level of interpretation and debate needed. For one thing, I don’t think it could be libelous because it’s a comment on facts, and not false facts (nevermind the fact that libel only applies to person, you can’t be libelous against a state or organization).
Another example: At U of Ottawa they let the “Israeli Apartheid Week” have posters, at the same time they let JSA-Hillel organize an event about “Israel: the only democracy in the Middle East”. Both affirmations are really debatable, but I think the university choose the appropriate path for an institution dedicated to asking the tough questions, by letting both these statements be openly debated and not censoring either.
I can relate this to the motion that our local students’ association (GSAÉD) proposed at the CFS-Ontario meeting (which passed) to draft a campaign to promote freedom of speech on campus. In this motion we proposed the idea that freedom of speech to the extent of “what is allowed by Canadian law”, not more, not less. This makes university to be at the same level as any public space, which seems at least a reasonable and objective criteria.
Rick:
You said “Ignore the most salient issue (in this case, academic freedom).” Funny how the CFS ‘respects academic freedom’ but essentially denies anyone who supports pro-life in any form the right to express their (academic) opinion in a thoughtful and respectful way without being equated with the KKK (see article ‘We Might Just All Be KKK Members’). I suppose you alos think it is kosher to haul students and staff from other universities to campaign against a student body’s well thought-out decisions. You are slated to come and oppose the BC Defederation movement, aren’t you?
So if you really support abolishing tuition fees as much as you claim in the comments of ‘Put Down the Placards,’ maybe you should skip your flight out west, abolish the student fees that pay for your salary, and everyone goes home happy (maybe except for you!)
Michael wrote:
“Funny how the CFS ‘respects academic freedom’ but essentially denies anyone who supports pro-life in any form the right to express their (academic) opinion in a thoughtful and respectful way without being equated with the KKK”
The Federation did no such thing. The motion that was adopted by the Federation’s dozens of member students’ unions merely reaffirmed the Federation’s pro-choice policy in that students’ unions who choose not to provide resources to anti-choice initiatives shall be supported.
Of course, if you want to de-contextualize a few individual comments at the microphone and then paint an entire organization with them, there’s little I can do to stop you in that rhetorical exercise. That would remain, however, wrong.
By the way, I am not going to BC — although I wish I could. It’s quite obvious to me that students deserve to hear the truth and not this kind of fact-twisting.
Um, so comments made by Shelly Melanson who is the CFS national spokesperson on Women’s Issues, can be dismissed? Tell, is it not her job to provide the CFS position on women’s issues?
Yes, of course, her role includes providing the Federation’s positions on women’s issues.
However, when she was at the microphone, she was clearly NOT providing a position. She was arguing for one — which is an important distinction.
She did not, for example, go to the microphone and say, “As the Federation’s women’s representative, please be advised that the Federation’s position is …”
Rather, she went to the microphone and argued that the Federation position should be _____ for the following reasons: _____.
The Federation position that was adopted, following debate, was NOT that anti-choice positions are the same as the KKK.
Rather, the Federation’s position was clearly provided on paper: that the Federation supports students’ unions that chose not to provide resources to anti-choice initiatives.
Again, no amount of word- and fact-twisting changes the ACTUAL position. Nice try, though.
So it should be dismissed that the CFS women’s representative equates anti-abortion activists with the KKK. Regardless of whether or not this is the official position, it is distrburbing that it would be the motivation for the policy. I wonder how many CFSers think that because anti-abortionists are equated with the KKK, that this policy is a good idea. What do you think Rick? Is opposing abortion similar to being a member of the KKK.?
Yes, your position should be dismissed as a polemical attempt to equate one individual’s motivation for a particular position AS the position of the entire organization. Why? Because, as I have demonstrated, one person’s motivation is not the entire organization’s position. Seems I’ve gotten through!
By the way, Ms. Melanson did not say that “opposing abortion [is] similar to being a member of the KKK.” I reckon that that is not her position; nor is it my own position. Really, it’s just a position that you’ve invented for polemical purposes — isn’t it?
For the record, since your online diary entry does not reflect basic journalistic standards, Ms. Melanson argued that students’ unions are not obligated to support anti-choice initiatives — just as they are not obligated to support any initiative/group/organization with which they disagree.
Of course, using the KKK as an example was a bad idea only because it gives opponents, like yourself, polemical fodder. The fact remains, however, that the Federation position is not what you have tried to imply.
I’m not sure if the debate about the CFS abortion motion and this one are totally the same.
In one case the university is preventing students to display the expression “Israeli Apartheid”. In the other case the CFS chooses to support student unions who “refuse to give resources to anti-choice groups”.
Now, we all know that freedom of speech is not to be equated with the obligation of others to fund your speech, so to speak. Is the university “refusing resources” to students when they altogether ban the display of the words “Israeli Apartheid”, or do they purely censor speech? Well, it depends what you mean by resources, if you consider for example “posting space” as a resource.
So maybe we should differentiate between “passive resources” (think that cost nothing to the students’ union / university, and “active resources” (like direct funding). The university can refuse to fund or sponsor Israeli Apartheid Week event, and students’ unions can refuse to fund or sponsor anti-abortion events, but when they refuse to let students display the phrase “Israeli Apartheid” or distribute flyers against abortion (supposing that the material respects the basic Canadian laws), I think it is going too far and it sets precedent on a whole lot of controversial issues. In fact, if carried to its logical end it means the university should only be used to bring a message on which there is already consensus, which would make the university useless.
I didn’t ask if my position should be dismissed, I asked if Melanson’s position should be dismissed.
And it was Melanson, the CFS national women’s representative, who implied what the federation’s policy is, or, is motivated by, when she said: “You wouldn’t take public money to put in an organization that moves to take away people’s rights; you wouldn’t fund the KKK.” I quote her directly in my original post on this topic. http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2008/02/25/we-might-just-might-all-be-nazis/
If this is not the position of the Federation that is a good thing, and I am glad to hear it. But that still leaves the question why two of the CFS’s spokespeople on women’s issues would compare anti-abortionists to hatemongerers. Perhaps they could be asked, seeing as they have official positions within the Federation, to exercise some restraint, so at the very least pitiful online “diarists” like myself don’t have such easy “polemical fodder.”
Oh my, those students. Now they want us to examine the pattern of Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory, the continual theft of the area allocated to Palestine by the UN since 1967, the passcard systems, the wall and the rest and compare it to Bantustans, passcard systems, and the rest of the South African apartheid system. Why should we allow this? Who needs a discussion of political reality? Just tell them to shut up and live with it, as the Israelis tell the Palestinians. It’s just so unpleasant to have to hear about all this messy reality. Why can’t they just pretend it isn’t happening like Joey Coleman does?
Melanson’s position was to support a specific motion. Her motivation was to liken anti-choice hatred/attacks with the KKK. The anti-choice lobby is not the KKK, obviously, and nobody said that — neither Melanson nor me.
But I would have to agree with Melanson that, like the KKK, attacks from the anti-choice lobby can be terribly hateful and, as I have experienced first hand, very scary — with death threats, and the like.
So, why don’t you just stick to the facts? The Federation position is clear. The policy makes no mention of the KKK. You might have reported that but, no, you have an “anti-CFS” agenda, don’t you?
Interesting that Maclean’s seems to be such a big supporter of anti-CFS diarists.
I prefer the media to be slightly overzealous, rather than underzealous, in supporting open debate. Thus I’m not suprised about the coverage of the CFS motion.
I am surprised and worried, however, that someone who works for any media source, Joey Coleman in this case, would support universities who exercise censorship of ideas, and would claim that some opinions (not facts, opinions) should be ENFORCED as a “standard of truth”.
Philippe
Mr. Marchand,
Lets be clear here, if the university banned the group – I would be writing against censorship by the university. There is nothing of the sort here – the group was allowed to distribute their material, holds their sessions, continue to book classroom space, continue to book space in the student centre, and continue to be a student club. The only thing the university did not allow was a gigantic banner saying “Isreali Apartheid.” I understand that people are passionate about the Middle East conflict, but just because you think Apartheid is a great word to attack to the side you disagree with doesn’t make the opinion valid. There is plenty of fault on all sides of the conflict, but to throw inflammatory words around like ‘Apartheid’ does nothing to advance the peace process. The university merely acted to maintain a civil level of debate and civility in advertising on campus. If somebody were running a “Palestinian Terrorist Awareness Week,” the university would not approve a large poster of that either.
McMaster’s “middle east debate” has been civil for all the years I have been there – the only difference this year is that SPHR has new Toronto-leaning radical leadership who feels a need to be overzealous in both promoting their cause and in their rhetoric.
Um, Rick, I quoted what the actual motion was in the FIRST paragraph of my post. If you forgot here it is again:
“Last month, the Ontario branch of the Canadian Federation of Students voted to sanction the denial of student space to anti-abortion (pro-life, anti-choice, or whatever) groups. The motion reads that `member (unions) that refuse to allow anti-choice organizations access to their resources and space be supported.` “
And nowhere in the post did I write that the CFS position was that anti-abortionists are comparable to members of the KKK. Any inference to that comes from Melanson herself, by the simple fact that she is the national women`s representative for the Federation, and this is how she supported the motion. I don`t need to make the inference, she does it for me. Pardon me for pointing it out.
“There is nothing of the sort here – the group was allowed to distribute their material, holds their sessions, continue to book classroom space, continue to book space in the student centre, and continue to be a student club. The only thing the university did not allow was a gigantic banner saying “Isreali Apartheid.””
So if the banner was smaller it would have been permitted?
In any case, whether McMaster was justified or not considering the details of this case, I still worry about the overall rhetoric you’re using here, including: “There is plenty of fail on all sides of the conflict, but to throw inflammatory words around like ‘Apartheid’ does nothing to advance the peace process.”
Ok, let’s say that’s not a constructive contribution to debate, in your opinion. Does that mean non-constructive contributions to debate should be forbidden? Maybe McMaster only censored a banner, but clearly the argument you’re trying to make about a “standard of truth”, if they made sense, would be applicable to the other materials (flyers, etc.) as well.
Again, I think it’s fair to say that the limits to freedom of speech on campus should be the same given by Canadian law. I see no interest for campuses to censor debates that would be allowed in the streets, it would only make them appear more like some “ivory tower” disconnected from reality.
Kudos to you Joey. It is too seldom these days that student journalists feel able to stand up and defend the truth over rhetoric and the “popular” positions.
There are a couple of important facts to keep in mind that some of your readers attempt to conveniently ignore;
First, and most hilariously, Rick Telfer asserts that Jimmy Carter believes Israel is an apartheid state. Perhaps he decided to just read the title of his book and not the book itself, but in the publicity for his recent book, Carter stated:
“There’s no semblance of anything relating to apartheid within the nation of Israel.”
In addition, according to the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, Apartheid is “inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.”
Israeli Arabs have constitutionally guaranteed equal rights. They are full citizens of Israel; serve in the Knesset (Parliament), in the Cabinet, on the Supreme Court and in universities. In addition, they enjoy the right to freedom of speech including the ability to speak out against the government – a right not available to citizens of Arab countries. Clearly then, Israel does not fulfill the requirements of the definition of Apartheid.
The Palestinians present a unique situation for Israel. Since the Oslo Accords in 1993 and even before that, Israel has supported the right of the Palestinians to national self-determination. Unfortunately, Palestinian extremists and terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah have thwarted efforts for peace and cooperation. Israel’s first duty is to protect its own citizens; Jewish, Muslim, Christian and all the rest. The key thing to remember though is that Israel is not trying to “establish and maintain domination” over the Palestinians, just to ensure the safety of both their own citizens and innocent Palestinians.
The ANC (a black political party in South Africa during Apartheid that often used violence to end apartheid and gain inclusion) sought only inclusion and full political rights for Black South Africans and never the destruction of the state. Hamas, Hezbollah and the other Palestinian nationalist organizations all seek – explicitly – the complete destruction of Israel.
In South Africa a white minority subjugated the black majority and took away their rights. In Israel, all citizens, whether of the Jewish majority or Arab minority are accorded full and equal rights. Suffrage (the right to vote) is universal and there are Arab political parties and Members of the Knesset (Parliament) and there are Arab judges on the Israeli Supreme Court – none of this is possible in an apartheid state.
Anyone who has actually looked at this issue beyond the headlines knows that accusations of apartheid are not only false, they’re insulting to those who suffered under the apartheid regime of South Africa.
Corey: As I said in the previous post, there was a talk at the University of Ottawa about “Israel: The only democracy in the Middle East”, which could be very insulting to say, Lebanese people, as one example.
But that’s beyond the point. The question I raised and which nobody answered is: Why should universities have any interest in forbidding what would be legal in public spaces, per Canadian law? Should people inside campus be “shielded” from that they will see outside the campus anyway? Shouldn’t the campus be the place to open up debate and confront some people’s views?
Again, I respect the right for the university, the students’ association or anyone to refuse to fund such events it does not support, but enforcing speech codes on campus is beyond that point.
Mr. Telfer,
After discussing the Israel-Arab conflict with you in person, I give absolutely no credence to your judgments on Israel. After all, it was you who desperately tried to explain to me that the PLO charter did not call for the destruction of the State of Israel- a blatant falsehood.
I suspect that you offer no analysis of Israel’s governmental character and simply reference other people… is because you can barely find the state that you demonize on a map.
And this is the problem. CFS’s relationship with the anti-israel lobby is completely cynical and divorced from ideological conviction. If the CFS were really worried about apartheid it could direct its efforts to much more blatant offenders like the Islamic Kingdom Saudi Arabia. But it doesn’t and it won’t, because there would be nowhere near the political benefit.
PS Rick,
Last year you refused to allow the Zionists at U of T to use the student postering service to hang up posters at U of T. You saw no problem with the denial of a student service to a group based on ideological grounds, but promised me to write a letter outlining your decision. I’m still waiting to hear why my group was disenfranchised by your team of justice seekers…
Philippe,
I’m not sure to want extent speech codes are being enforced at McMaster, seeing as the event was able to proceed as planned.
That said, I would take issue with not permitting the group to hang these posters up, however much I disagree them. There is so much junk hanging on the walls at universities, griping about this and that cause, that denying space for this one seems a bit of a misnomer. If the university feels the posters are indeed hateful, despite the fact that they are promoting a political opinion, wouldn’t allowing the poster to hang at least draw attention to exactly what the group is about?
Allowing an event that promotes the position that Israel is an “apartheid state” but not allowing the event to be clearly advertised as such makes no sense to me. But I don’t have all the details.
As for your other point, doesn’t denying groups space and funding because the university or the student association doesn’t support the position, imply that funding and space will only be provided to groups that agree with the student union or administration?
Certainly that isn’t the intent, but if space and funding is going to be provided to student groups based on some criteria (ie that the group conducts itself with a certain level of decorum and is open to participation from any student) it shouldn’t matter what the political position is, unless we should deny support for all political student groups.
Otherwise, it is not hard to imagine student groups that support free market economics, or the Conservative party will find themselves being denied student group funding because the student union does “support“ their position.
As a York University grad student, the actions of the YFS never cease to amaze me. They do next to nothing about real problems on campus-such as T.A.’s who hand in marks weeks late, leaving temporary ‘F’s on student transcripts. They call for tuition to be lowered, then demand we vote for higher “Club funding” through another levy. But when a university administration in another city at another university dares to interfere in any way with the endless demonization of the Jewish state, the YFS organizes a bus and posts a letter on the YFS website. No buses for any protests about genocide in Darfur, or occupation of Tibet, or child soldiers in Africa, and no buses to protest Saudi Arabia’s sentencing of rape victims to lashing. I dream of the day when the YFS deals with the REAL apartheid in Arab states:
1) Jews forbidden from owning land in Jordan.
2) Copts not allowed to repair churches in Egypt without government permission
3) Separate highways for non-Muslims in Saudi Arabia, and a ban on female drivers in Saudi Arabia.
4) Expulsion of Jews from every Arab state and confiscation of Jewish property since 1948.
I could go on forever. The bottom line is that “Solidarity” movements obsess over Israel, a country so small that it is barely visible on a map, while ignoring real oppression all over the Middle East. The YFS should be dissolved and everyone should get a tuition refund at York.
I would just like to fix a few of the wrong facts which seem to be causing the issues currently.
McMaster University did not say that the group could not use the phrase “Isreal Apartheid” nor did they cause any hardship to hold the event. What did however happen was there was a flyer which had a picture of a soldier beating a child. This picture was considered gross and poorly chosen. It was in violation of the Universities Anti-violence policy.
There was no freedoms infringed upon, and what people do believe happened did not. I am interested in seeing what happens at the protest.
“As for your other point, doesn’t denying groups space and funding because the university or the student association doesn’t support the position, imply that funding and space will only be provided to groups that agree with the student union or administration?”
I don’t think this is exempt to criticism to make this distinction, still I believe space and funding are different. If you give space for all student groups to put up posters, it’s one thing. If you fund a particular group, you might be criticized for supporting their cause. Requests for funding usually go to some committee or council which takes a decision by majority vote, so it’s a political decision (which, in principle, should take into account the interest of a majority of the members), much more than allowing posters on walls. Maybe it’s only a difference of degree (funding is more “direct” support than allowing presence in student space), though.
Patrick Adler wrote:
“After discussing the Israel-Arab conflict with you in person, I give absolutely no credence to your judgments on Israel. After all, it was you who desperately tried to explain to me that the PLO charter did not call for the destruction of the State of Israel- a blatant falsehood.”
Sorry, Patrick. Do you have the right person? I have no recollection of me trying to “desperately explain” anything to you — and certainly not in regards to the PLO’s charter. I imagine your extremism clouds your memory.
As for your posters, I recall that, ultimately, only one of them was denied because of its imagery. As I remember, the picture projected a distortion of truth. I hardly believe that your group was “disenfranchised.” Well done on playing victim, though.
Corey,
Here’s the real giggle. I didn’t cite anything from Carter’s book. However, in 2006, Haaretz reported the following:
“Former U.S. president Jimmy Carter said in remarks broadcast Monday that Israeli policy in the West Bank represented instances of apartheid worse even that those that once held sway in South Africa.”
I suppose that’s “hilarious” to you, too.
Um, as general manager of UTSU, I find it odd that Rick didn’t mention that UofT sent twice as many students as York and Ryerson to the rally – there were two buses at Hart House Friday morning.
Also, what is the cost regarding this measure? It’s one bus, fer sure, but could the money have been better spent on something else regarding the students of the actual universities, rather than a bus sending a few somewhere else? But then again, I guess the point was that a bus full of students is much harder to ignore than say, a huge petition with the signatures of many more people.
Disagree with Joey all you want, but he has a point regarding the issue of never conceding defeat. A group like Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights won’t stop fighting until their position is seen as accepted and/or in the majority. They simply think it’s right, and it’s extremely hard convincing them otherwise when they have support pouring in like this.
Joey’s first comment/lead has to be said – why is something happening at McMaster being swamped by student participation from three Toronto universities? If anything, it reinforces the painful idea about an issue’s level of importance once ‘Toronto’ steps in.
Apartheid means a policy or system of segregation or discrimination based on race according to The concise Oxford Dictionary. The slogan of MacMaster students sounds provocative and probably an interesting issue to hear about. The ligitamacy of the sovereignty of Isreal has been an issue for many Palestinians. But having a European background where countries had constantly waged war on each other and occupied, I do not empathise. I think it is a simple matter of politics and a very complicated one given that Jews were victims of the Holocaust. Further, I do not know much about history, but how did Israelites loose their homeland to muslems? It wasn’t by war was it?
As a York student I fully agree with the York Student Federation on their position not to fund the pro-choice debate. Abortion is a right guaranteed to women in Canada. Like other rights and freedoms given to members in our society I do not have the right to question their legitamacy without infringing on their rights. My freedom of expression does not qualify me to make statements that would ask others to conform, offend, intimidate, or belittle by questioning ethics that are not based on scientific facts or the current law. Further, as a paying customer I think the York Student Federation is obligated to respect my rights and liberties.
To “Comment by Jonathan on 28 February 2008″:
The claim you raised about non-Muslims having separate high-ways is absolutely false. Be sure to get your info correctly in the future.