Sid Ryan Bites Back
UPE Ontario has stood up against human rights abuses all over the world and in our own country and we will continue to do so.
Some have claimed targeting Israel for a boycott rather than other countries that commit human rights abuses is anti-Semitic. In the 1960s, Canada played a major role in an international boycott of South Africa. That highly successful effort included academic, political, economic, cultural and sports boycotts. The goal was to end apartheid.
When Canada boycotted South Africa, no one suggested at the time it couldn't be done because we weren't boycotting other countries perpetrating human rights violations, like Chile where the military dictator, Augusto Pinochet, ruled his country with violent human rights abuse and corruption.
CUPE Ontario has a long and proud history of being at the forefront of protecting human rights at home and abroad. We have spoken out on human rights violations in Ireland, Columbia, Guatemala, Iran and Egypt.
CUPE Ontario pressured our municipal pension plan to divest from Talisman, a Canadian oil company, when it came to light that the revenues were being used to finance a civil war in Sudan.
It's not comfortable being a target of such vehement personal attacks, but complicit silence would be worse.
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/2009/01/19/8067891-sun.html
Not enough guts to stick with his original plan to boycott individuals, though. Now it's institutions. I smell Liquid Paper.
I don't. I see clarification, after a group of people with a definite pro-Israeli agenda deliberately distroted the intention of some off the cuff comments, through prevarication on point, in order to smear the only politician clearly opposed to Israeli apartheid. .
"after a group of people with a definite pro-Israeli agenda deliberately distroted the intention of some off the cuff comments, through prevarication on point, in order to smear the only politician clearly opposed to Israeli apartheid. ."
Speaking of smears.
I guess it's unimaginable to you that anyone might actually oppose a boycott of individuals. It's just GOTTA be that they want to see Palestine erased from the map or something, eh?
Anyway, what you're generously trying to spin as "clarification", I'm going to maintain is a bit of Soviet-style revisionism. You don't clarify something by making it suddenly vanish and replacing it with something else.
Sorry, but your hero simply isn't brave enough to stick to his original statement.
The whole arguement about individuals is prevarication. Sorry, it was designed to make innocent people like you fall for it by appealing to the individuals rights of free expression, and so on and so forth. At what point does a person stop representing themself, as an "Israeli academic", and start representing the institution they work for, as an "Israeli academic"?
We can this arguement about this "definition" of when someone stops being and individual, and starts being a funtionary of an Israeli academic institution all day long, because it is really ineffable, without discreet definitions.
And that proves my point in its entirety. To hash this over and put the worst possible construction on Sid's off-the-cuff comment, about "Israeli academics" is prevarication on point. My case in a point, does he mean: "Israeli academics" as representatives of an institution, or "Israeli academics" as individuals?
Those who wanted to attack Ryan, did so by choosing to assert the latter definition over the former. You fell for it. Too bad.
This prevarication on point about the rights of "individuals", is being used to smear by exstension the whole campaign of boycott and divestment, as essentially biased and prejudiced against Jews specifically. And that is the basis of the moral attack, not the rights of "individuals". The arguement about "individuals" is intended to cause confusion, and drag people along in the anti-boycott campaign, or at least have them stand aside in the face of the status quo.
"This prevarication on point about the rights of "individuals", is being used to smear by exstension the whole campaign of boycott and divestment"
Really? Seems to me that a lot of responders were just fine with a boycott... just not a boycott of individuals. Want to get Israeli corporations out of the pension fund? Fine. Want to bar some Israeli professor of neurology unless he swears an oath? I don't think it's unreasonable, nor do I think it's indicative of Zionist Quisling status, to not agree with that.
For a person so sensitive to smearing, you certainly seem to go that well a lot.
Sid Ryan is a grownup. If he didn't want people to focus on what he said, he should have chosen to say something else.
For some "unimportant" wording, they sure did erase it from the record pretty quickly, huh? Thank god for the web. In the old days they had to go around to everyone who owned the book and cut out that page. Now you can just replace the page, and if it weren't for Google's cache, nobody would be the wiser.
Now you are seriously going to have this debate about individuals vs representatives.
My case in a point, does he mean: "Israeli academics" as representatives of an institution, or "Israeli academics" as individuals?
Those who wanted to attack Ryan, did so by choosing to assert the latter definition over the former. They are in fact "both" of course.
My case in a point, does he mean: "Israeli academics" as representatives of an institution, or "Israeli academics" as individuals?
Given that he was willing to make an exception for academics who were willing to swear The Oath, I think it's pretty clear that he was referring to individuals.
It sure sounded to me like if Professor A from Tel Aviv University was willing to denounce the occupation, but Professor B from Tel Aviv University was not, Professor A would be welcome.
If it were institutional, neither would be welcome, or both would. And who'd say the oath on behalf of the University?
Exactly, the point about the so called "oath" is that it would allow the individual to clearly seperate themselves from their role as an Israeli Academic representating and Israeli institution. That was the point.
The approach has been changed because this construction of the appeal has proven to be easily exploited.
That doesn't even make sense. An academic's personal beliefs neither make them a "representative" or their employer nor distance them from their employer.
But at any rate, it's clear that individuals who mouth the oath would not have been boycotted, and individuals who won't mouth it would be. You seem to have understood that it was about individuals all along.
The approach has been changed because this construction of the appeal has proven to be easily exploited.
No, it was painted over because Sid was getting heat for having proposed a bad idea on behalf of thousands of CUPE members. The appeal wasn't "easily exploited", it was wrongheaded.
Notice, though, that contrary to your gratuitous smear above, people aren't up in arms about the new appeal? Huh. You'd think that as paid agents of Zion, they'd be criticizing that one too, but nobody seems to be.
Position A: Boycott all Israeli academic institutions: no student exchange programs, no joint research or publishing projects, no visiting professorships, no guest lecturers, no sabbaticals, no scholarships, no attendance at academic conferences and symposia, NO EXCEPTIONS.
Position B: Same as position A, except that, in order to alleviate unnecessary hardship to individuals who are genuine allies of the Palestinian struggle, an exception may be made.
Sid Ryan picks Position B, and suddenly Position A magically morphs into a boycott of individuals, not institutions?
Snert's position makes no sense at all.
No, it's Position B, Sid Ryan's position, that's a boycott of individuals. Specifically, it's a boycott of the individuals who won't swear the oath.
I didn't think that was ever unclear.
Hey, snert, why don't you try to be more like Ryan and actually stand for something rather than representing snide, snivelling attacks on a Canadian with guts - just the thing labour leaders are supposed to be.
No, it's Position B, Sid Ryan's position, that's a boycott of individuals. Specifically, it's a boycott of the individuals who won't swear the oath.
I didn't think that was ever unclear.
You are looking at it ass-backwards, of course.
Would you be happier with Position A, which collaterally punishes those few individual Israeli academics who are actually our allies? Sid Ryan is taking shit from the Zionist lobby (and you) merely because he wants to be flexible enough not to hurt his allies.
And here's a news flash: Position A is as much a boycott of individuals as Position B; the only difference is that fewer individuals suffer under Position B.
Can do! Tonight, while everyone's asleep, I'll edit all my posts and then tomorrow I'll just pretend I never said any of this stuff.
As everyone seems to want to note, "worked with South Africa".
And it's consistent. And it doesn't force people into the utterly disgusting situation of having to swear an oath. Surely the "allies" would understand?
Where did Sid Ryan say anything about "swearing an oath"?
This is an urban legend started by the Zionists and repeated mindlessly by babblers who are too lazy to look at what Ryan is really saying.
As for the South Africa boycotts, the opponents of apartheid went to great lengths to try to avoid causing unnecessary hardship to their allies in South Africa.
You, however, prefer "consistency". Bully for you.
The approach has been changed because this construction of the appeal has proven to be easily exploited.
No, it was painted over because Sid was getting heat for having proposed a bad idea on behalf of thousands of CUPE members. The appeal wasn't "easily exploited", it was wrongheaded.
Notice, though, that contrary to your gratuitous smear above, people aren't up in arms about the new appeal? Huh. You'd think that as paid agents of Zion, they'd be criticizing that one too, but nobody seems to be.
Then you haven't been reading the papers or even this board. The main line of attack on Ryan is that he is a closet anti-semite, who is singling out Israel, and by extension all Jews. This smear even appeared directly as part of the discussion we had on the last thread about this topic, where a poster (scc)chimed in:
That is the main line of attack.
The issue of "individual rights" has made hardly a blip on the radar, anywhere but here and in academic circles. Though conveniently it acts as weak point where all this other crap is leveraged in, so as to immobilize opposition to Israeli polcies with the anti-semtism charge.
Your nuancing of this by making a big issue of the technical details of what constitutes a persons individual right, against the responsibilities, of the institutions they work for, in order to distance yourself from the Zionist crowd, is to make an issue of trivia in the face of the grotesque manipulation of the meaning of the word anti-semetism to mean anything that impugns Israel, in order to distract from the horendous war crimes Israel is committing in Gaza, which is what this attack is about.
The Zionists are not at all interested in protecting the individual rights of Israeli professors, they are interested in Israel being able to continue to violate the individual rights of Palestinian, free from criticism, and above all, any kind of effective action to limit the excesses of the state they are protecting.
HereHere is the original CUPE press release, still in Google's cache. Here's the salient point, emphasis mine:
Say it and the boycott doesn't apply to you. Don't say it and it does. Doesn't get much simpler than that.
This is an urban legend started by the Zionists and repeated mindlessly by babblers who are too lazy to look at what Ryan is really saying.
Who's too lazy? The Zionists?
Need any crow sauce for your crow?
Why yes, I seem to remember that the boycott didn't apply to any individual willing to be photographed hugging a black man. Gimme a break.
Why not just concede that Ryan really stepped on his own pecker and move on? You seem really determined to defend his honour.
edited to add --
Notice at the top of the Google page, it says:
Even the search engine knows what happened! :D
1. Sid Ryan has been the most consistent and staunch among CUPE leaders (and indeed among almost all union leaders in Canada) in advocating action against the Israeli apartheid state.
2. Sid Ryan, however, made a couple of tactical errors, both of which he has publicly retracted. This should help us to shut up the pro-Israel fanatics who jumped for joy at his errors, seeing in them a way to fraudulently divert and discredit the growing calls for BDS.
3. We should not waste one more second defending Sid's errors, which he himself has renounced, thus playing into the hands of the damned enemy.
4. I have little optimism that these four points will make any difference to the ongoing utterly diversionary dogfight that has been haunting this board on this issue.
Notably, the boycott did not extend to Black people. Where does that put your "individual rights" thesis, now? Was it racist that the boycott excluded black South Africans? Would it be racist to exclude Israeli-Arabs from the Boycott?
Hmmm?
Good for Sid Ryan, his new stance is honourable and deserves support.
There's points on the individual worth institutions distinction that could be made (and there is a Position C), but maybe time to move on now.
Who's too lazy? The Zionists?
Um, no, that would be you, who mindlessly parroted the accusation about "forcing people into the utterly disgusting situation of having to swear an oath," only to find, when you actually bothered to read the original statement, that there was no oath-swearing involved at all!
What else could you be bullshitting about, I wonder?
Why yes, I seem to remember that the boycott didn't apply to any individual willing to be photographed hugging a black man. Gimme a break.
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about, and so resort to sarcasm when confronted by the truth.
This is wrong. I continue to commend Brother Moist for taking a stand against bigotry.
If only he had. If only he had. And at the same time, he could have taken a stand against murder, oppression, colonization, war crimes, and gross violations of human rights. Instead, he chose to take a stand against a brother who did do those things. Shameful indeed.
It appears that the international movement behind the Israeli academic boycott favours what I called Position A, upthread at #10. That is, a boycott with no exceptions made for individual allies of the Palestinian struggle.
Here's how the position was formulated four years ago:
When cast as an economic boycott, therefore, an academic boycott implies that all academics at Israeli institutions should be boycotted, and Israeli academics working abroad would be exempted. Similarly, non-Jewish academics at Israeli institutions also would be boycotted.
Sid Ryan attempted to soften the impact of the academic boycott on the tiny handful of allies of the Palestinian struggle in the Israeli academy by proposing individual exemptions, before he was persuaded to back off. It is therefore highly ironic that he should be pilloried by the Zionists and the right wing of his own union as a bigot and a racist for deviating from the strict international boycott position, which the Zionists and the right wing union bureaucrats oppose anyway.
That's politics.
It's wise not to put oneself in the position of deciding who's 'worthy'.
It's a morass. Lesson learned.
Hey, it's not really that hard to pick out the handful of Israeli academics who are supporters of the Palestinians. They are well known to the Palestinians and Israelis alike. That's not the problem with Ryan's position.
The problem is with failing to treat the academic boycott as just another component of a comprehensive economic boycott of Israel - the kind of boycott in which it is impractical to take into consideration the collateral hardship to individuals who may be at least partly sympathetic to the cause.
Only Black citizens?
But what of white "allies" who were willing to raise their right hand and denounce apartheid? Weren't they given the option to retain their trade and investment options if they did?
But otherwise, I would suggest that a boycott of white Afrikaaners but not Black Africans would be most similar to a boycott of Israel, but not Palestine, and not at all similar to Ryan's real proposition with the oaths and the exceptions for individuals.
Holy purity test.
Sid Ryan wanted a boycott against individual academics, with exceptions for his "allies" and is therefore a courageous and noble hero.
Paul Moist doesn't support the boycott against individuals or the exceptions based on worthiness, and for that he's a craven coward and an enemy of the people.
I'm genuinely surprised nobody is accusing him of being a pur laine Zionist.
Evidently support for any sanctions that do not involve Ryan-style oath swearing is incontrovertable evidence of indifference to the plight of Palestine, and probably closet support for Israel too.
Really?
Then Ryan should have just listed them. What's the need for public denunciations of the occupation if these supporters are already known?
It's the whole idea of the ideological purity test that people find repugnant about Ryan's plan, so if he could have left that part out, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.
And since you feel such a compulsion to continue to defend his plan, I guess we'll keep having it.
It appears that the international movement behind the Israeli academic boycott favours what I called Position A, upthread at #10. That is, a boycott with no exceptions made for individual allies of the Palestinian struggle.
Good find, M. Spector, and I'm glad to read that, because that is my position as well. A boycott is a boycott. My problem with Sid Ryan is his lack of effectiveness in putting the position forward. He should stick to his guns, but figure out whether they are loaded first. Otherwise, and I know we are repeating ourselves, our enemies get to scream about Ryan and about some of the debatable fringe aspects of boycott, instead of the debate being situated where it must be - the urgent need to embark on the BDS campaign and start mobilizing one organization and institution and government after another to get on board.
It's hard to stand up to the Zionist lobby. Sid is a man of great courage, and that is why he is opposed by the Stockholms and Paul Moists of the NDP.
The very term "Zionist lobby" is anti-semitic and implies that Jews control world events. Sounds like far-right white supremacists going on about the world being controlled by "ZOG" (Zionist Occupation Government).
If you want to talk about there being a "pro-the policies of the current Israeli government lobby" that's fine. Leave all this use of the word "Zionist" as a term of derision to the rightwing loonies - unless you wnat your position to be discredited.
And a strike picket line is a strike picket line. You will admit, however, that it is not uncommon for sympathetic individuals to be allowed to cross a picket line for a purpose that does not harm the strike or the position of the union members.
Enemies of the union movement might seize upon such exceptions as proving that the picket line is discriminatory against individuals. You and I know better.
Quite right. That explains the position of our enemies. But it doesn't explain the position of our supposed friends, like Paul Moist.
It's the whole idea of the ideological purity test that people find repugnant about Ryan's plan, so if he could have left that part out, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.
And since you feel such a compulsion to continue to defend his plan, I guess we'll keep having it.
Not with me, you won't.
I refuse to debate with people who continue to repeat lies after the truth has been pointed out to them.
You're still prattling on about "oaths" - repeated twice in your latest fevered screed - even though you know it's a lie. That's beneath contempt.
I tend to agree with Unionist, but agree that Moist could have been more subtle.
Only Black citizens?
But what of white "allies" who were willing to raise their right hand and denounce apartheid? Weren't they given the option to retain their trade and investment options if they did?
Now you are changing the playing field and talking about investments, institutions and organization, not individual rights. Is this because you are having trouble keeping your definition about the seperation between individual rights, and their responsibiities to the organziations they are involved with straight?
What exactly do you think Apartheid was about?
I refuse to debate with people who continue to repeat lies after the truth has been pointed out to them.
You're still prattling on about "oaths" - repeated twice in your latest fevered screed - even though you know it's a lie.
I'll leave it to any reasonable reader to decide whether boycotting an individual unless they explicitly condemn the university bombing and the assault on Gaza in general constitutes demanding an oath or not. Sure sounds like one to me. And those bolded words are Sid Ryan's exact words from his original press release, so I trust you'd agree that whether or not Sid Ryan said them is beyond debate.
I'll also leave it to the reasonable reader to decide for themself which of us is the liar.
Can't say I have a lot of sympathy for people who are unwilling to denounce said massacre.
The same could be said for people who won't denounce terrorism, or violence in general. Who likes people who won't publicly declare their distaste for terrorism and violence? Who should feel badly if someone doesn't care to have to raise their hand and say so?
No it can not. These ideas "terrorism" "violence" and so on and so forth are abstract nouns, with definitional lattitude, most often influenced by ideological viewpoint. The recent massacre in Gaza is an historical fact, with definite attributes, and a clear context in the actual facts of the Isreali occupation.
Putting this in the category of the "debatable" is like suggesting the "facts" of the Holocaust are debatable, in general terms. It's not "debatable". Moreover, I have yet to hear an spokeperson of the Israeli government or the IDF deny the scale of the slaughter in any substantial way, except to justify its cause. Other than that, they seem perfectly happy with their "object lesson" in brutality, as calculated by the UN and Palestinian health officials.
It is a historical fact. It is totally different than generalized opinions about "terrorism" or "violence". Now you have a choice condemn it as a massacre, or not?
Oh pishooey on your "terrorism and violence" who-hates-mother-and-apple-pie spin job, snert!
Can Hamas be "terrorists" if they are fighting for the freedom and the very lives of their people, hundreds of whom were just massacred? (imo, no: They are freedom fighters ... remember? ... the ones we used to help?)
Is George Bush a terrorist if he cooks up an excuse to attack Iraq on the eve of nationalization of their oil resources? (imo yes), and he then tries the same stunt in Venuzuela? (imo yes).
Stop with the anti-intelligent scare tactics ffs! We've had too many years of that low life crap.
Your terrorist Bush regime was nasty and ill-intentioned and subverted and manipulated the people and sent innocents to die for personal financial gains, under the guise of "freedom and democracy".
... but DING DONG THE WITCH IS DEAD! Get over it!
-ed to add-
Cueball and I posted at the same time, and I think we are on a similar wave length.
I believe we should defeat or neutralize enemies and win over fence-sitters. I don't believe we should alienate all possible allies, even inconsistent and weak-kneed ones, by condemning them as enemies. And I am as tired of this canonization of Sid Ryan as I am disgusted by his demonization (see "Winnifred" above - shame!). If the BDS movement needs a leader, it will need a more skilful one than he.
The very term "Zionist lobby" is anti-semitic and implies that Jews control world events. Sounds like far-right white supremacists going on about the world being controlled by "ZOG" (Zionist Occupation Government).
Oh step outside and breathe for a while. There can be a powerful lobby that is successful at raising money and exerting influence without there being a world-wide "ZOG" conspiracy.
I'm not sure about this, but I do recall how the cultural boycott of South Africa prevented musicians such as the members of the mixed-race band, Juluka, from performing in Europe.
And I am as tired of this canonization of Sid Ryan as I am disgusted by his demonization (see "Winnifred" above - shame!). If the BDS movement needs a leader, it will need a more skilful one than he.
Right now, Sid Ryan, for all his faults, is the best-known trade union spokesperson for the BDS campaign in Canada. He is fearless and outspoken - exactly what is needed. As a result he is a magnet for all the anti-labour, pro-Zionist, right-wing crap that people can muster against the campaign, and I think that his allies in the struggle ought to cut him a lot of slack, at least until a more skilful leading spokesperson comes along. That's my idea of building alliances.
People who rush to disassociate themselves and their unions from Ryan's BDS campaign are doing mischief to the cause.
If only he had. If only he had. And at the same time, he could have taken a stand against murder, oppression, colonization, war crimes, and gross violations of human rights. Instead, he chose to take a stand against a brother who did do those things. Shameful indeed.
Of course you do. And yet Bernie Farber feels no need to disown or distance himself from the hatred expressed in words and death by Israelis or even Jews who support that same hatred expressed in words and death against innocent Palestinians. When Farber recognizes and disowns his own complicity in that hate, let me know.
Working undercover?
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/1/22/part_ii_palestinian_us_college_gra...
in case the focus is slipping...
Working undercover?
And I do agree that if there are pro-Israeli protestors that engage in death calls against Palestinian Canadians Farber must denounce it. Put the video here and lets see if he does.
Death calls? It seems to me Farber was denouncing anti-semitism at the pro-Palestinian protests. And yet, he has not denounced, ever, racist comments emanating from Israelis against Palestinians. And never mind "death calls". Wouldn't it have been nice for him to denounce the indiscriminate murder of Palestinian civilians by the Israeli military machine? What about the criminal use of white phosphorous now, finally, admitted, at least in part, by Israel? Why doesn't he condemn that? In fact, have you?
Right now, Sid Ryan, for all his faults, is the best-known trade union spokesperson for the BDS campaign in Canada. He is fearless and outspoken - exactly what is needed. As a result he is a magnet for all the anti-labour, pro-Zionist, right-wing crap that people can muster against the campaign, and I think that his allies in the struggle ought to cut him a lot of slack, at least until a more skilful leading spokesperson comes along. That's my idea of building alliances.
People who rush to disassociate themselves and their unions from Ryan's BDS campaign are doing mischief to the cause.
Your position puts Sid Ryan as an individual, ahead of the campaign. Ryan set back the campaign by ham-handed idiocy in selling it -- and let's be honest, this is a campaign that needs to be SOLD to the Canadian public. If the BDS campaign is the priority, then make it the priority.
Show me the trade union leader who is going to sell the BDS campaign better than Ryan, and I'll support him or her. Until then, I'm backing Ryan.
There was nothing ham-handed about Ryan's statement. People who don't really support the BDS campaign twisted what he said to try to paint him and the BDS campaign as anti-semitic. Example: see Snert above.
Working undercover?
And I do agree that if there are pro-Israeli protestors that engage in death calls against Palestinian Canadians Farber must denounce it. Put the video here and lets see if he does.
Your story is getting a little weird Winnifred. You say you heard some things at the rally you attended that distressed you. Yet you say nothing specific, then you link us to an article, which also has nothing specific in it, except for some allusions to translation from Arabic.
What precisely did you hear when you attended this event, where was it, and how good is your Arabic?
I think Ryan is overexcited and a little too zealous, but nowhere have I tried to suggest that he (or a sensible boycott/divestment campaign) are anti-semitic.
I'm afraid your imagination is running away with you. Maybe you need to take a break? Clear your head? Or just learn to read, maybe?
I thought it was BDSM.
Im not terribly surprised you disagree with the "writer" you are in good company here at babble. Not sure which rally you were at but Id be interested in knowing. And what is it that you heard exactly?
Hey ohara I heard you had a good time at Peter Kent's victory celebration. If you hate babble so much, why are you here? We don't need the Thought Police here.
I was at an antiIsraeli rally in downtown Toronto a few weeks ago maybe the 10th. I heard some peop;e chanting something like "Jews commit genocide". I saw many swatikas suggesting a comparitive to Jews (= the star of david). It was very unpleasant.
Um, hello!
Israel was committing genocide in Gaza.
Its not as if its the Arabs fault that the Israeli's put the Star of David on their flag.
I know, even Bernie Farber, is interested in what people say they heard or saw at these protests. After all, its not really important wether or not any of these things purportedly said, are actually anti-semitic, all that is really important, is for the rumour to get around. Nothing has to be proven in court, or any such thing, just having the RCMP investigate is enough to intimidate Arab immigrants from voicing their opinions, or having them reported in the press in an unbiased manner without being slandered as "possible" anti-semites.
Bernie Farber knows this very well, and is a cagey political operator, and completely unprincipled in his manipulation and distortion for political ends.
Tut tut tut. Poor you. If only Gazans knew about your distressing experience, they would stop whining about how Israel tried to help them get rid of Hamas over the past weeks.
Show me the trade union leader who is going to sell the BDS campaign better than Ryan, and I'll support him or her. Until then, I'm backing Ryan.
There was nothing ham-handed about Ryan's statement. People who don't really support the BDS campaign twisted what he said to try to paint him and the BDS campaign as anti-semitic. Example: see Snert above.
(1) Ideally, shouldn't the leadership of this campaign belong to Palestinians, and -- arguably -- longstanding Palestine solidarity groups, with others acting in support? Must Canadian trade unions take ownership?
(2) I'd suggest that to build the campaign, it's important to broaden the circle of support. It seems me that Ryan's early stance narrowed the circle of support and was, minimally, a tactical blunder. He seems smart enough to realize that and take a more effective stance now. You, on the other hand, refer to "true supporters" as if some of us here are less true. That defines people out of the movement you want to see happen. Maybe that movement would be purer, but it would be too small to have any effect on the Israeli state.
(3) Those who insist on making defence of Sid Ryan a central issue, and smearing others as insufficiently pure, are also narrowing the circle of support. For BDS to work, it needs to be supported by people that you may not like, or I may not like. It needs to be supported by millions. If the clear crimes against humanity in Gaza are front and centre, that's possible. If continued if it's about defence of Sid Ryan, even after he himself has backed down, and about shouting at people who basically agree on the need to get sanctions etc on the Israeli government, then it's bound to fail.
(4) Who's tried to paint anyone as anti-semitic? The closest I see here is Stockholm saying that the term "Zionist lobby" is an anti-semitic term. As far as I can tell, people taking part here are in agreement with the BDS strategy, but differ on the tactics. Maybe that's naive of me, but it's my reading of most posts.
Of course the leadership comes from the Palestinians themselves - they were the ones who called for the BDS campaign originally. But in Canada at least it must be broader-based than just the Palestinian community. Labour unions must get on board. In the absence of any leadership from the Parliamentary political parties, labour must take political action on its own.
Yes, trade unions must be politically active and outspoken on working class political issues, both domestic and foreign. Do you disagree?
The people who are publicly criticizing Ryan are not criticizing him for deviating from the "Total boycott, no exceptions" position. They are criticizing him from the other side - the right-wing, Zionist side. The side that regards any action against Israeli institutions and their stooges as anti-semitism and discrimination. They may claim to be champions of "human rights", but they never were, and never will be, allies of the BDS movement.
Bernie Farber of CJC accused Ryan of "entering into the dark realm of anti-Semitism" and added, "It's incredulous [sic] to me that nobody has challenged Mr. Ryan nationally at CUPE." Obviously Paul Moist at CUPE national office was listening to Farber because he chimed in with his own denunciation of Ryan that talked about Ryan violating "the anti-discrimination standards set out in the CUPE Constitution."
Meanwhile, I never heard any public criticism of Ryan's position from the Palestinian and other activists in the BDS campaign movement.
With the line thus drawn in the sand, some babblers elected to stand on the side of Farber and Moist, while others stood with Ryan and the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel.
The only smearing going on is against Ryan. Those who insist on demonizing Sid Ryan as a bigot because he wants to keep academic supporters of Israeli apartheid out of Canada were never inside the "circle of support." They want to undermine the BDS campaign by making it all about the "individual rights" of fascist university professors who work to uphold the system of apartheid and the siege of the occupied territories. They go out of their way to invent statements and attribute them to Ryan (like the myth of requiring an "ideological purity oath" from Israeli academics) rather than to deal with what he actually said.
Most important, they frame their criticisms in the context of trying to weaken and ridicule the boycott campaign, not strengthen it.
I don't have to be defending Sid Ryan when I denounce those who want to discredit the very idea of an academic boycott of Israel. They are no friends of the Palestinians, regardless of anything Sid Ryan may have said.
I don't know where you get that idea, because I haven't seen it. What I have seen is not a disagreement on tactics, but a fundamental political difference between those who support an academic boycott and those who don't.
Wow another thread where ohara shows up. In all my years here, this poster only posts to defend Israel at all costs. Some would think the internet war is fake(with regards to mossad). This posters habits would indicate otherwise. I may not agree with stock on this issue but at least he contributes to the board when there isn't Israel threads.
I talked to Sid when he was on a tour with Maude Barlow. He has had both anger against his stand and people like myself who have wanted to thank him for actually saying something. He mentioned that when he gets a chance to explain to the locals his position in person there is usually a softening on their stand. When facts are presented it takes a hard head to throw them all out the window.
Speaking of hate crimes:
Army rabbi 'gave out hate leaflet to troops'
I guess preventing this guy from speaking at a Canadian university, where he could enjoin young Canadian Jews to move to Israel, join the IDF, and express the best they can be by being cruel to Palestinians would be an infringement of his rights, and worse still do damage to the intellectual environment of Canadian institutions of higher education.
I'm still waiting for Bernie Farber and Winnifred to distance themselves and even denounce racist comments made against Jews and Arabs by Israeli/Zionist supporters. It hasn't happened. And while Israel's defenders continue to lie about why they killed so many civilians, and while others would rather attack Ryan than the problem (perhaps distraction is the aim?) we have this ...
It said one urged soldiers to "spare your lives and the lives of your friends and not to show concern for a population that surrounds us and harms us..."
"Kill the one who comes to kill you. As for the population, it is not innocent," the daily quoted the pamphlet as saying.
Where is Bernie's denounciations of this racist hate mongering? Is that crickets I hear?
But let's not focus on Ryan's call for a boycott, let's focus on Ryan the man instead because petty, small-minded politics are always so much fun when you need to take the public mind of the Israeli carnage.
We can now see how the sniping and backbiting directed at Sid Ryan by the Zionists and their stooges in the labour movement has weakened the boycott campaign.
An article in the Toronto Star yesterday about CUPE Ontario university workers voting to endorse the BDS campaign was at great pains to point out that the university workers were not calling for a boycott of Israeli academics. As a result, an entirely unwarranted and undeserved exemption from the academic boycott has now been created for all Israeli academics, regardless of how much they give ideological and material support to Israeli apartheid and aggression.
Although the motion didn't call for a boycott of individual Israeli academics - as some union members had suggested last month - it encourages union locals to publicly discuss boycotting Israeli universities and to push Canadian universities to end any research or investments that could benefit the Israeli army....
Delegates representing university workers in CUPE's Ontario branch, which represents 200,000 government and other public sector workers, voted on the motion at a meeting in Windsor....
The boycott, however, stopped short of calling for Canadian universities to ban Israeli academics, an idea previously floated by CUPE Ontario President Sid Ryan.
"(We want to) do what we can in a peaceful way to end the occupation of Palestine," Ryan said, adding that the idea of the motion is to boycott research that helps the Israeli military and to investigate any ties between Canadian universities and Israel, not to ban individual Israeli professors.
And thus CUPE Ontario university workers have been intimidated by their national president and the Zionist lobby into effectively gutting the academic boycott, rendering it all but ineffectual. It also puts CUPE out of step with the international boycott campaign, which very clearly includes a boycott of Israeli academics.
Why won't Ryan back a boycott of Sri Lankan academics as well? Does he ever take an interest in ANY issue in the world that doesn't involve Israel?
Honestly, for Ryan's own good - he would gain a lot of credibility if instead of always singling out Israel to the exclusion of any other country on earth - he would at least go through the motions of also condemning a few other particularly odious regimes. Then when people accuse him of "singling out" Israel - he could say "no,the only thing I single out is atrocity and injustice wherever it happens" and then he could proudly point to CUPE resolutions attacking other dasterdly countries as proof that Israel is just one of several countries that he wants to take action against. By ONLY ever spekaing on Israel and letting all other countries get off scot-free - Ryan is only succeeding in giving his opponents ammunition.
Stockholm, maybe you should read the first post in the thread.
OH SNAP!
Never ask Stockholm to read anything. He doesn't read.
what I do not understand is why this resolution was even needed. I thought resolution 50 passed a couple of years ago did this very thing.
There seem to be a few vague statements about Iran or Colombia or Guatemala that have no teeth and are not accompanied by any sanctions - and those are clearly just a figleaf so that Ryan can do what he really wants to do - which always involves his personal obsession with Israel to the exclusion of anything else (I guess since the demise of the IRA he needs a new toy to play with). I'd like to see every CUPE Ontario policy against Israel matched with policies and resolution with almost identical wording targetting Sri Lanka and Iran (among other places) - of course it will never happen because its now not "politically correct" to say anything bad about Iran.
Ah, okay. So, if he doesn't say anything about any other country, he's singling out Israel. If he says stuff about other countries, then he's just doing that as a way of hiding his "personal obsession with Israel to the exclusion of anything else" behind a figleaf.
No wonder no one takes you seriously in these threads, Stockholm. What amazes me, though, is that they bother to respond.
You have your opinion. I have mine. Ryan has never spent one one millionth as much time condemning Iran or Sri Lanka or Guatemala etc... as he has on Israel. He's obviously got some bizarre personal "bee in his bonnet" about Israel. I have no idea why. Maybe when he was a child, he got into a schoolyard fight with an Israeli kid and he's had personal loathing for Israelis ever since. Or maybe because back in the 80s, members of the IRA used to get trained alongside PLO terrorists and members of the Baader-Meinhof gang at training camps in Libya - so he still has a soft spot in his heart. To this day, apparently you tend to see Palestinian flags flying in Catholic areas of Belfast and Israeli flags in Protestant areas - so I guess his bias in in his blood. I suppose that maybe when Catholics in Belfast start flying the Tamil Tiger flag and Protestants start flying the Sri Lankan government flag - maybe Ryan will get off his rear end and take an interest in the conflict in Sri Lanka. Meanwhile - to him Israel/Palestine is the only game in town.
If you can prove that Ryan has put an EQUAL amount of time and effort into condeming any other country on the face of the earth - as he has on Israel - then i will stand corrected.
Anybody see the front page of today's National Post? It has an editorial cartoon of the acquitted David Ahenakew saying "I still say the Jews caused the war" and Sid Ryan pointing to him and saying "You're hired!"
I suspect Ryan will want to sue.
This is it, it's #1 in the slideshow
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/clement/index.html
Wow. That is disgusting.
I agree. That is disgusting on the part of the National Post. Its also disgusting that a nauseating hate monger like Ahenakew was acquitted. If his grotesque blather isn't hate speech - what is? But, I don't blame Sid Ryan for that and i don't see the link between the two issues at all.
The National Post sees the link. They've pretty much been calling Ryan anti-Semitic on their opinion pages. But this one takes the cake.
Ryan should totally sue those assholes. If that's not defamatory, nothing is.
i've known Sid for a really long time -- he has opinions I agree with and others I think are disgusting and reprehensible.
I worked on his campaign in '99 against Mushinski. You know the campaign where had he listened to people and run against Dan Hello Newman in Southwest he would have won. But he chose to run against Mushinksi and lost.
Ryan should sue but prob will not. Real question is that if he were to sue would he win.
johnpauljones, your response to the National Post very blatantly characterizing Sid Ryan as an anti-semite is that you know he has "disgusting and reprehensible" opinions and that you have doubts he would win a defamation suit-AND you back all this up by giving the example that he didn't run in the most tactically astute riding? Frankly, it sounds like you could get a gig writing for the National Post. Another real question is why would anyone consider you a credible judge of character?
Thanks Melovseproles for your critique of my opinion. I think it is great that you think i could get a job writing for the post -- I of course would prefer to be a writer for the Star but that is just me.
My opinion of Sid is being called into question. great. He is scum He has hurt the NDp and he has hurt the union movement in Ontario. he is bombastic and a know it all. when given adivce he does what he wants regardless of the outcomes or the consequences.
the example of the election is very important because Newman became the worst minsiter of environment in the history of ontario.
Yes had Sid run against and won the race against Newman Ontario would have been better off.
So if you think that my opinion of an opinionated, arrogant ass is a problem and my example not relevant.
Fine
I on the other hand am counting down the days until the union that I am a former member of and that when I was a member of CUPE Ontario and was the lead of my bargaining unit I am counting down the time until we will get rid of sid.
In other news Sid will be on TVO with Steve Paikin tonight. After the way Paikin has been attacking Warren Kinsella I can not wait to see this interview.
Just watched the interview on TVO's website, Ryan handled himself pretty well.
I listened to the audio podcast [about a 7 MB download].
Yes, he was very convincing and passionate. He also explained why he backed away from the "boycotting individuals" thing, without being apologetic about it. He did well.
Judy Rebick speaks out in support of Sid Ryan.
I am getting pretty angry at the denunciations of Sid Ryan as an anti-semite by, of all people, Jason Kenney, who as far as I know has never done a stitch of work to defend human rights in this country. Not to mention the outrage of the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism making political points about removing funding from organizations representing the two of the largest groups of immigrants in the country. Why isn't there a clamour for his resignation? Maybe we'd better start one.
How convenient that the fairly significant number of Jews who are in solidarity with the Palestinians in this battle are ignored by Kenney and mainstream Jewish organizations. Many Jewish actions and statements around the world have been protesting the Israeli attack on Gaza. Are we anti-semites too?
and in today's national putz we find members of CUPE 3902 UofT signing a letter against the 3903 motion against Israel
Could it be that CUPE members do not all agree with the focus of brother Sid's advocacy?
An open letter to Sid Ryan and the CUPE Ontario leadership:
We, the undersigned academic members of CUPE Ontario, wish to express our outrage at the recent actions taken by Sid Ryan and other CUPE Ontario officials. These actions, which approve a boycott of Israeli academic institutions, both violate the authority with which they have been entrusted and, worse, undermine academic freedoms.
CUPE national, as well as the University of Toronto Education Workers, CUPE local 3902, have disapproved of this motion and decision, and for good reason. The most urgent matter of concern to the union is the ratification of reasonable contracts across Ontario. The primary mission of the union is to ensure the fair employment and treatment of its members. The current leadership has overreached its mandate, recklessly and irresponsibly dabbling in complex international politics. This leadership has demonstrated its resolve to continue in this fashion even though it is not competent to do so, it has not been elected to do so, and it is not in its jurisdiction to do so. These actions have harmed our union.
Signed by members of CUPE 3902, University of Toronto:
Paul Nahme, Jenn Cianca, Carolyn Reimer, Ian Richards, Callie Callon, Lindsay Ann Cox, Jonthan Newman, Sarah Kleeb, Shari Goldberg, Jade Weimer, Tim Langille, Emily Springay, Matt King, Amy Fisher, Zvi Halpern, Aldea Muldhern, Tema Smith, G. Anthony Bruno, Kathleen Gibbons, Nicholas Dion, Benjamin W. Carter, Jason McKinney.
url is
http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/story.html?id=1338529&p=1
Could it be that CUPE members do not all agree with the focus of brother Sid's advocacy?
23 of them in any case.
AKA lets wait and see what happens in May
Funny how a few disgruntled union members suddenly object to their union involving itself in international affairs when it's about Israel. Where was their letter objecting to resolutions on Colombia, Egypt, Iran, and Guatemala? Where was their objection to CUPE pressuring the OMERS pension plan to divest from Talisman because of its involvement in the "complex" international affairs of Darfur? Why the double-standard for Israel?
Even funnier, they claim that the union leadership has not been elected to do this. Well, actually, they were. There was a vote in 2006 passed almost unanimously by members at a CUPE Ontario convention to implement a boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign against the Israeli government. And after it was implemented by the leadership, Sid Ryan was re-elected with a strong majority at the convention in 2008.
Then they whine about how they had no opportunity (!) for input on this resolution, as if it just came out of left field and they didn't have representatives to the university workers' meeting, as if they weren't entitled to delegates at CUPE Ontario conventions.
If you don't like the outcome of democracy, that's fine, but don't claim that the union leadership doesn't have the mandate to do something the membership directed them to do.
I'm glad they signed their names, so they can be exposed within their union as lying scumbags who would rather denounce their own union in the pages of the National Post, of all publications, than participate in meaningful discussion with their brothers and sisters.
Scabs.
Indeed!
CUPE 3902 has well over 1100 members. So 23 of them are Zionist sympathizers, and of course the MSM jumps all over it.
Funny how a few disgruntled union members suddenly object to their union involving itself in international affairs when it's about Israel. Where was their letter objecting to resolutions on Colombia, Egypt, Iran, and Guatemala? Where was their objection to CUPE pressuring the OMERS pension plan to divest from Talisman because of its involvement in the "complex" international affairs of Darfur? Why the double-standard for Israel?
LOL, I laughed and laughed. That is a brilliant satire on the assholes who say: "Why does CUPE single out Israel? what about Darfur, Jupiter, and Alpha Centauri?"
Thanks, spatrioter.
Idiots. Any union that thinks solidarity stops at the border isn't doing much of a job. Luckily Canadian unions are involved internationally.
It won't stop.
CUPE 3902 has well over 1100 members. So 23 of them are Zionist sympathizers, and of course the MSM jumps all over it.
isn't this the same argument that is used by the pro-Israel side when they tried to discount ACJC and its new formation IJV?
Either we listen to "minority" voices or we do not
So do 23 out of 1100 equal 1000 or so out of 200,000?
No, of course it's not the same argument at all, as you well know.
It's not an argument about "listening to minority voices" at all. It's an argument about the biases of the mainstream media.
The MSM has a strong pro-Zionist bias to go along with its anti-labour bias. It can satisfy both appetites at once by giving disproportionate publicity to a small pro-Zionist minority within a trade union.
Not for me m.spector. I have listened to although do not always agree to ACJC because of some passionate postings here and on other blogs that the minority voice must be heard.
To agree or disagree can only happen when minority opinions are made public.
So in this case. A minority of a union local has emerged to state their unsatisfaction with a resolution. That minority should be heard.
Of course if consensus is that they should not be heard then that leads an interesting discussion of what percentage is required to be a true voice.
What kind of silly argument is this? People have different viewpoints, and they are free to express them, in unions or outside. The fact that the MSM would publicize a dissenting pro-Israel statement by 23 people has nothing to do with letting minorities be heard. It has to do with the near-unanimous pro-Israel bias of the MSM. The real minority, which needs to be heard, is CUPE Ontario and other like voices in the trade union movement. Any publicity they get in the MSM will only be of the scandal-mongering variety.
I hear that the vote at the Windsor meeting was 16 to 5 with 12 abstentions. I wonder why 12 locals abstained?
Probably because they are afraid of the repercussions if they go against King Sid.
Maybe they didn't want to vote for or against?
Michael Ignatieff, March 5, 2009
Go fuck yourself, Count Iggy. Our unions don't need your permission, nor that of your party, to pass any resolution we damn well please.
Maybe they didn't want to vote for or against?
... because politically this is becoming an fight between CUPE National president Paul Moist, and CUPE Ontario President Sid Ryan, as opposed to a debate about the actual resolution.
Let's note for example that CUPE National also failed to back CUPE Ontario when it offered to take legal action when the Government of Ontario ordered the York TA's back to work, when Ryan said he would defend the right to strike in this case.
Moist is well... moist.
Because the pro zionist Canwest Windsor Star says Ryan is a nazi...thats why. OUr paper has spent more ink on this than the entire war on afghanistan, including all the pro war bullshit. Why don't you come down to 13% unemployed windsor to see all the people who are very confused and look to authority for help but there isn't any, only the Windsor Star saying we still have too much government slash taxes...oh and save israel, god bless canada.
This community is a mess looking for some kind of leadership they don't know where to start, thus all the abstains.
"Go fuck yourself, Count Iggy. Our unions don't need your permission, nor that of your party, to pass any resolution we damn well please."
Oh come on. I dislike Iggy as much as anyone - but he has every right to express an opinion on the CUPE resolution - and anything else. No one ever said that CUPE needs his "permission" to do anything.
If you want to argue against the substance of what Ignatieff has written - go ahead - but don't yell obscenities just because he is expressing his point of view.
You are correct Stockholm that he has every right. We aren't allowed to respond with obscenities? What The FUCK kind of logic is that?
We are "allowed" to say what we want. I'm not the judge. I'm just saying that Ignatieff should be criticized for the SUBSTANCE of the views he has expressed - NOT for the mere fact that he has expressed an opinion...and i really don't see what the point is of starting off a post with "go fuck yourself Iggy".
dp
And the SUBSTANCE of his views deserve a righteous "Go fuck yourself".
I don't see the point of your posts before they begin.
He is saying he doesn't like it when people use invective against Iggy when Iggy is saying things he approves of.
He seems to try and defend the NDP a lot but doesn't act like it elsewhere. Really weird. No wonder I swear.
Yes, it brings the party into disrepute.
Meanwhile, since no one has actually argued against the substance of what Ignatieff wrote and instead just did some juvenile name-calling - I can only conclude that no one is able to rebut Ignatieff's points.
The whole thread is an arguement against the essentials of your amd Iggy's views on this subject. The condemnation of your buddy Ignatief, merely an footnote. If you want the substance you must read up, not down.
But of course since you have not been able to refute any of the SUBSTANCE of that, this latest effort by you to turn the disccussion into some debating point on a rule of decorum is hardly suprising. Formalizing consent is what you are doing, not debating substance.
yawn.
Quite the world you live in Stockholm, what's the NDP say?
Why don't you tell me "what world I live in" - since you seem to think you can read my mind.
Naw, I'll just go on exposing your hypocrisy when you say you support the NDP. They don't need enemies like you.
Wake me up when the NDP decides to expel anyone who doesn't follow the Sid Ryan line on the Middle East. I look forward to being joined by most of the federal caucus.
Wake me up when the NDP stops languishing in the polls, as it is under the Federal Caucus, and yourself. Such arrogance one might expect from a member of a party that occassionally tastes the fruit of power, but this statement is on the level of a used car owner boasting that the engine hasn't fallen out yet.
I don't see the Socialist Workers Party or the Communist Party skyrocketing in support. And, if you think that the way to attract the votes of millions of Canadians facing economic ruin is to grandstand with silly stunts about the situation in the Middle East - go give it a try.
Sid Ryan is the best friend Israel has in Canada. The kind of invective he uses only serves to discredit his cause and makes it easy to dismiss him. For all we know, Ryan is secretely on the payroll of the Mossad as an agent provocateur whose role is to discredit criticism of Israel in Canada.
Where is the SUBSTANCE in that lad? It's all name calling. I'll take a simple fuck off, thank you.
Here's yours: Fuck you too.
Yes, it's much easier and clearer, thanks Cueball.
Oh good! I've touched a nerve!
Wrong website for that kind of discussion, honey.
LOL!
National Post Letter
It is beyond the pale for the National Post to equate Sid Ryan's stance on Israel with support for the Holocaust. Your vilification of Mr. Ryan is premised on the false proposition that Israel is being singled out and being treated differently because it describes itself as a "Jewish state." The fact is that the union movement has called for sanctions in the past against countries or states that violate human rights. The union movement boycotted Chile for its human rights abuses. Does this make it anti-Hispanic? Furthermore, it is normal for sanctions to be imposed on countries that violate UN resolutions.
Israel is violating a number of resolutions regarding both the occupation of the West Bank and the continued construction of settlements. If the National Post is serious in wanting Israel to be treated like every other nation, you should be applauding Sid Ryan, not calling him names.
Andy Lehrer, Toronto
And a response:
Re: Sid Ryan Divides Our Readers, letter to the editor, Feb. 26.
Letter-writer Andy Lehrer takes umbrage with Gary Clement's editorial cartoon, claiming it equates CUPE's Sid Ryan with Nazi sympathizer David Ahenakew. As a Jew, I actually have more respect for Mr. Ahenakew's brand of anti-Semitism than the politically veiled covert anti-Semitism espoused by Mr. Ryan. Repugnant as Mr. Ahenakew's views are, at least he displays his hatred openly and with apparent conviction, unlike Sid Ryan who hides behind a load of mealy-mouthed moralistic claptrap.
Many Jews who support Israel's right to defend itself often question why this particular conflict attracts so many self-styled union busybodies like Sid Ryan. Despite Mr. Lehrer's assertion that CUPE also targets other countries it doesn't like , these same union activists are deafeningly silent when other conflicts that don't involve Jews hove all-too-briefly onto the headlines of our newspapers and television screens. One has to question why Mr. Ryan isn't currently spending his free time, rhetoric and member's dues to protest against human rights abuses in Sudan, Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka or Saudi Arabia.
I think the answer is pretty clear and I think Mr. Clement nailed it neatly (as he usually does).
Michael Ross, Victoria.
Which, in turn, elicited the following:
Letter writer-Michael Ross claims that Sid Ryan and CUPE are silent in regards to conflicts that do not involve Jews. Mr. Ross asks why Mr. Ryan spends his time protesting Israel and not the Sudan. In fact, CUPE Ontario under Mr. Ryan has pressured the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System(OMERS) pension fund to divest from Talisman because of that company's involvement in Darfur.
CUPE has also, in recent years, passed resolutions concerning Colombia, Egypt, Iran and Guatemala. Unfortunately, Mr. Ryan's detractors never let mere facts intrude upon their favourite talking points.
continuation thread started here:
http://www.rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/sid-ryan-continues-bite-backsince this one is bound to be closed for length...well, sometime...
_________________________________________________________________________________________________ Our Demands Most Moderate are/ We Only Want The World! -James Connolly