Jump to navigation
...continued from here
Wait, so when did Andrea write this letter? There is no date on it. Clearly Cheri didn't get the memo.
Notice how Stockholm always puts "Zionist" in quotes?
Yeah aka Mycroft, what's the story behind that letter? Can they read it out in the legislature?
That letter from Horwath is excellent news. But it still leaves some questions unanswered, such as how it is that the motion could have passed unanimously unless all the NDP members present voted for it. Unless Di Novo was the only member present?
Seriously, I'm dying for a reason to back down here. If the ONDP has some sort of explanation for their actions yesterday, I'd jump at them. I was serious when I said was I feeling really disheartened and disempowered after they voted with the Conservatives yesterday on this.
From what I've heard, it's rare for MPPs to show up for votes on private members' motions. Hence only 30 votes on the motion.
Also, there is no record of who voted and how for voice votes.
Which makes me wonder even more why Di Novo would bother showing up and making such a speech, and standing with Conservatives who are accusing activists of "hate speech".
But if she was the only one, or only one of a couple, and the ONDP distances themselves from her comments smearing us and their support for that motion, that would be enough for me. As I said, I certainly don't relish the thought of not voting in a provincial election, but I won't vote for anyone who accuses me or my comrades of anti-semitic hate speech because we use the term "apartheid" to describe what's going on in Israel.
I'd like a clarification also.
Andrea was in the Leg for the vote as far as I know and was told. Surely if that's so and if this letter is genuine she would have voted against. Something strange here.
". When you start using incendiary language all it does is end any possible dialogue and cause a backlash among the very people who have to be swayed."
How does this sound? "Iran: Islamo - Fascism" Week?"
Or "Dafur-Genocide week"
It's the double standard tha is also an isue:
From the Ottawa Citizen:
The dark side of a yearly ritual
This isn’t about Jews, say the organizers. It’s about Zionists. Problem is, the activist groups behind Israeli Apartheid Week are doing everything to erase the distinction........
The classic giveaway of prejudice is holding the hated group to a double standard. Israel is denounced for its designation as a Jewish state, with a Star of David on its flag. Israel's accusers never complain that Muslim states have the half-crescent symbol of Islam in their flags. As the legal scholar Robbie Sabel notes: "For various Arab states to denote themselves Arab Republics is not objectionable, but a Jewish state is racism and apartheid."
Saudi Arabia officially prohibits the practice of non-Muslim religions; Egypt has persecuted its minority Christians; Turkey and other Muslim countries make sure the Kurds remain stateless and dispossessed -- and campus activists couldn't care less. It's Israel, and Israel alone, that consumes them. "
I too heard she was in the Legislature but even if not Cheri was surely chosen to speak on behalf of the ONDP. The Leader had to know that she was speaking in favour. This letter is bizarre if true and downright nasty if made up.
Here to try and muddy the waters, Peech? When all else fails, fall back to the "sure we kill innocent people, steal their lands, bruatlize and starve them, but, hey!, we're in 'good' company"?
The fact of the matter is that Israel is engaged in the ethnic cleansing, brutalization, and regular mass killings of an entire people and represents a clear and present danger to all of its neighbours. Further, to suggest that those who criticize institutionalized Zionist racism are silent on human rights abuses in other nations is a pernicous lie (nevermind that no one gives a shit what's on the Israeli flag). Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and many other nations involved in human rights abuses are Israel's allies and friends in the region. It is the company the Zionists keep.
FM, please don't engage some defender of Israeli mass murderers in this thread, no matter how disgusting and anti-human they sound. Just let them self-destruct. We need to understand what the ONDP has done here. The only thing I know for sure right now is that Cheri DiNovo should be condemned. Other than that, it's not even clear if there was another NDP member in the chamber at the time.
It's beginning to sound as though DiNovo was a willing patsy.
I think this is an object lesson in how little people understand our legislative system and the difference between private members business and when MPPs act as a caucus.
Perhaps people should have read my post #33 in the previous thread. Private members business means exactly that and in those times MPPs are not acting as agents of their caucus but as individual members, which is why it was and is wrong to blame any party for the vote.
The other thing that happens, usually anyways, on motions is that the vote is a voice vote and not recorded. How anyone could know who voted in support or against would be a mystery to me. And just because a member was in the Leg at the time does not mean they voted. The Speaker asks for those in favour of the motion - MPPs mutter "Aye" and then asks for those against. The Speaker then declares that "in my opinion the ayes have it" or the nayes and the motion is carried or not. It would be almost impossible to guarentee the motion was unanimous since the vote is not recorded. When the House or Legislature wants to express unanimous support motions are usually worded in such as way that makes that clear. Something like the "Legislative Assembly of Ontario unanimously supports the right to drink a beer or two after winning a gold medal..."
The Hansard certainly does not claim the motion was supported unanimously, only that the motion was carried. There is also a break of something like an hour and half break between the debate on the motion and the vote. MPPs from all parties would have been moving in and out of the Leg as other business was coming up or ending, or if they wanted/needed to talk to another MPP. So again it would be pretty hard to say who voted for anything. The only thing we actually know is that Ms Di Novo acting as a private member expressed confused support for the motion along with members from the other two parties in the Legislature.
Anyway carry on.
It was reported as unanimous and backed by the NDP and an NDP member was well quoted.
Lord know reports are always 100% accurate. Hansard, the official record of the Legislature, does not show a unanimous vote only that it passed. Anything else is hearsay and may or may not be accurate. I've seen enough completely wrong reporting in my days to not put faith in such claims. So we have no idea who from what caucuses voted for anything.
I also see no evidence that Di Novo was speaking on behalf of caucus. In fact Horwath's letter seems to demostrate she was not.
But let's not let anything like that get in the way of an electronic pile-on.
Actually I went back to read the linked article again. It does not say the vote was unanimous, only that "Ontario MPPs of all political stripes have banded together" That certainly does not indicate it was unanimous, or that it was officially supported by the NDP caucus, only that MPPs from all caucuses voted together to pass the motion. Those are significantly different things. If it had been unanimous I would have to think any report would have spelled that out specifically as it would be noteworthy.
So it still seems as if one MPP, as a private member decided to support the motion, and that there was no caucus support as revealed by Horwath's letter.
The open letter was sent today to people who had emailed an NDP MPP to complain about their support of yesterday's motion. I assume it was written today in response to the uproar.
I would assume so too. But it does reveal that this was not a caucus decision to support and maybe even that the rest of caucus was a bit blindsided, but that would be pure speculation.
I'm very relieved to see Andrea Horwath's letter (irrespective of whether I agree with some details in it or not). It sets the record straight and takes a stand which we would never see from the Liberals or Conservatives. One day, we may be lucky enough to see the federal party do likewise.
As for Cheri DiNovo, she deserves to be reviled for her hateful words, spoken under the cover of "love" and "peace". And some Jew should explain to her how Judaism works, before she makes a fool of herself again.
When I raise the issue of growing Zionist influence in Canada and Ontario, an NDPMPP I have known for some time tells me that while they may agree with me, any significant political moves or statements made against this by him or his party and "their lobby would crush us." If he is right then we obviously have a serious problem, both with the power of Israel to have its way in our domestic politics and with our representatives who won't publically acknowledge there is a problem, let alone take any action to remedy it. Here in Ontario a good place to start by way of identifying sources of pro-Israeli influence would be the following organization:
Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Centre for Holocaust Studies Commends the Government of Ontario and MPP Peter Shurman...
In response to similiar concerns about growing Israeli Zionist power in Britain the following documentary may be of use:
According to [url=http://twitter.com/davidakin/status/9699799818]this David Akin retweet[/url] of a tweet from Alykhan Velshi, expect a motion in the House of Commons to condemn Israeli Apartheid Week similar to the one we just saw in the Ontario legislature.[quote]MP Tim Uppal says he'll seek opposition support for parliamentary motion to condemn Israeli Apartheid Week.[/quote]
Any reference to their being a "JEWISH" lobby is pure unadulerated anti-semitism - the real kind. There may be a "pro-Israel" lobby - but being Jewish is a religion/ethnicity and as we all know - many Jews have no interest in Israel.
their title not mine
Gotta agree somewhat with Stockholm. As for Gilad Atzmon, he spends far too much time for my taste writing about "Jewish tribalism". Being Jewish doesn't give you the licence to peddle antisemitic tropes. He also spends far too much time attacking anti-Zionist non-religious socialist Jews for my taste. If we're going to win, we need the broadest possible alliance - not just an alliance of Gilad Atzmon. He does, however, play a mean jazz sax.
Back to the topic - is Jack Layton capable of writing a letter like Andrea Horwath's if and when the time comes (see pogge's post above)?
Stockholm:That's the whole point of this argument. It's not antisemitic to criticie Israel or be an antiZionist (as we all know.) But many antiSemites feel free to proliferate under the guise of anti-Zionism.
" So am I saying Israel is a beacon of enlightenment and that anyone who disagrees is an anti-Semite?
No, I’m not. Israel is a flawed country, as are all countries. Criticizing Israel does not make one an anti-Semite anymore than criticizing the government of France makes one anti-French. But it’s one thing to criticize France and another to declare the French nation illegitimate and to advocate its dismantling.
For that’s what Israeli apartheid week is about. As Michael Ignatieff noted during apartheid week last year, “International law defines ‘Apartheid’ as a crime against humanity. Labeling Israel an ‘Apartheid’ state is a deliberate attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the Jewish state itself.”
It is the fanatical, disproportionate focus on Israel — no other country is subjected to a week-long hatefest at university campuses — that points to something darker going on.
The classic giveaway of prejudice is holding the hated group to a double standard. Israel is denounced for its designation as a Jewish state, with a Star of David on its flag. Israel’s accusers never complain that Muslim states have the half-crescent symbol of Islam in their flags. As the legal scholar Robbie Sabel notes: “For various Arab states to denote themselves Arab Republics is not objectionable, but a Jewish state is racism and apartheid.”
Am I actually reading this??? A supposed leftist progressive suggesting that the Jews (aka Israel lobby) is somehow controlling Canadian politics??? I never honestly thought I would see such vile here. Lord help us.
So, NDPP, the frenzy-mongers are out in force - the ones who think Stephen Harper is a friend of the Jews, and Norman Finkelstein and Noam Chomsky are enemies. I noticed that the video you linked to actually is called "Israel lobby" in its Youtube version - it's just Gilad Atzmon that dubbed it "Jewish lobby" because that's the way he is.
I suggest we ignore the thread drift by the professional diverters - don't give them an inch, please - and concentrate on the drama that unfolded at Queen's Park and the risk that we may see a repetition on the Hill.
Why is it the "frenzy-mongers" can get all so hyped over a perceived slight by one person while at the same time shrugging and saying, "I don't see it," when it comes to Zionist racism imposed against an entire nation?
I read the posts above and some are so reminiscent of any other supremacist narrative. Is the State of Israel illegitimate? Maybe. If it isn't supported by the majority of its citizens and can only exist through brute force and repression, maybe it is illegitimate. But is the Jewish State illegimate? No more so than a white South Africa or any other state founded on an ethnic, linguistic, racial or religious superiority would be. If one can say the Jewish state is legitimate, then one must also say an Islamic or Aryan state is equally legitimate.
I think that such things as the Queen's Park fiasco and any varation or repetition on the Hill could serve to get the left wimping liberal types off the fence and mobilized. I think that finally Gaza shocked enough people into some kind of awareness that Israel gets away with murder only because of the strong support of Western elites. Israel, along with USA and Canada, Australia, NZ and others are euro settler states founded upon the dispossesion and genocide of the Indigenous. It should be noted that Israel is only trying to do there what was done here. It's in the club.
And of course, as must be seemingly endlessly repeated, this has nothing to do with Jewishness and everything to do with Zionism. In any case I think that enough people have figured things out enough that Zionists and their allies can look forward to a rough ride with their neocon accomplices. If the NDP decides to try to suck and blow at the same time on this issue it too can look forward to its rightful place in the dustbin of history probably sooner rather than later. Harper is very much a friend of the Zionists and very much NOT a friend of the Jews. And Gilad Atzmon does blow a mean Sax as well.
Unionist! Are you ok? It appears you're about to haemorrhage. I'm sure you feel wholly entitled in your truculent arrogance and secure in your middling intelligence, but please explain to someone not initiated in your essentialist politics what exactly DiNovo said to earn such indignation and contempt, other than to have the impudence to disagree with you regarding the use of the word apartheid. As far as I know, there is nothing her position that deviates from provincial or federal NDP policy on the use of the word apartheid. Her condemnation of the occupation is and has been unequivocal. Her work around social justice from poverty, to civil rights, to speaking up against human rights abuses is well known and I would think beyond reproach. Nonetheless, I'm sure unionist has earned the right to be totally irresponsible and discourteous. I didn't realize there was such a heavy price for disagreement around here.
I am heartened by some of the respectful and responsible comments (aka mycroft always a pleasure to read you, Bookish Agragrian thanks for interceding with some actual facts, Peech thanks for stating the obvious). But I will never go wrong overestimating the capacity of "the Left" (or do you call yourselves progressives now?) to turn on and cannibalize its own, mostly, I believe, out of its own impotent rage which it so deftly misdirects.
Whatever people's personal feelings regarding DiNovo, she did not deserve to be pilloried and reviled the way she has been in this thread. Her comments were met largely with ignorance and histrionic indignation. Since we're being a little careless with our comments, let me try. I've always loved the bravado of the largely overindulged and privileged white male lefties who have the luxury of exhibiting their bravado knowing full well that the worst they'll ever likely face is pepper spray in the eyes. Also, to the overeducated overpaid gay men who think its "progressive" to march alongside banners of Hamas, I simply invite you to take your short shorts over to Gaza and march for gay rights there.
The enemy of my enemy is not always a friend, and fundamentalism (religious, political, intellectual or otherwise) may be the greatest threat confronting this century. Thought and writing have never needed Jacques Derrida more than now.
Sorry to crash your little feeding frenzy; no worries you'll not hear from me again. And yes, I'll miss reading some of commenters around here, but I remain hopeful that the few truly responsible, accountable voices (those willing to breach the abundance of self-evidence around here) ultimately prevail.
What an asshole.
The reason D'Novo was pilloried, and with complete justification, is because she joined with the supporters of racism and oppression to approve a statement that Israel respects human rights, providing that Palestinians are not regarded as human, and condemning activists on university campuses, where free speech and academic freedom is unassailable when racists such as Pipes and Nethanyahu are invited, for protesting racist Israeli policy as practised, or rather, applied against Palestinians.
I will never overestimate the capacity of the unjustifiably arrogant, or maybe we call you intellectually stunted these days, to retort with the pretense of actually having something meaningful to contribute.
Piss off ...
But is the Jewish State illegimate? No more so than a white South Africa or any other state founded on an ethnic, linguistic, racial or religious superiority would be. If one can say the Jewish state is legitimate, then one must also say an Islamic or Aryan state is equally legitimate.
I guess by that measure - a Tamil state would be illegitimate since its based on carving out an ethnically pure Tamil nation where the Tamils can feel superior and have a homeland - and let's not even get into what that says about Quebec nationalism. What possible explanation can there be for wanting an independent Quenec than to express the imagines ethnic, racial and linguistic superiority of the pur laine Quebecois over everyone else.
Whatever people's personal feelings regarding DiNovo, she did not deserve to be pilloried and reviled the way she has been in this thread.
I'm sorry, the Ontario legislature including DiNovo just voted to condemn me and people I'm working with. You were saying something about being pilloried and reviled?
[quote=synthome] Also, to the overeducated overpaid gay men who think its "progressive" to march alongside banners of Hamas, I simply invite you to take your short shorts over to Gaza and march for gay rights there. [/quote]
synthome, don't post homophobic crap like this again. First and last warning.
Maysie, please don't be so hard on synthome - he/she followed me home, and I know it looks a little scruffy and mangy, but omigod it's cuuuute! Can I please keep it and play with it - pleeeeeze!?
Cognitive dissonance or irony?
The enemy of my enemy is not always a friend...
...I simply invite you to take your short shorts over to Gaza and march for gay rights there.
Also, why go to Gaza when we can stay right here and fight homophobes like you?
If the term Israel Apartheid Week were not effective, MPP Peter Shurman would not have presented a motion to essentially censure the IAW and its use of its name. The organizers could have used Palestinian Liberation Week or something else. However, no one would have been paying attention to the the organizers on the Israeli-Palestinian/Palestinian-Israeli issue.
If the IAW had a different name but still advocated divestment, sanctions, and boycotts of Israeli products and services, I would guess that Mr. Shurman would have presented a motion claiming that these actions are hurtful to freedom of speech and are also anti-Semitic.
I have mentioned on other comment boards that the boycott Israel campaign may not be as effective from Canada as it would be from Europe. We don't do much trade with Israel whereas the European countries do more. They are geographically closer to Israel. A few months ago, Israel had proposed to Fatah using an Egyptian mediator and negotiating in Egypt. Fatah prefers to use a European mediator as this would attract more attention in Europe and keeps the focus on the boycott, divestment, and sanctions campaign in Europe. If the Israeli economy goes down, Israel will eventually negotiate on terms favourable to the Palestinians.
The Ontario NDP MPPs who were presently in the legislature during the vote were probably stategically right to support the motion even if privately the may have been morally opposed. If they had actively opposed the motion, the NDP would have gained very little in terms of voter and financial support, but also faced the wrath of some fairly well-run Jewish organizations. The ONDP doesn't need to go into the next provincial election only to be distracted by an "anti-Semitic" label.
If a Tamil state could only exist by oppressing and brutalizing the majority, and by providing citizenship, political rights, protection of law, and other civil rights only to those defined as "Tamil", then you may be right in questioning its legitimacy although the majority population would likely already be doing so. Ditto for an independent Quebec.
If you wish to argue that minority populations have a right to use force, terror, and political repression to maintain ethnic and political superiority over the majority, then I would argue history is not on your side. There are many, many examples of such states in history and while some have enjoyed lengthy lifespans, very few have been able to last for very, very long. No state founded on the violent repression of a majority population and permanent war with its neighbours will enjoy permanence.
Don't take my word for it, read history.
I couldn't disagree more. First, the ONDP has demonstrated a lack of principles and second it has contributed to the closure of debate. The smear of "anti-semitism" with regard to institutionalized Israeli racism serves to both dilute the meaning of anti-semtism and to cast a chill over honest and serious debate with regard to Israel's serious, flagrant, and criminal human rights abuses and war crimes.
The ONDP has done a great disservice to everyone who cares not just about Palestinian rights but all human rights. They have just played into the game that a violent abuser has a legitimate interest in maintaining the state of the abused. So, to offer a hypothetical, the slave master has a legitimate economic interest that must be addressed by the slave if he or she is to ever be free. For an actual example, think of Haiti and its long hostory of poverty, suffering, and deprivation resulting directly from being saddled with paying reparations to France for having deprived France of the benefits of the Haitian slave colony. That is the paradigm that the ONDP voted to support.
On Atzmon - he actually is an anti-semite and a rather crude on at that having taken a few stabs at Holocaust denial and also argued that Jews ritually murdered Christian babies. He's also reportedly converted to Christianity so he has all the anti-Semitic zeal of the convert.
In other news
Conservative Member of Parliament Denounces Israeli Apartheid Week Statement by Tim Uppal, MP for Edmonton-Sherwood Park on Israeli Apartheid Week Ottawa, February 26, 2010 - Our Conservative Government has taken a zero-tolerance approach to all forms of hatred, including anti-Semitism. Standing side by side with the State of Israel, our friend and ally in the democratic family of nations, we unequivocally condemn efforts to single out and attack the Jewish people and their homeland. Next week, after consultations with all political parties, I will proudly introduce the following motion before the House of Commons: "That this House considers itself to be a friend of the State of Israel; that this House is concerned about expressions of anti-Semitism under the guise of "Israeli Apartheid Week"; and that this House explicitly condemns any action in Canada as well as internationally that would equate the State of Israel with the rejected and racist policy of apartheid." On university campuses, Israeli Apartheid Week promotes the one-sided, intolerant, and unbalanced position that Israel is a racist state. This has helped create a public opinion environment where Jewish students who happen to also support Israel are subject to condemnation and opprobrium. Canadians are free within the bounds of our law to express their opinions. At the same time, it's important for Members of Parliament to stand up and publicly condemn efforts to single out one group of people for harsh treatment. I sincerely hope that all Members of Parliament will support this motion.
Conservative Member of Parliament Denounces Israeli Apartheid Week Statement by Tim Uppal, MP for Edmonton-Sherwood Park on Israeli Apartheid Week At the same time, it's important for Members of Parliament to stand up and publicly condemn efforts to single out one group of people for harsh treatment.
And yet the harsh treatment of one group of people, Palestinians, by the racist state of Israel seems to have missed this fellows attention. How can that be? Conservative racism and support for neo-colonial enterprises, maybe?
Students Against Israeli Apartheid Present:
complete list of speakers and events
we unequivocally condemn efforts to single out and attack the Jewish people and their homeland.
Bloody hell! I had no idea that Israel was my boyfriend's "homeland". I better go tell him to immediately ditch his Canadian citizenship. He obviously did not get the memo.
I couldn't disagree more. (Yes, I think someone already said that.) You're suggesting that the ONDP should forget about showing leadership on an issue and instead take a completely self-serving position that involves condemning the citizens they're supposed to represent on behalf of a foreign government that continues to commit crimes in the conduct of a long, brutal and illegal military occupation. I think the people who would vote for a party like that are already spoken for. The rest of us are increasingly inclined to stay home or spoil our ballots if there's no one to vote for who rises above the level of craven opportunism and cynical political calculation on issues involving human rights.
If anything I'm angrier now than when I first read about this.
First, perhaps learn something about parliamentary procedure and re-read Bookish Agrarian above. You could argue that collectively parliament passed a resolution with absolutely no binding authority that condemned the use of the term apartheid and questioned if that kind of incendiary, arguably inappropriate terminology, is constructive to what I assume everyone wants, which is peace. The motion neither has any legal force nor does it condemn you personally.
Now I think it would be fair either to defend the use of the term apartheid or critique the assumption that Israel is a democratic state that respects the rule of law and human rights. Regardless, it seems the self-righteous indignation should be directed at parliament and not a personalized attack on someone who is a proven ally of the left and whom you cannot ascertain voted for the motion. Not to mention that in her hansard remarks she unequivocally lines up with the Federal NDP policy on the need for a two state solution, she condemns the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory. Having read her remarks in Hansard, I found her statement moving, eloquent, and on the mark. So a more probative question for me would be why invest so much vitriol and anger in DiNovo? There's something subterranean going on here (unconscious anti-semitism, latent sexism, I don't know, but the outrage is not commensurate with the offence).
I know, I know, I promised I'd get lost, and I will, but I thought it pertinent to respond to comments directed at me.
@Maysie: Deliberate and acknowledged provocation is to be censored, but name calling and personal attacks constitute legitimate discourse around here. No need to worry I'll happily banish myself.
@Unionist: I wouldn't have expected anything else. Either posturing as absolute authority (I love the way you speak on behalf of all Jewish tradition and quoted the definitive text of the Seder Supper. I don't know, but could there be more liberal/reform versions of the celebration?) or truculence and dismissal. In your last effort you simply chose the latter. Perhaps you could learn a few things about intellectual honesty, reverential dialogue, and common respect.
@Frustrated Mess: Care to demonstrate that any of the NDP MPP's present voted in favour of the motion? Because DiNovo concurred that the use of the term apartheid might be needlessly incendiary cannot be extrapolated to mean either that she supports all parts of Shurman's motion nor that she voted in favour of it. Also feel free to completely ignore her decades of fighting for social justice and her condemnation of the occupation of Palestinian territory. But don't let that stop the bloodletting.
The NDP could have opposed Shurman's private member bill for the reasons you presented. The party would have needed to use a lot of resources to deal with the potential accusation that it is an anti-Semitic party. This could help or hurt the party in parts of Toronto. It would hurt the NDP in northern Ontario and parts of Hamilton where the voters place issues related to the Middle East in low priority. If there are strong spokespersons that opposed Shurman's bill, the NDP could possibly survive the anti-anti-Semitic attacks from members of the Jewish community and their supporters. Since I don't see any person in the NDP willing to take up the battle in support of IAW, I think the NDP was wise not to oppose Shurman's private member bill.
I think if I were an MPP, I might take the view that whatever I may personally think of the words used in the title of IAW - its not the place of the Ontario legislature to to be passing gratuitous resolutions telling peope what they can and cannot call their event. If a group in Caledonia decided to have a "First Nations Apartheid Week" in opposition to the blockade there or if a group have an "Iran Hates Women" week - I may find those words unnecessarily provocative and counter-productive in solving problems - but I still don't think its up to the legislature to be taking a position.
[quote]If a group in Caledonia decided to have a "First Nations Apartheid Week" in opposition to the blockade[/quote]
I wouldn't be surprised if Shurman moves such a motion giving the fact that the Toronto Sun's reported that Shurman has no problem with First Nations in Caledonia being accused of apartheid.
Statement by Tim Uppal, MP for Edmonton-Sherwood Park on Israeli Apartheid Week
Next week, after consultations with all political parties, I will proudly introduce the following motion before the House of Commons:
"That this House considers itself to be a friend of the State of Israel; that this House is concerned about expressions of anti-Semitism under the guise of "Israeli Apartheid Week"; and that this House explicitly condemns any action in Canada as well as internationally that would equate the State of Israel with the rejected and racist policy of apartheid."
I think the opposition parties could oppose this private member's bill if they were to offer suggestions to amend that includes requiring Canada to endorse a peaceful solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict based on the UN resolutions.