CUPE Wants Ban on Israeli Academics in Canadian Schools
Am I alone in thinking that this is neo-McCarthyism and an indefensible assault on the basic tenets of academic freedom? Not to mention utterly bigoted and likely unconstitutional?
Attention News/Assignment Editors:
TORONTO, Jan. 2 /CNW Telbec/ - CUPE Ontario's university workers
committee will bring a resolution to its annual conference supporting a ban on
Israeli academics doing speaking, teaching or research work at Ontario
universities as a protest against the December 29 bombing of the Islamic
University in Gaza.
"In response to an appeal from the Palestinian Federation of Unions of
University Professors and Employees, we are ready to say Israeli academics
should not be on our campuses unless they explicitly condemn the university
bombing and the assault on Gaza in general," said Sid Ryan, president of CUPE
Ontario. "It's a logical next step, building on policy adopted by our
provincial convention in 2006."
Resolution 50, adopted in May 2006, supported boycotts, divestment and
sanctions aimed at bringing about the Israeli withdrawal from occupied
territories and a just peace in the region.
"Clearly, international pressure on Israel must increase to stop the
massacre that is going on daily," said Janice Folk-Dawson, chair of the CUPE
Ontario University Workers Coordinating Committee, whose conference is
scheduled for February. "We are proud to add CUPE voices to others from around
the world saying enough is enough."
Ryan and other CUPE representatives will join in the demonstration
against the Israeli assault on Gaza at 2:00 p.m. tomorrow, Saturday, January 3
at Dundas Square in Toronto.
I hope so.
I'd like to hear a defense of this, Cueball, if you're up to it.
All they have to do according to Syd, is "condemn the university bombing and the assault on Gaza in general". Good enough! Do you want people who wont denounce the destruction of educational institutions and mass murder by the government that pays their salaries promoting their ideas on Canadian campuses?
No? Good.
I would say that your opening statement was a little overstated. Many progressive organisations have called for governments to initiate economic and other sanctions against countries who trod on human rights. The Guardian reported several days ago that a British company providing some sort of cell phone service unilaterally withdrew it's service from it's Israeli counterpart over just this issue.
CUPE is perfectly consistant in it's approach in calling for such sanctions. I fail to see how it would be either bigoted or unconstitutional.
This is a tagline. It has nothing to do with the comments posted above. Just a tagline...really. Please disregard.
Fuck em. They can stay home. Why should Canadian universities host academics supported by a state that blows up schools just because Arabs go to them?
Cueball,
Their views on Israel's bombing of Gaza are, in msot cases, utterly irrelevant. If someone teaches physics or poetry, how are their views on Israeli military actions in any way relevant to their ability to teach or conduct research?
As to your question whether I "want people who don't denounce mass murder...on Canadian campuses"...not particularly, I do not. But there are people with many views with which I disagree and find offensive who are allowed to be on campus. That, in essence, is called academic freedom. People are allwoed to hold offensive views and not be punished for them. Secondly, if you are genuinely concerned about supporters of Israel's bombing of gaza (or at least those who do not explicitly condemn it) being on campus, why apply this only to Israeli academics? Why not ahve an across the board policy that bars ANYONE who doesnt condemn the bombing from campus? That it specifically targets Israelis is what makes it bigoted. I'm an academic myself. I'm perfectly happy to condemn the bombing in Gaza but if I didn't, should I not be allowed to teach and conduct research at my university? Are my views on the Middle East in any way relevant to my ability to conduct research on the validation of outcome measures in rheumatic diseases? (my current project).
Would you favour applying this to all countries or jsut Israel? Should Americans be barred from academia over the Iraq war? Sudanese academics barred over teh genocide in Darfur? Academics from all but a handful of countries in the world over their countries unwillingness to legalize same sex marraige?
Legitimate criticism of Israel is NOT anti-Semitism and I get frustrated when people try to suggest otherwise. But when people pull bullshit like this, singling out israeli academics, I can see how some people come away with the impression and these ludicrous tactics will only give credence to those who want to discredit opposition to Israel's actions.
The opening poster seems perturbed (or hasn't heard) that there is an international movement, for years now, calling for academic, economic, and other boycott of the apartheid outlaw state of Israel.
The opening poster is so disconnected from reality, you'd think he lives in the United States.
His use of the term "bigoted" is particularly reprehensible, since it implies that the motive behind such boycotts is anti-Semitism. This tactic is well-known and should not be dignified with a response.
For an Israeli academic to stand silent, with eyes firmly shut, in the face of the university bombing and the Israeli onslaught generally, is to be complicit in war crimes.
Congratulations to Sid Ryan, CUPE Ontario, and the university workers for taking this principled and courageous stand!
CUPE is perfectly consistant in it's approach in calling for such sanctions. I fail to see how it would be either bigoted or unconstitutional.
I'm not a constitutional lawyer, oldgoat, but my understanding is that while countries or organizations may take actions against other countries, people legally residing or working in Canada (whether citizens or not) cannot be subjected to discrimination on the grounds of their country of origin. So, for example, I can't advertise a job and put a disclaimer that "Italians need not apply" or open a restaurant with a sign on the door saying "Koreans not welcome here." Calling for a bar from academia based on people's country of origin would seem to be no more acceptable.
You trot out the term 'McCarthyism' far too frequently. It makes other babblers question your motives on posting here in the first place.
I think all academics, politicians, teachers, bartenders, doctors, lawyers, dancers and cobblers should denounce the occupation and invasion of Gaza. But I don't think any of them should lose their jobs because of it. I don't see why only Israeli academics should be targeted (well, I do, but I think the measure is both too extreme and also unlikely to carry enough impact, economic, social or otherwise, to make a difference).
But CUPE is well within its rights to 'call for' such an action as a way of expressing the gross digust and sorrow that accompanies any serious consideration of the atrocities enacted on the Palestineans by the state of Israel.
Calling for a bar from academia based on people's country of origin would seem to be no more acceptable.
Even Brian Mulroney understood this point better than you, in the struggle against South African apartheid.
Although your legal arguments are very interesting. Perhaps the South African embassy of those days could have used your legal assistance.
His use of the term "bigoted" is particularly reprehensible, since it implies that the motive behind such boycotts is anti-Semitism. This tactic is well-known and should not be dignified with a response.
Unionist, I actually DON'T think the motivation is in any way anti-Semitic. Though, I think it does allow itself for people to spin it that way. For example, would this proposed ban apply to Arab Muslims and Christians who are citizens of Israel or jsut to Jews? If the former, it makes no sense; if the latter, I can see why some people would call it anti-Semitic.
However, the fact that it is not anti-Semitic doesn't mean that it's not "bigoted." One can be bigoted about many things besides religion. Like one's country of origin. If I proposed a ban on Italian academics (presumably largely Catholic), that would be bigotted. Not agaisnt Catholics but agaisnt Italians.
Calling for a bar from academia based on people's country of origin would seem to be no more acceptable.
Although your legal arguments are very interesting. Perhaps the South African embassy of those days could have used your legal assistance.
Was there a ban on people of South African citizenship teaching in Canadian schools during that time? If so, I would certainly oppose it. Not all citizens should be held responsible and collectively punished for the actions of their government...hey, isn't that what makes Israel's actions so morally repugnant in the first place? Collectively punishing innocent citizens of Gaza because of the actions of teh Hamas government?
I don't see why only Israeli academics should be targeted (well, I do, but I think the measure is both too extreme and also unlikely to carry enough impact, economic, social or otherwise, to make a difference).
It's about boycotts of egregious outlaw states, Catchfire. When South African athletes were barred from competing in the civilized world (i.e. everywhere else), they were not asked to state their position on apartheid. They were simply barred. Likewise with export goods. Israel is a pariah state. Until it stops committing aggression and mass murder and flagrantly violating U.N. resolutions, it is perfectly legitimate to use boycott as a weapon to bring it within the law.
As to whether it carries enough impact - well, these are university workers, and they are making a statement in the field where they work. They should be hailed and their example followed everywhere.
For example, would this proposed ban apply to Arab Muslims and Christians who are citizens of Israel or jsut to Jews?
Have you not even bothered to read the release you cited in the OP?
When you read "Israeli", you understand JEWISH?
An Israeli Christian or Muslim or atheist academic who refuses to condemn her government's mass murderous war crimes should sit and rot in Israel until her conscience, or Israel's actions, are cured.
It's rather amazing, that just after I attacked your use of the word "bigoted", you instantly accused CUPE Ontario of targetting Israeli Jewish academics. Thanks for your honesty.
For an Israeli academic to stand silent, with eyes firmly shut, in the face of the university bombing and the Israeli onslaught generally, is to be complicit in war crimes.
I don't disagree with you here but are you willing to apply this consistently? I happen to think that the Bush administration has committed war crimes in Iraq. Would you support a ban of any American academic who doesn't denounce that war? I'm appalled that most U.S. states deny loving gay couples the right to marry. Should Canada allow academics from Vermont but not from Maine?
I work with a physician here from Saudi Arabia. Brilliant doctor, brilliant researcher. He hails from a country that is reprehensible in terms of human rights for women, gays, religious minorities. Should he be barred until he explicitly denounces that regime?
One of my pet peeves and something I'm sure bothers other people here is that when some Muslim fanatic like bin laden commits an act of terrorism, there are calls from idiots for all muslims to publicly denounce it, to distance themselves from it, etc. What's unacceptable about this is that it PRESUMES support unless one explicitly denounces it. I don't think that the Muslim teacher in Toronto raising his family has any special responsibility to denounce bin Laden or that my colleague has a special responsibility to denounce certain Saudi atrocities or that I, as an immigrant need to "distance myself" from everything the Canadian government does with which I disagree. So why does an Israeli have a special responsibility? Why is there a reverse onus on them?
We msut get these people out of academia at once!!
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/935359.html
"A groundbreaking discovery in the field of artificial intelligence, conducted by two Tel Aviv University academics, and Israeli research into treating Parkinson's disease, have been selected as among the past year's greatest advancements in science by a top U.S. periodical.
Scientific American magazine placed Professor Eshel Ben-Jacob and Dr. Itay Baruchi's creation of a type of organic memory chip on its list of the year's 50 most significant scientific discoveries. "
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/128856
"Researchers at Ben Gurion University believe they have made a discovery that could make it possible to effectively neutralize the symptoms of Type 1 diabetes, the Israel21c website reports.
Dr. Eli Lewis and researchers from Ben-Gurion University in Be'er Sheva, Israel, in collaboration with the universities of Harvard, Stanford, Columbia and the University of Colorado, have discovered a method for successfully transplanting 'islets' of healthy insulin producing tissue into the diabetic pancreas"
It's not bigoted, but it is a violation of academic freedom, and it is wrong. Boycott Israel, support divestment, but don't ban the free exchange of ideas, most of which most likely will have nothing to do with the conflict itself.
Star Spanged, I also feel when you read Israeli you see Jewish. This does not say anything about who a canadian university should or shouldn't hire. Professors go on all sorts of little junkets on behalf of thier universities, attend conferences and speak. This is generally good for academia worldwide, but often benifit's the attending speaker, and enhances the reputation of theinstitution from whence he/she came, which is why thier universities send them.
If a professor from say Bar Ilan University wanted to present a scholerly paper on the decline of the oral tradition among the Siberian Upik at U of T, he could be banned from this unless he denounced the behavior of his government. I don't care if the professor was Jewish or Irish, as long as his employer was Bar Ilan U. this would to some extent be U of T's loss, but it would be that institutes loss more, and the message sent in the academic world is a very powerful one felt at influential levels.
I would strongly encourage such a boycott.
This is a tagline. It has nothing to do with the comments posted above. Just a tagline...really. Please disregard.
Josh, I disagree. Often economic boycotts, while a useful tool, can end up hurting the poorest and least influential within the targeted society if not very thoughtfully contrived. The academic boycott does not, yet is a very powerful statement of international condemnation.
This is a tagline. It has nothing to do with the comments posted above. Just a tagline...really. Please disregard.
It smacks of some sort of loyalty oath, totally at odds with traditions of academic freedom. No one should be compelled to state his or her views in order to be permitted to participate in an academic forum.
Well,
1) I don't think we need to do a blanket ban on all Israeli academics. Perhaps limiting it to only those ones that are paid by the Israeli government would be reasonable. I see no reason why all Israeli citizens need to be pnished. Collective punishment is something we are against, is it not?
2) I'm not really sure whey CUPE is weighing in on this. Isn't their mandate to look after their union employees. I don't think it is fair of them to spend union dues on pursuing such an agenda.
It's not a friggin loyalty oath. It's an all-sided ban on a pariah state - with exceptions made for those who publicly disassociate themselves from those crimes.
Frankly, I would support a ban with no exceptions, but this is a very principled alternative.
I do understand your discomfort Josh, but I don't see it as a loyalty oath, or about freedom of the expression of ideas. I think it is a recognition that academia, and the liberal virtues thereof do no exist outside of reality, seperate from the world. It isn't about expressing ideas, it's about behaviour, and the recognition that some behaviour is beyond any level of toleration.
This is a tagline. It has nothing to do with the comments posted above. Just a tagline...really. Please disregard.
Collective punishment is something we are against, is it not?
That sounds like those who said that that poor black South Africans would suffer the most from a boycott of South Africa.
That's a typical union- and worker-hating agenda, talking point of the right. You preachers of fairness and democracy dare to stand up and deny workers' rights to collectively espouse political causes through their union, or through any other vehicle they choose. I can promise you that you will fail miserably in any such attempts, as have various right-wing extremists failed before:
Supreme Court of Canada decision in Lavigne v. OPSEU et al, 1991
If a professor from say Bar Ilan University wanted to present a scholerly paper on the decline of the oral tradition among the Siberian Upik at U of T, he could be banned from this unless he denounced the behavior of his government. I don't care if the professor was Jewish or Irish, as long as his employer was Bar Ilan U. this would to some extent be U of T's loss, but it would be that institutes loss more, and the message sent in the academic world is a very powerful one felt at influential levels.
Well, it may hurt the prestige of bar Ilan but it also hurts many others: it hurts the students at uofT who could ahve gained from this professor's knowledge, it hurts the overall cumulative gaining and sharing of knowledge in general and it hurts UofT in several ways. First, it can make it more difficult to attract top talent which hurts the university in terms of the quality they offer, the grants they can get, etc. Most schools would be absolutely thrilled to be able to get, say, a Nobel-prize winning physicist. If you're unwilling to hire said physicist because they're Israeli..hell, even if you're unwilling to hire them because they absolutely unapologetically support the attack on Gaza, you're still harming your school's reputation and denying your students that opportunity. You're also gaining a reputation for intoelrance and as a suppressor of academic freedom.
With regards to your notion that it hurts bar Ilan university, maybe so but WHY is this a noble goal? Most universities ahve hundreds of academics with diverse views. If one (or even msot) support policies you hate, that is no reason to punish everyone at said school. I say the following not to name drop but to illustrate a point: I hold a degree from Stanford University. The former provost of Stanford was Condoleeza Rice. Now, I imagine that msot of us have negative opinions of dr. Rice due to her actions as a member of the Bush administration. Should the fact that I went to a school with which she was affiliated be construed as me supporting her policies? Should every graduate of Stanford be forced into some ridiculous loyalty oath because of one individual at said school? Should I not hire a fellowship candidate with a medical degree from Johns Hopkins (arguably the msot prestigious med school in teh country) because the school of foreign policy studies was once run by Paul Wolfowitz?
How about even if I or tehy were in full support of Rice and/or Wolfowitz? Would our views on foreign policy be IN ANY WAY relevant to our ability to conduct medical research? We hire academics for tehir research and teaching ability not for their political views (outside the political science department, I suppose). If there was a researcher doing groundbreaking work to cure cancer but was a thoroughly bigoted, cahuvanistic, all-around asshole, should a university not hire them? If you needed heart surgery tomorrow, would you rather be treated by the shitty surgeon who gives half his salary to Amnesty International and spent th previous day at an anti-Israel rally or by the brillaint surgeon with the "Bomb Gaza" bumper sticker and the "I love Olmert" tattoo on his ass?
It's not a friggin loyalty oath. It's an all-sided ban on a pariah state - with exceptions made for those who publicly disassociate themselves from those crimes.
Frankly, I would support a ban with no exceptions, but this is a very principled alternative.
No, an outright ban would be more principled. I would still be against it, but it would be more principled.
Your first paragraph is laughable. You say it's not a loyalty oath, but then proceed to note that only those compelled to condemn certain activities, i.e., swearing allegance to a particular point of view, will be permitted to participate.
It isn't about expressing ideas, it's about behaviour, and the recognition that some behaviour is beyond any level of toleration.
If it were about behaviour, then those who participated in the violence would be banned. But it doesn't because it isn't. It's about forcing someone to take a particular point of view.
I do understand your discomfort Josh, but I don't see it as a loyalty oath, or about freedom of the expression of ideas. I think it is a recognition that academia, and the liberal virtues thereof do no exist outside of reality, seperate from the world. It isn't about expressing ideas, it's about behaviour, and the recognition that some behaviour is beyond any level of toleration.
Could you please provide a list of beahviours and/or viewpoints that we in academia should consider "beyond toleration"?
Is it jsut support for Israel? Seriously, give us a list...
How about I'll give a handful of viewpoints/behaviours and you can tell me which, if any, of these should disqualify someone from teaching a course on say, Shakespeare:
-Having voted for Bush (how bout twice?)
-Supporting the U.S. war in Iraq
-Being a member of the National Rifle Association
-Identifying as "pro-life" and wanting to end legalized abortion
-Being opposed to same sex marriage being legal
-Opposing public healthcare for all
-Publicly denouncing affirmative action policies in universities
Because I personally work with people who have done or believe all of the above. I disagree with them but they ahve every right to hold such views and every right for those views to have no bearing whatsoever on whether they are hired, particularly because not one of those views or actions is in any way relevant to their ability to do their jobs.
I agree. If they're coming on the coin of the Israeli government, then the policy of excluding them would be appropriate. Individuals on their own should not need to check their thoughts at the door. It should be recognized though that people who are on the government payroll will more than likely jeopardize their tenure if they speak against their employers and their country. This business of screening political views is fraught with consequences.
Does this include Israeli academics who oppose Israel's policies? Does it include academics who received their education at one or more Israeli universities but want to leave Israel and teach in the west? Does it include people who received their undergraduate degree at an Israeli university but are seeking graudate or post-graduate degrees abroad? Does it include them even if they reject Israel's policies?
Have you bothered to read this thread?
Yes, I have which is why I'm asking the question. The CUPE press release doesn't seem to include people who have recieved all or part of their education in an Israeli institution but are no longer affilited. However, there was a case in the UK where a professor turned down a grad student applicant who had received prior degrees from Israel - hence my question on that front. The press release does not exclude Israeli academics who oppose Israel's policies from the boycott.
This is the same bullshit that progressive people face any time they condemn injustice:
"Oh yeah? well what about Iran? what about North Korea? Hey?"
According to these highly-principled worthies, we weren't allowed to boycott South Africa unless we boycotted every country in the world that had a bad human rights record.
It's always easy, in retrospect, that such views provided support and cover for apartheid, enslavement, and murder.
The trick is to see it when it is happening today.
That has nothing to do with what SSC was referring to. But, nice strawman.
How do you interpret this:
Ah, I missed that. Thanks for pointing it out, it addresses my main concern.
Here is an excerpt from the appeal launched on Dec. 30 by the Palestinian Federation of Unions of University Professors and Employees:
We urge academics around the world to intensify their boycott of Israeli academic institutions, and to isolate the Israeli academy in international forums, associations of academics, and other international venues. Israeli academic institutions are complicit in the entrenched system of oppression practiced by the Israeli state, and their silence at this critical moment is only the most vociferous indicator of this complicity.
Those of you who appreciate the subtleties of "academic freedom" better than the Palestinian academics do, may wish to write to Dr. Amjad Barham, president of the Federation, to explain why you feel he is being bigoted and McCarthyite.
Following up a strawman with cheap demagoguery, I see.
One can oppose Israeli aggression and not sacrifice freedom of thought and conscience. It is possible to walk and chew gum at the same time.
Following up a strawman with cheap demagoguery, I see.
One can oppose Israeli aggression and not sacrifice freedom on thought and conscience. It is possible to walk and chew gum at the same time.
It's also possible to listen to the organizations of Palestinians, who are the victims here, and comply with their requests for assistance.
That's what I was trained to do in the peace movement and the union movement. Solidarity means, when those on the front lines make a simple request, you say "sure", knowing your turn will come.
Or, being White Westerners and very superior, we may say: "Oh, we oppose Israeli aggression, but sorry, your request goes way too far."
You choose your response, I'll choose mine. But if you have any integrity, you will indeed write to the Federation and explain your inability to comply.
Or, you can call me names, if that makes you feel better.
White westerner and superior? Calling names?
As I said, it is possible to oppose Israeli aggression without sacrificing, or abandoning, freedom of thought and conscience.
I guess it comes down to whether you want to support the universal appeals of Palestinian civil society for support, or not.
The opening poster calls the proposed CUPE boycott "neo-McCarthyism and an indefensible assault on the basic tenets of academic freedom? Not to mention utterly bigoted and likely unconstitutional?"
Such venom, such passion.
This is one of those moments in life when you're either with the Palestinian people, or you're against them.
Here is an excerpt from the appeal of the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions National Committee, dated Dec. 27, 2008. Why not tell us, josh, how it is possible to "oppose Israeli aggression" and ignore this appeal simultaneously (you know, walk and chew gum):
It's signed by the constituent members:
I support them and their appeal. I urge you to reconsider and do the same. History and our consciences record which side we are on at crucial times.
"you're either with the Palestinian people, or you're against them. "
George W. Welcome.
The negative publicity against Israel will be beneficial, though the resolution will fail, imo.
Why will it fail?
CUPE Ontario already has a position of boycott against Israel on its books:
Resolution 50 expresses CUPE Ontario’s support for the international campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions until Israel meets its obligations to recognize the Palestinian people’s inalieable right to self-determination and fully complies with international law including resolution 194 calling for the right of return of Palestinian refugees.
This was before the invasion of Lebanon, and before the invasion of Gaza.
I repeat - why would it fail now?
Why doesn't CUPE put it's money where it's mouth is and bar Israelis or those who've studied in Israeli schools from membership in the union and make ALL of its members publicly denounce Israel's attack on gaza as a pre-condition of remaining in the union? They obviously believe that holding certain viewpoints should preclude one from fair labour and employment standards. Why not go ahead and put this into practice themselves?
The object of any discussion is to advance ideas and share knowledge, not bash every one in sight against the wall.
On the question of a boycott, the debate may be more constructively put on the level of whether the measures adopted are directly and rationally related to the goal officially claimed for it.
If the goal is to stop the fighting, get a ceasefire, get the Israeli leadership to change its policies and negotiate a serious peace deal so Palestinians (and Israelis) can live in a secure peaceful region, it can be argued that an academic boycott makes little sense.
Not allowing a pediatric cancer specialist to teach at UofT or to participate in a clinical trial at McGill is not connected to any of the above legitimate objectives.
Some 20 years ago or more (oops, am I that old), I had the opportunity to participate in the anti-apartheid movement for divestment. We targetted university investments directly tied to South Africa. At the time, at McGill, I actually had 2 South African profs, of very different political outlooks. It never crossed our minds in the divestment movement to call for boycotting any academic from that country simply based on origin or nationality because there was no rational commection between a boycott of persons based on accident of birth and change in South Africa. At lest none that came to us.
It would have violated academic freedom, a whole bunch of Quebec and Canadian laws.
But getting the university to divest from companies whose activities benefitted the South African government, now that was directly connected.
As a parallel, the case can be made convincingly that the illegal settlements in the occupied Territories depend on materials from foreign companies, for example earthmoving and bulldozer companies. If I am not mistaken, bulldozers from foreign firms are used in illegal house demolitions on occasion. There is a direct rational connection between a campaign aimed at stopping sales of bulldozers to Israeli construction firms and opposing Israeli policies. That is just one example.
But boycotting an Israeli poet or cancer specialist? I don't see the connection.
The unfortunate thing about the drive to polarize this (and other) debates is that the intransigent extremes end up resembling each other.
Unionist appears to accept no criticism, no matter how slight, of any of his positions. You are either 100% behind anything the Palestinians claim or demand (or what HE claims is the only true Palestinian or progressive or anti-war position) or you are some kind of evil thing.
He kind of reminds me of the ultra pro-Israeli propagandists, in an odd way.
"You are either 100% for me or you are against me." Most rational people do not agree with that kind of ideological blackmail or emotional bullying ultimatum. The world is a bit more complex. It does not come down to either Likud/Kadima or Hamas. Some of us may be more attracted to other ideas on both sides that don't agree with the absurb attempts by extremes on both sides to destroy any way forward.
Yeah, walk and chew gum at the same time. Been doing it for more than 40 years.
Boycott things not people.
Your comment about "those who've studied in Israeli schools" shows your bad faith. Why would you fabricate this? Who has called for banning "those who've studied in Israeli schools"?
That's bullshit. This is not about people's "views". It's about whether we welcome FOREIGN VISITORS (not residents, not citizens) to our campuses from a country (Israel) which deserves to be on an international blacklist of pariah states, for all the reasons given. Same as banning Israeli-made canned food, building materials, whatever. Same as banning imports from apartheid-era South Africa.
CUPE Ontario would allow an exception for those who publicly disassociate themselves from their state's barbarities, which is fine IMO. But to suggest the international boycott campaign is about boycotting opinions is the easy kind of lie necessary to ridicule a principled stand.
Israel has to be isolated and condemned, until it brings itself within the norms of international law. Everyone and everything from that country should be stamped with a "DO NOT HANDLE" tag.
It's called a boycott.
Star Spangled that is a particularly stupid and ill thought out post.
Anyway, the more I think about it the more I think that as a boycott, this is a particularly appropriate fit. Boycotts and sanctions are not one size fits all. Sometimes economic and commercial boycotts cause suffering in unintended areas, among those who have the least influence. They can be ineffective because of the particular targeted sector or just the size of the economy. Most often they don't work because the target finds ways around them.
This would be an effective boycott if all Canadian universities were on board because it targets an influential class, challenges them and gives them choices. In a country which presumably values education, it serves as a particularly eloquent rebuke.
Do you folks acknowledge that the time wasted responding to this person's straw men could be used to pressure our politicians, academics, media, community organizations, friends, family into taking action...?
Sorry, were they visiting profs, or were they resident in Canada?
You do understand, I hope, that CUPE Ontario is not calling for boycotts of people who were born in Israel, or studied in Israel, or hold Israeli passports - don't you?
South Africa. From there, but one decided to emigrate and stay in Canada. None of them was in a "political" field. It never would have ocured to us to ask that they be boycotted. What could have been the purpose of that or the rational, easy-to-explain, connection with apartheid? There was none.
Thanks for asking. And please stop making it out that anyone who does not agree 100% with everything you say is somehow evil or an idiot. That does not really advance any discussion.
I think we are all smart, concerned people here at Rabble.
You will get way more leverage out of boycotting bulldozer firms than out of boycotting poets or writers or historians.
That's bullshit. This is not about people's "views". It's about whether we welcome FOREIGN VISITORS (not residents, not citizens) to our campuses from a country (Israel) which deserves to be on an international blacklist of pariah states, for all the reasons given. Same as banning Israeli-made canned food, building materials, whatever. Same as banning imports from apartheid-era South Africa.
CUPE Ontario would allow an exception for those who publicly disassociate themselves from their state's barbarities, which is fine IMO. But to suggest the international boycott campaign is about boycotting opinions is the easy kind of lie necessary to ridicule a principled stand.
Israel has to be isolated and condemned, until it brings itself within the norms of international law. Everyone and everything from that country should be stamped with a "DO NOT HANDLE" tag.
Pointing out that they are "visitors" and not citizens is irrelevant. Many people in Canada are not citizens and come here to work (some in CUPE even, perhaps) or study and when they are here are entitled to fair and equitable treatment. If a "visitor" from Italy was in Canada and encountered a sign on a restaurant saying "No Italians Allowed" nobody would defend it on teh grounds that our italian friend is just a visitor and a non-citizen.
How can you say it's NOT about "opinions" when teh CUPE resolution explicitly states that those who publicly express an opinion will be exempt and those who do not will be banned. How dense do you ahve to be to not see that it clearly IS about what opinions they hold? Opinions, it should be noted, that ahve absolutely nothing to do with one's qualification to teach or conduct research.
Unionist, can you please provide me with a list of other countries you feel should be subjected to the same boycott you support against Israel? Should we add to the list any country where women can't vote? How about those where homosexuality is punishable by death? How about those where slavery is still practiced?
When people complain that Israel is being unfairly singled out, it's hard to argue with them when we get shit like this.
Also, please answer this: someone gave the example of a pediatric oncologist from Israel coming to UofT. Unionist, are you prepared to say with a straight face and a clear conscious that you feel that someone committed to treating children with cancer should be banned from practicing here because of their citizenships and/or opinions on an issue that has nothing to do with treating kids with cancer? If you really, honestly, truly believe that a boycott of a country (which will ahve no effect anyways) should take priority over cancer research, I'm truly at a loss as to how to respond. I can only presume that if you or your family has any medical conditions, you will refrain from taking any medicines or undergoing any procedures that may ahve been developed in Israel or by Israelis.
The consolation that I do take from this, however, is that CUPE has no power to actually do anything about this and are jsut blowing hot air. I'm a university professor and a medical researcher and it'll be a cold day in hell before any thugs tell me how and with whom I can conduct my research.
Hilarious! The thugs who run your country will drag you out of there and lock you up if you express the wrong opinion about Iraq or Afghanistan or Gaza.
I agree 100% with unionist's and old goat's stated positions and ideological stances, and of course with this endeavor by CUPE. In fact, I applaud them on their principled stance.
___________________________________________________________ "watching the tide roll away"
I've met these kinds of people many times before. They come up to us on the picket line saying: "Oh, I support your cause, I'm not going to be working there, I just have some important personal business to do, it won't harm your strike in any way."
Of course, we let them pass. It's all good. Except for the "I support your cause" bullshit. They support it so long as it doesn't inconvenience them in the slightest.
The only bullshit is your continued ridiculous analogy between a strike and what is happening in Gaza. Apples and oranges, as they say.
Hilarious! The thugs who run your country will drag you out of there and lock you up if you express the wrong opinion about Iraq or Afghanistan or Gaza.
Now, you're simply being stupid. Do you really belive that? If so, you're simply ill-informed. And I should know, since I've lived here over a decade, frequently express the "wrong" opinions and not only have I not been "dragged out and locked up", I've been given scholarships, fellowships, research grants, a tenure-track professorship, speaking engagements across the country. Cause the "thugs" who run my country recognize that my views on their foreign policy have nothing whatsoever to do with my ability to practice medine and conduct research.
Go distribute leaflets calling for victory for Hamas on your campus, SSC, and let me know how much your land of the free and home of the brave cherishes academic freedom.
Or you can explain to Norman Finkelstein that his tenure denial was really because he's less qualified than people like you.
So the cure to violations of academic freedom is more violation of academic freedom?
A wild stab at an impossible task: explaining what the proposal really says.
The proposed ban is against members of Israeli institutions making formal visits as representatives. Formally associated, fully paid by. Not Israeli citizens or visitors, no bar on job seekers.
Sophistry.
What a spectacle. You people in the U.S. attacking university workers in Canada for proposing that we boycott Israel at a time when they are slaughtering an imprisoned people.
And you portray yourselves as being on the side of "freedom".
What shameful behaviour.
You're supporting a proposal that would overturn the basic notion of academic freedom, discrimiante against people based on country of origin, make political opinion a disqualification from employment, restrict academics in terms of with whom they may conduct research, and, if ever actually implemented, delay or halt important research and breakthroughs and you actually question anyone else's committment to "freedom". I don't know how you don't topple voer from the weight of what I can only imagine are some massive, massive balls.
You've ducked this question already but I will try again: Why only Israel? You mention that they are 'slaughetering" and "imprisoning" a people. That's true but they're far from the only ones or even the worst ones. Where the calls for boycotts of other countries? Why not America? They've killed far more people in Iraq than israel has in Gaza. Canada has killed far more in Afghanistan. In Sudan, there's literal genocide taking place. The iranian government has executed, by hanging, teenagers convicted of the crime of being gay. Would you support a boycott of each of these countries? The more intellectual contortions I hear to justify the double standard, the more sympathy i gain for those who ask why it's the Jews that are being singled out.
Your interest in this issues is very heart warming. I have noticed how much attention you have been paying to the ongoing slaughter in Gaza over the last few days, and the posts you have made have been bountiful with insight and humanity.
Your posts decrying the destruction of Palestinian educational facilities, not just the Islamic University but the American International School, and others shows the consistency with which you apply your principles.
Principles is what we need right now. Not double talk. Your support for higher education, and your stand against bigtory in education is truly awe-inspiring.
[SNIP]
Saraj said the school had 250 students and many of its graduates went on to U.S. universities such as Harvard, MIT and Princeton. "They are very good, highly educated open-minded students who can really be future leaders of Palestine,"
In the light of the consistent concern you have shown regarding the erradication of the Palestinian educational system, not to mention many students, it is nice to see that your views are not tinged by any bias as we can see by your concern for the Israeli academics under discussion here.
One question, is bombing schools "fascist" or is it merely Neo-McCarthyism?
You've ducked this question already but I will try again: Why only Israel?
Save your bait for your students. I'm all grown up now. In the real-life movement, we never once stopped the task at hand when some idler said, "Well, what about..."?
Yeah, that's what George W. Bush says. Welcome to the very small club.
Real Jews don't fall for bait like yours. We've survived thousands of years because of our X-ray vision. Nice try at making Israel the "victim" by calling them "Jews", by the way. You share that bad habit with the most monstrous anti-Semites. You were called on it before, but like a bad smell, back you come.
A wild stab at an impossible task: explaining what the proposal really says.
The proposed ban is against members of Israeli institutions making formal visits as representatives. Formally associated, fully paid by. Not Israeli citizens or visitors, no bar on job seekers.
I applaud your effort to actually look at the facts.
But for some in this thread, the facts aren't relevant. The statements I cited above:
1. from the Palestinian Federation of Unions of University Professors and Employees; and
2. from the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions National Committee;
are crystal clear in their intent and what they are asking academics (in the first case) and everyone (in the second) to do in support of the Palestinian people.
Our heroic champions of academic "freedom" in this thread haven't commented on those international appeals. Instead, two U.S. residents choose to blast a group of university workers in Ontario for daring to support those appeals and proposing to implement them on their campuses.
I strongly feel that their "indignation" tells more about their ambiguous stand on Palestine and the Gaza invasion than it does about any more ethereal principles of academe.
One question, is bombing schools "fascist" or is it merely Neo-McCarthyism?
Fascist.
Why will it fail?
CUPE Ontario already has a position of boycott against Israel on its books:
Resolution 50 expresses CUPE Ontario’s support for the international campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions until Israel meets its obligations to recognize the Palestinian people’s inalieable right to self-determination and fully complies with international law including resolution 194 calling for the right of return of Palestinian refugees.
This was before the invasion of Lebanon, and before the invasion of Gaza.
I repeat - why would it fail now?
supporting a ban on Israeli academics doing speaking, teaching or research work at Ontario universities
Judging by the 'heat' on this thread, it is not a slam dunk at all.
Even if the union passes it, the university is not obliged to implement it.
It is useful for publicity, adding to the discussion, but I don't believe it will ever be implemented.
When South African athletes were banned, were South African academics banned too?
It's a much dicier question, due to the issue of academic freedom.
There is no point to making exceptions for those who oppose their government: They won't likely be allowed to travel and speak anyway.
I don't see any advantages to politicizing academics, but I do respect your strong feelings on this subject.
Collective punishment is something we are against, is it not?
By "we" do you mean progressives?
I think collective punishment is something most progressives oppose...unless it's against a system opposed by progressives, in which case collective punishment is acceptable.
_________________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
I see the Mad Hatter's tea party has begun.
Cue!
___________________________________________________________ "watching the tide roll away"
I don't think it's "bait". I think you just can't plausibly answer it. Unless your progressive concern extends solely to Palestinians, it's a valid question.
Why not apply the same sort of pressure to other countries with a shitty human rights record?? Can anyone answer this without any sad excuses like "we don't have the resources to not support more than one country at a time"?
I would have to think that all CUPE would need to do would be to add a few more countries to the list. It's that easy! So why not?
Mind you, someone might suggest boycotting countries like Zimbabwe, or Cuba. Is that it?
Only insecure people would fail to answer the questions posed by Star Spangled Canuck. Those questions again were:
"U******t, can you please provide me with a list of other countries you feel should be subjected to the same boycott you support against Israel? Should we add to the list any country where women can't vote? How about those where homosexuality is punishable by death? How about those where slavery is still practiced? "
Do you "progressives" share a dorm, or something?
Welcome to the New Elbbab!
Still won't answer huh? C'mon, give it a shot.
"U******t, can you please provide me with a list of other countries you feel should be subjected to the same boycott you support against Israel? Should we add to the list any country where women can't vote? How about those where homosexuality is punishable by death? How about those where slavery is still practiced? "
You know, Cueball, when I watch another feeble feeding frenzy like this one, I can't figure out whether they use telepathy, or just plain pathology. Or some kind of cyber-handshake. It's very very effective though, isn't it? They come up with brilliant arguments, unassailable logic! It's strings, then woodwinds, brass, percussion - under the baton of some great conductor!
And the traps - my goodness, are they ever alluring! One more piece of fresh raw bait, and I'm just going to walk right in!!
Wish me Happy Birthday! I was born yesterday!!
Still won't answer huh? C'mon, give it a shot.
"U******t, can you please provide me with a list of other countries you feel should be subjected to the same boycott you support against Israel? Should we add to the list any country where women can't vote? How about those where homosexuality is punishable by death? How about those where slavery is still practiced? "
That is not the issue. The issue is that Israel is directly linked into the same socio-economic network as Canada, and the US, and the rest of the western world. It is directly supported by us through aid. There universities directly benefit from our support. Removing that support, and ostracizing the institutions of the society is a practical way of ending their ethnic cleansing program being undertaken by Israel right now.
Furthermore, Canada does officially sanction societies when they partake in human rights abuse. But, in this case it never does, nor does it seem likely that it will do. Much like South Africa. And this has been going on for a long time. So, the challenge is to insitute sanctions against Israel institution by institution by direct intervention of the Canadian people.
It is ridiculous to pose the threat to gay people by some legal systems, and the pogrom going on in Gaza. And, as I noted before, Canada does take timely action and condemn such things as slavery and prejudicial laws against gay people.This question about ethics is a joke, is it not? Because right now we are actually occupying Afghanistan on the premise that we are defending the essential rights of Afghans.Why not invade and occupy Israel therefore?
This question about ethics is a joke, is it not? Because right now we are actually occupying Afghanistan on the premise that we are defending the essential rights of Afghans. Why not invade and occupy Israel therefore?
Of course it's a joke. And there is no other country in the world today which has illegally occupied another's land for over four decades, denied refugees the right to return home for over six decades, and regularly launches infantry and bombing raids and targeted assassination attacks across its borders, all in violation of numerous U.N. resolutions.
If it didn't serve U.S. and allied interests on a daily basis, it would have either disappeared long ago - or, more optimistically, learned to live with and respect its neighbours, rather than considering them as so many rats to be exterminated.
These characters are responsible not only for massacring Arabs, but they daily endanger my people as well, besides turning them into savages. They will pay dearly for these crimes one day soon.
Star Spangled, why do you begin a thread over a Canadian union's option to advocate for a boycott rather than a state's decsion to bomb a university? Isn't the latter far more heinous than the former, regardless of your politics? Did not Israel just demolish any form of academic activity with a couple of thousand pound bombs? And before that, didn't Israel prevent Palestinians academics, at that same school, from travelling and participating in academic activities abroad? Maybe you could save your self-righteous anger for those who truly deserve it.
Thank you, FM.
FM, you are offering a false choice and you know it.
Just because something is 'far more heinous' as you put it, doesn't mean that we need to focus all our energies on the more heinous of the two.
For instance, there are despicable acts commited against women in Saudi Arabia, but that certainly doesn't mean that systemic marginalization of women in Canada shouldn't be talked about, because there is something more heinous.
It's intriguing that CUPE has focused only on Israel. Perhaps Israel is merely the first country to which this kind of action will be taken and, as a matter of principle, CUPE will apply similar actions in the near future to many, many other countries with odious policies and practices.
But don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.
______________________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
It is not a false choice at all. In fact, the CUPE choice is a courageous choice. Inexplicably, to me, so-called human beings can turn a blind eye on all manner of horror and focus their attention squarely, instead, on the most mundane and benign activities.
While they are being starved, frozen, and brutalized, we are told, Palestinians must also be silent and accept their fates otherwise, as we are witness, the horror and inhumanity of their existence will be made worse by an order of magnitude.
Those who would sympathize with Palestinians, if only they would accept to suffer quietly and over there where we can't see them, will argue that the best resistance is exampled by Ghandi and King and the networks of supporters these beacons of non-violent civil rights engendered.
But when one union follows such a path doing the very least it can do, and probably the most, the cries of anguish and demand for the rights of the privelged ring out like church bells in a valley.
Bullshit!
The one choice, the only choice, the moral imperative is to stand with the victims against the aggressor and to depart from these snivelling attacks upon those who have the guts and the courage to do something.
Just fucking stop it. For once, just once, can't we be human instead of pamphleteers and walking advertizements for causes and ideologies that promote and perpetuate the banality of evil?
I mean, doesn't the spineless and cowardly statements of Michael Ignatieff and Lawrence Cannon make you ashamed as a Canadian? CUPE stands alone as an icon of moral courage. Good for them.
CUPE stands alone as an icon of moral courage.
The FIRST country CUPE decides to target is a primarily Jewish one. Instead of going after primarily Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia and Sudan which have incredibly-more-serious human rights abuses against women, homosexuals, and racial minorities. Hell, they even have actual genocide going on in Darfur. But CUPE is down with that. No, it's the Jewish country they target. I wonder why.....
Really? What Arab country has imprisoned 1.5 million people, on the basis of their ethnicity, into a camp teeming with raw sewage, kept in the dark, cold, hungry, frigthened, and then bombed and attacked? What country?
I don't think the racism is CUPE's. I think it is your's.
Of course it's a joke. And there is no other country in the world today which has illegally occupied another's land for over four decades, denied refugees the right to return home for over six decades, and regularly launches infantry and bombing raids and targeted assassination attacks across its borders
Your forgetting about China. ( minus the bombing raids- that I am aware of- but does include the infantry raids and targeted assassination that all of that has happened in Tibet and which was invaded in 1949 continue to this day )
Whenever a country occupies anoters homeland, doesn't allow refugees to return home and regularily launches attacks against it's citizens both targeted or "untargeted" it is a horrible situation that needs to be changed.
I don't know enough about acedemia to know how or why this will work so I won't comment on my opinion on if it will but here are the Dalai Lama's words on war
"We have seen that we cannot solve human problems by fighting. Problems resulting from differences in opinion must be resolved through the gradual process of dialogue."
That is something I can agree with. So if this ban does bring tha ability for more dialogue and less fighting than I am all for it and if it does not I guess I am against it.
Really? What Arab country has imprisoned 1.5 million people,
If by imprisoned you include women being forced to stay in the house unless escorted by a male relative, and being forced to undergo FGM (a form of torture) then Saudi Arabia fits.
CUPE stands alone as an icon of moral courage.
The FIRST country CUPE decides to target is a primarily Jewish one. Instead of going after primarily Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia and Sudan which have incredibly-more-serious human rights abuses against women, homosexuals, and racial minorities. Hell, they even have actual genocide going on in Darfur. But CUPE is down with that. No, it's the Jewish country they target. I wonder why.....
Because you're a provocateur with nothing better to do that call anti-Israeli forces anti-Semitic? Along with your B'nai B'rith talking points about Darfur (as if you give a shit about dark-skinned folks)?
How pathetic. But - at a time when Israel murders in the name of the "Jewish state" - how criminal is your complicity and your provocation.
We now have three U.S. posters on the same site, coincidentally, attacking the anti-Israel forces in Canada. And the military has decided to weigh in.
This is rich! All this because a group of university workers in Ontario has decided to take a courageous stand and respond to an appeal by the Palestinian people.
As a worker, a Canadian, a Quebecker, and a Jew, I proudly stand with the victims of oppression and always will. Those of you posting from abroad are welcome to come visit here any time. But leave your pro-U.S. ideas at home.
Your freedom ends at our border.
Of course it's a joke. And there is no other country in the world today which has illegally occupied another's land for over four decades, denied refugees the right to return home for over six decades, and regularly launches infantry and bombing raids and targeted assassination attacks across its borders
Your forgetting about China.
And India
And North, Central and South AmeriKa.
And Australia
And New Zealand
And Russia
As opposed to being starved and shot or torn to bits along with their children by shrapnel? You're quite the humanitarian. To bad your outrage only extends to Islamic states. And, by the way, like Israel, Saudi Arabia is a close US ally. Birds of a feather and all ...
Your forgetting about China. ( minus the bombing raids- that I am aware of- but does include the infantry raids and targeted assassination that all of that has happened in Tibet and which was invaded in 1949 continue to this day )
Not sure if you care - but in case you do (because your other posts sound rather sincere), the entire world community (including Canada and the U.S.) recognizes Tibet as being part of China. No country in the world recognizes Israel's right to Gaza or the West Bank or the Golan Heights, or Jerusalem as its "capital". There are no U.N. resolutions demanding that China abandon Tibet. It is part of China. There are no end of U.N. resolutions condemning Israeli occupation and aggression against foreign lands.
So it's important not to make up stories. You should check your facts. Israel is different from all the others. It illegally occupies others' lands and regularly commits armed aggression and assassination. And it hauls out its chorus of liars (check some on this board) whenever its victims occasionally defend themselves and kill someone (on a 1 to 100 ratio).
Israel is doomed. My only hope is that its people wake up in larger numbers and seek peace long before that day comes.
Your forgetting about China.
And Sri Lanka. Lots of countries occupying others' territory. Only Israel gets special treatment.
And, by the way, Saudi Arabia is a close US ally.
So close that most of the 9/11 hijackers cames from there. C'mon, at least try to present a coherent argument
Actually, that is a lie. I will be blunt from now on. Only Israel is actively engaged with a modern, industrial military force in a liquidation of an imprisoned civilian population. That is what you are apologizing for. The actions of Israel are monstrous and incomprable to anything else taking place in the world today and that is quite the accomplishment given the total scale of humanities inhumanity to itself at this particular point in time.
Do you have any sense at all of recent history and current events or are you just a complete moron? Sorry, moderators, but I only have so much patience and I really can't stand utter stupidity.
Who the hell's territory is Sri Lanka occupying?
This is a tagline. It has nothing to do with the comments posted above. Just a tagline...really. Please disregard.
The actions of Israel are monstrous and incomprable to anything else taking place in the world today and that is quite the accomplishment given the total scale of humanities inhumanity to itself at this particular point in time.
Not even close. The tobacco corporations deliberately murder millions every year, and the pesticide corporations millions more. And you think Israel is worse than that? Wow.
Who the hell's territory is Sri Lanka occupying?
The Tamils's. But no one cares very much about them...
So you would compare smoking and lawn care with what is happening in Gaza today? So for you then, the holocaust was just a series of really bad traffic accidents? When does this asshole get banned?
Murder is murder. Knowingly distributing products that lead inevitably to death is murder.
Objective Observer wrote:Frustrated Mess wrote:
The actions of Israel are monstrous and incomprable to anything else taking place in the world today and that is quite the accomplishment given the total scale of humanities inhumanity to itself at this particular point in time.
Not even close. The tobacco corporations deliberately murder millions every year, and the pesticide corporations millions more. And you think Israel is worse than that? Wow.
Good lord! And here we are with no roll-eyes smiley.
Tell it to the victims. I'm sure your vacuous argument will find favour with those who can defend anything.
OO, at this point you seem to be no longer taking things seriously. I mean really.
There is a civil war going on in Sri Lanka involving a Tamil secessionist movement. Actually, the Sinhalese army is not occupying the very loosely defined disputed territory. They probably see that as a problem, but the sides and bounderies are vague. You don't know what you're talking about.
Further, sanctions against China have been discussed for decades. They're too big. Won't work. Iran? Sanctions? Buddy, ya gotta have commercial and/or cultural connections in the first place before you can remove them. We can remove what little is there, they wouldn't notice. Saudi Arabia? What the hell, bring it on. Most babblers have bikes. I do.
Like I said above, as sanctions and boycotts go, one size doesn't fit all.
This is a tagline. It has nothing to do with the comments posted above. Just a tagline...really. Please disregard.
Tell it to the victims. I'm sure your vacuous argument will find favour with those who can defend anything.
Well then, to summarize. You claimed that Israel is currently committing acts that are more horrible than anything else on earth. I pointed out that various corporations are murdering millions with tobacco and pesticides. You sulk about how that's an unfair comparison and walk away with an insult.
There is a civil war going on in Sri Lanka involving a Tamil secessionist movement. Actually, the Sinhalese army is not occupying the very loosely defined disputed territory. They probably see that as a problem, but the sides and bounderies are vague. You don't know what you're talking about.
Actually I do. You see, when I lived in Toronto I got to know a Tamil refugee and his family quite well. I think you're from Toronto as well. Did you know that the GTA has the largest concentration of Tamils outside of Sri Lanka. They're your neighbours. Please speak with them about what the Sri Lanka monsters are doing to them,
Yeah, special treatment for Israel. God knows no one had ever mobilized or protested against big tobacco and the pesticide companies.
However, I shall admonish myself for getting drawn into your red herrings and straw persons, (not to mention utter irrelevencies) and just let your arguments stand publicly for themselves.
If you can't comprehend the difference between the lifestyle choices of free people and societies and the enforced ghettoization, starvation, and massacre of a people, then I can't help you. No one can. You are empty of conscience. You are a psychopath in my view. And a troll. I have nothing more to say to you.
But leave your pro-U.S. ideas at home.
Your freedom ends at our border.
I was going to make a comment but I would not want to cause
Unionist any distress with my crazy non Quebec western Canadian
ideas.
If you can't comprhend the difference between lifestyle choices of free people and societies
Sure, the Mexican farmworkers drenched in DOW pesticides have all sorts of choices in the matter don't they? Sarcasm.
Tobacco companies? Bizarre. I knew this was going to turn into the Mad Hatter's tea party when Sven showed up... and look... wow.
Oh Bollocks. You lived in Toronto once and knew a Tamil family. As a mental health case manager, over half of my teams caseload has been Tamil. Just out my office window in Scarborough is Tuxedo Court, aka "Little Jaffna" I do a lot of PTS work with this population, and I've been doing it for over 9 years. Two of my team mates are Tamil. It's a highly complex issue, with atrocities having been performed on both sides, but it isn't an occupation. You don't know what you're talking about.
Yes, they do. They can quit. They can form a union. They can lobby politically for legislative protections. They can lobby to ban harmful chemcials. They can enlist political allies both in Mexico and abroad. And Mexican workers do all these things. And they still want their jobs. This is what you can't understand as you lack the basic essential of a conscience. The people of Gaza have no choice. They are prisoners of Israel in an open jail walking in their own sewage without even clean water nevermind food and they are subject to bombings, armed intrusion, and shell firing all within the confines of their cage. They have no fucking choice you fucking moron.
Not sure if you care - but in case you do (because your other posts sound rather sincere), the entire world community (including Canada and the U.S.) recognizes Tibet as being part of China. No country in the world recognizes Israel's right to Gaza or the West Bank or the Golan Heights, or Jerusalem as its "capital".
At this point no one recognizes Tibet as seperate because the Dalail Lama, the Leader of Tibet in Exhile has asked China to allow Tibet to be atnoumous within China so that they can work together because he doesn't see a way no to go back and reclaim Tibet so wants to start from where they are and move from there.
The International Commission of Jurists concluded that from 1913 to 1950 Tibet demonstrated the conditions of statehood as generally accepted under international law. In the opinion of the commission, the government of Tibet conducted its own domestic and foreign affairs free from any outside authority, and countries with whom Tibet had foreign relations are shown by official documents to have treated Tibet in practice as an independent State.
The US government recognizes Tibet as part of China, but the US Congress has at times expressed a different perspective, calling Tibet an occupied country
In 1959 and 1960, the International Commission of Jurists evaluated in its studies the status of Tibet in international law :
The Commission feels that although, due to its peculiar history and local conditions, the international position of Tibet is difficult to appraise it is clear that Tibet has been to all intents and purposes an independent country and has enjoyed a large degree of sovereignty
There are no U.N. resolutions demanding that China abandon Tibet. It is part of China. There are no end of U.N. resolutions condemning Israeli occupation and aggression against foreign lands.
The United Nations General Assembly passed resolutions urging respect for the rights of Tibetans in 1959, 1961 and 1965. The 1961 resolution asserts that "principle of self-determination of peoples and nations" applies to the Tibetan people.
See above as to why there are no current ones to get out of Tibet
So it's important not to make up stories. You should check your facts.
I have
The Tibetan Government in Exile views current PRC rule in Tibet as colonial and illegitimate, motivated solely by the natural resources and strategic value of Tibet, and in gross violation of both Tibet's historical status as an independent country and the right of Tibetan people to self-determination. It also points to PRC's autocratic policies, divide-and-rule policies, and what it contends are assimilationist policies, and regard those as an example of ongoing Chinese imperialism aimed at destroying Tibet's distinct ethnic makeup, culture, and identity, thereby cementing it as an indivisible part of China. That said, the Dalai Lama has recently stated that he wishes only for Tibetan autonomy, and not separation from China, under certain democratic conditions, like freedom of speech and expression and genuine self-rule.
Israel is different from all the others. It illegally occupies others' lands and regularly commits armed aggression and assassination. And it hauls out its chorus of liars (check some on this board) whenever its victims occasionally defend themselves and kill someone (on a 1 to 100 ratio).
Obviously you haven't read about what the Chinese like to do. I can provide references for that too.'
Now this topic is not on Tibet so let's move on.
I apologize to babble and the moderators for my last comment. I will give myself a break.
Oh Bollocks. You lived in Toronto once and knew a Tamil family. As a mental health case manager, over half of my teams caseload has been Tamil. Just out my office window in Scarborough is Tuxedo Court, aka "Little Jaffna" I do a lot of PTS work with this population, and I've been doing it for over 9 years. Two of my team mates are Tamil. It's a highly complex issue, with atrocities having been performed on both sides, but it isn't an occupation. You don't know what you're talking about.
So, this "both sides committed atrocities in Sri Lanka" that you speak of. I hope you're not claiming that both sides are equally responsible for what's going on 'over there'. I mean, someone could use that same argument with Israel and Gaza.
Right O O, because the conflict in the occupied territories in the Mid East is assymetrical with the bulk of the violence one sided, then NO CONFLICT IN THE WORLD CAN BE SAID TO HAVE SHARED RESPONSIBILITY FOR ATROCITIES. How freakin foolish of me. You're embarrasing yourself.
This is a tagline. It has nothing to do with the comments posted above. Just a tagline...really. Please disregard.
Yes, they do. They can quit. They can form a union. They can lobby politically for legislative protections. They can lobby to ban harmful chemcials. They can enlist political allies both in Mexico and abroad. And Mexican workers do all these things. And they still want their jobs.
The Mexican farmworkers who put food on your goddamned table are being drenched in DOW chemicals. They do that job because it's the only way they can feed their own families. To say they have a choice is to say they have a choice between starving or getting cancer 20 years from now.
Right O O, because the conflict in the occupied territories in the Mid East is assymetrical with the bulk of the violence one sided, then NO CONFLICT IN THE WORLD CAN BE SAID TO HAVE SHARED RESPONSIBILITY FOR ATROCITIES.
I think you're the one embarassing yourself. The Sri Lankan military is the local equivalent of the Israeli military. They have jets, gunboats, gunships, all sorts of high tech gear, and they use it against a largely rural civilian population. And you claim that both sides are equally responsible when in fact the Sri Lankan military has the overwhelming edge in killing power. Wow.
Last year I was involved in a campaign against banning Iranian academics from US-based professional societies, where for a while no publication from Iran was allowed. We successfully overturned that decision.
Now I am not prepared to support ban against Israeli academics regardless of what their government does.
Syd Ryan and CUPE are well within their rights to call for whatever they want. And as an academic, I am well within my rights to ignore them and invite whomever I want to my lecture. That's part of my guaranteed academic freedom that no dean, union or university president can take away.
I would see banning a nationality from professional societies as quite different, and wouldn't support that at all. I appreciate though not totally agree with your argument; all the more for its being on topic.
O O, if you want to start a thread on Sri Lanka feel free to do so.
I would see banning a nationality from professional societies as quite different, and wouldn't support that at all. I appreciate though not totally agree with your argument; all the more for its being on topic.
One issue I was trying to raise, was that such boycott calls would remain merely a moral call. If a university professor decides to invite an Isareli academic to his own lecture, no one can stop him from doing so. There is nothing the CUPE can do about it except organizing protest, which would reflect poorly on them if the Isareli academic is merely presenting a scientific topic.
Obviously you haven't read about what the Chinese like to do. I can provide references for that too.'
Opps just reread that should have said the Chinese government. Sorry!
Hadn't actually noticed, but thanks for making the distinction.
Obviously you haven't read about what the Chinese like to do. I can provide references for that too.'
Now this topic is not on Tibet so let's move on.
So, after all your quotes from Tibetan separatists, you admit that what I said is accurate: that NO ONE recognizes Tibet as a separate country, and that there are NO U.N. RESOLUTIONS condemning China for any of its actions - don't forget that the U.N. wouldn't even allow China to take its seat until 1971!
You now understand why Israel is different from all the others.
Many countries mistreat their own citizens. We don't like it. We agitate against it. But except for very rare examples, the world community doesn't interfere, because people need to solve their own problems, and foreigners should not interfere.
In Israel's case, it is precisely its mistreatment, disenfranchisement, and brutalization of other peoples and countries that has made it a pariah - and its decades-long thumbing its nose at international law and resolutions of the U.N.
Its not that its crimes are worse than those of the U.S. or Saudi Arabia or Sudan. It's that they are committed against others. And yes, one day, when the people of the world gather enough strength, they will take on monsters like the U.S. as well. We already do that in this country on many fronts. When the possibilities exist for sanctions and boycotts, that will happen too.
So, after all your quotes from Tibetan separatists, you admit that what I said is accurate: that NO ONE recognizes Tibet as a separate country, and that there are NO U.N. RESOLUTIONS condemning China for any of its actions - don't forget that the U.N. wouldn't even allow China to take its seat until 1971!
You now understand why Israel is different from all the others.
Maybe, maybe not.
But I would like to hear about why people think that this move will make a difference to what is happening in Ghaza and why it wouldn't so I would still like to move on.
Closing for length, please continue in a new thread.