B'nai Brith upset at mention of Palestinians on exam, MB gov't to "make sure this doesn't happen again"
June 10, 2010 - 1:41pm
...
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: Become a Podcaster | Find a Show
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2012 the authors
Syndicate
Exam question angers B'nai Brith
Accompanying the article in the exam was the following question: "Explain whether or not you think people in the entertainment industry have a responsibility for making the world a better place?"
B'nai Brith midwest region director Alan Yusim said Kreviazuk's description of injured children will promote anti-Israel hatred among some of the students who wrote the test.
And what did Kreviazuk write which was so hateful?
this:
"This was a new kind of horror and fear that I had not seen before on television. I don't remember what the next commercial was trying to sell me. I was crying in my bed for what seemed to be hours. Just when I would start to calm down, the pain would return. I don't know if I felt the pain of the boy being tortured in the bed, of the mother sitting at his side helpless, or of the father who, after holding and kissing the boy, changed the expression on his face and told the journalist that he simply wished his son had been killed, then he would not have to watch him die every day."
"Even with all of the exposure to the hardships of the world that I have at my fingertips, the Palestinian boy that night brought home to me the clear realization that this place is also his world, his chance and his right. His story renewed and reinforced my deep conviction that every person should feel at home and safe in this world - and that I wanted to work towards this goal."
I would say that this is a new low for B'nai Brith, but I think trying to get the University of Manitoba to unjustly and without cause cancel Israeli Apartheid Week, and their vicious campaign of slander against IAW and its organizers is worse, simply because of the hyperbolic and offensive language used (analogies to Nazis and the KKK). But both are indicative of a very racist colonial mentality, where they have to deny the suffering of the Palestinians and erase them from public discourse in order to make it appear that Palestine was uninhabited. It reminds me of that student in New York who flipped out because a test mentioned that Edward Said was Palestinian. Apparently the word "Palestine" is greatly disturbing to some because it contradicts this colonial mentality.
And this is a little disturbing:
"Pull aside each one in which the student mentioned Israel as a victimizer," said Yusim.
Remedial action? Sounds like re-education to me.
But don't worry, I'm sure our wonderful provincial government will just ignore the ravings of wannabe thought police like Yusim.
Damn.
Yea, the entire MB deparment of education may have to resign and take some re-education in the occupied territories.
They could balance this out by removing all references to the holocaust from school curricula.
As a bottom line, there isn't a better one, is there.
You're right, genstrike: call it Stalinism or call it McCarthyism, it's the same infernal impulse to control the minds of people who disagree with you, no matter what you have to do to them to force them to agree (or at least STFU). It is the logic of frustrated children and it is also the logic of people with power who know that their power is illegitimate and could easily be taken from them if enough people saw through the lies. It is ultimately the logic of torture and of genocide.
It is scandalous that any public official in this country would give demands like these the time of day.
It is so good that in some provinces we have progressive governments that stand in solidarity with anti-oppression struggles around the world.
It is scandalous that any public official in this country would give demands like these the time of day.
Prepare to be scandalized some more. Another public official cut from this same cloth will soon be the Mayor of Winnipeg.
minedu@leg.gov.mb.ca
It is scandalous that any public official in this country would give demands like these the time of day.
Prepare to be scandalized some more. Another public official cut from this same cloth will soon be the Mayor of Winnipeg.
Although, to be fair, I don't think Sam Katz actually tried to ban the IAW event from the library. He just said he really really doesn't like it.
I meant Judy.
I meant Judy.
I guess the only way to find out is to see what Judy does if there is another IAW event at the library next year...
I think we all need to email the education minister and let her know we don't agree with this nonsense.
minedu@leg.gov.mb.ca
Perhaps we should stop discussing the rwandan genocide, the vietnam war, colonialism or any other conflict or issue out of fear of hurting one or another side's "feelings". Then we can all be well re-educated global citizens of the future!
Perhaps we should stop discussing the rwandan genocide, the vietnam war, colonialism or any other conflict or issue out of fear of hurting one or another side's "feelings". Then we can all be well re-educated global citizens of the future!
Naw - just worry about the US allies' point of view. Everyone else is evil and/or a loser. Losers have no right to feelings... or countries, or education, or legs....
It is scandalous that any public official in this country would give demands like these the time of day.
Does the NDP stand for equality, truth and justice !
ndp = no difference party
Does the NDP stand for equality, truth and justice !
This is the Manitoba NDP we're talking about here. The Doer/Selinger government has been consistently supportive of the war in Afghanistan and the broader militarization of culture (such as bringing yellow ribbons into schools). Also, this government has a lot of connections to Israeli apartheid - especially a lot of "partnerships" with Israel in the water stewardship department. It's a little too early to tell if things have gotten marginally less bad under Selinger though - at least the motion condemning IAW didn't pass, although an NDP cabinet minister did call for it to be banned, and in the legislature, most of the NDP members who spoke talked either about how they love Israel or how they hate IAW.
Winnipeg Free Press editorial
The WFP editorial piece is a jewel, thank you genstrike.
I know it is the Manitoba NDP. My observation is that NDP governments acoss Canada are the most likely to take stands that are opposite what could reasonably be expected from them, opposite what the Party proclaims being its values, priorities, platform or whatever.. While the Cons may bend a few inches away from their conservative hinges, the liberals even more, the NDP removes its hinges altogether.
Newbie here, curious how come every other thread drifts towards the merits or shortcomings of the ndp?....
Anyway, this raises a number of curiosities--
Setting aside the Gaza/Israeli content of this exam question, the reading passage is too loaded with emotional content to appear on an exam, except if you are testing your subjects' emotional resiliency. After having to think about and write about Ms. K's descriptive images, I know that I'd find it difficult to move on to the next question. Would be curious to know what course this was for.
If I am a passionate animal rights activist, a similar descriptive passage, perhaps on the clubbing of seals might might make me want to follow Ms. K's example and just crawl into bed and have a good cry. Are only "artists" allowed to be emotional? Or are today's students expected to be coldly dispassionate as their future careers will demand?
Disturbing indeed is this idea:" Pull aside each one in which the student mentioned Israel as a victimizer," said Yusim."
Also, I find this quote of interest, "This was a new kind of horror and fear that I had not seen before on television. I don't remember what the next commercial was trying to sell me", but wonder if Ms. K is being deliberately ironic, or if this is a throwaway comment, reflecting our lack of attention span and a general perception of how we get our information (in soundbites and thirty second lifestyle melodramas.)
As usual, more questions than answers....
Manitoba is one of the few provinces with an NDP government. And there's been plenty of discussion about NDP/Lib coalition, the problems with capitalism and the failure of the NDP to address that, etc..The merits and problems of the NDP are common themes here.
Elementary, really, watson. :)
As we've been told many times before, provincial NDP sections are not under discipline from the federal NDP. So they can oppose electoral reform, freeze wages, take Israel's side and take their base for granted as necessary to demonstrate that they are "responsible". Who else are progressive voters going to support anyway?
Interesting questions, watson.
The answer to at least part of your concern resides here:
Accompanying the article in the exam was the following question: "Explain whether or not you think people in the entertainment industry have a responsibility for making the world a better place?"
Therefore, it must be a sociology exam. There must already have been some discussion of what is meant by making the world "better"; there must already have been agreement that killing and maiming children - perhaps war in general - is "bad" for the world. The students were asked to evaluate, not the political or emotional content of the article, but rather the author's function in society. In this case the effectiveness of the piece would certainly be a factor.
And the question was posed to university students: grown people, almost ready to go out into the world and make and carry out the decisions which really do result in real children, somewhere, really getting blown to bits. If they can't stand the mere description of something shown on television, they don't belong here with the 'adults' who made and carried out the decisions that resulted in such a world.
I think it fair and legitimate material for an exam. Indeed, i think we all need to be far more aware of what actions we are, deliberately or unwittingly, supporting. And that's exactly why the people who most wittingly and deliberately support such actions try so hard to suppress discussion of them.
Indeed, i think we all need to be far more aware of what actions we are, deliberately or unwittingly, supporting. And that's exactly why the people who most wittingly and deliberately support such actions try so hard to suppress discussion of them.
Aha! Yes! Very well put.
I think this goes to the core of what is so reprehensible about groups like B'Nai Brith. They work so hard at supporting the maniacal Israeli regime, and then spend equal energy, or more trying to make sure nobody thinks about or talks about the horiffic results of that regime. And they are willling to demonize anyone who gets in their way and they don't care how crazy they appear to the thinking, feeling world.
One of the comments on the Free Press editorial hit the spot:
There is modest room to be more pro-Israeli than the FP. But Ms Allen managed to appear to accomplish the task.
The B'Ai B'irth is made up of a bunch of extremists and our job, the vast, vast 99% of us in this world have got to learn to ignore them. This will diffuse their power and make them fall back into the fringes of society that they rightfully belong.
I'm sure this press release from B'nai Brith Canada and Chantal Kreviazuk will be of interest:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Joint clarification from B’nai Brith Canada and Chantal Kreviazuk
TORONTO, June 11, 2010 – B’nai Brith Canada is in contact with Canadian
singer Chantal Kreviazuk to clarify confusion over media reports on a
question on a Manitoba provincial test based on an essay Kreviazuk wrote in
2006 highlighting the effect of war on children. As expressed to the
Manitoba Ministry of Education, B’nai Brith’s concern with the question was
that no context was provided to the students to assist them in
understanding the complexities of the conflict in the Middle East.
“We still have concerns with how and why a question lacking context on an
issue of such complexity and sensitivity made its way onto a provincial
test in Manitoba. To be clear, our concern was not and is not with Chantal
Kreviazuk or her essay, and we sincerely regret that Chantal Kreviazuk’s
name has been negatively dragged into this debate by the media,” said Frank
Dimant, Executive Vice President of B’nai Brith Canada. “Chantal Kreviazuk
has been a friend of the Jewish community and does very important work on
behalf of children in areas of conflict.”
“B’nai Brith does a lot of good work in Canada and had every right to
pursue its concerns about the exam question with the government in
Manitoba,” said Chantal Kreviazuk. “I wrote the essay in question as part
of my advocacy on behalf of children in conflict zones. I have been to the
Middle East and clearly understand that both Israeli and Palestinian
children are suffering because of the conflict there. I also look forward
to continuing the positive relationship I have with B’nai Brith.”
What utter crap - by both B'nai Brith and Kreviazuk. This isn't about Kreviazuk's image, nor about her freedom of speech. It's about systemic attempts to suppress any truth about the plight of the Palestinian people.
Pretty good side-swipe, though.
You have to hand it to the Israeli spin-machine: they're terrific at re-framing the issue and redefining the terms. And our media mostly fall right in line, without a blush, blink or glance at the dictionary.
Time to boycott her too it appears...
Nonsense astor, you leave a void and they will keep on filling it, that is why the right whackos have gained so much power, as we ignored them, and they flourished.
I don't think it's time to boycott her. We can't just keep boycotting potential allies. She wrote a very powerful and moving essay about the suffering of a Palestinian child in Gaza. It's possible that she felt intimidated into making that statement after the shit hit the fan in the media. It's pretty scary to face the possibility that an organization that has the ear of the mainstream media might label you an anti-semite, or as someone who promotes hate against Israelis and Jews.
You catch more flies with honey than vinegar. I think a better strategy is to thank her for her words about the Gazan child, and to encourage her to allow people to use her words for good.
Here's a statement by Independent Jewish Voices on the matter.
I don't think it's time to boycott her. We can't just keep boycotting potential allies.
Hear, hear.
Here's the one we should boycott:
Here's what she did:
Education Minister Nancy Allan said Tuesday that she shares the Jewish organization's concern, and has told department of education staff to find out how the question got on the exam, and how "to make sure this doesn't happen again."
[...]
"The moment I found out about this, I started working with (B'nai Brith)," said Allan. "We're taking this very seriously.
"This is the very first time we have ever had concerns about test material, and we are evaluating the process," said Allan.
[...]
She said one student -- whom the province is not identifying -- became upset by the question while writing the exam, and will be evaluated on the rest of the test, with that question omitted.
Instead of boycotting Margaret Atwood or Chantal Kreviazuk, how about denouncing our own elected representatives - not for failing to share our opinions, which is their right - but when they actively try to suppress people from telling the truth.
People like Harper and Ignatieff and their minions.
People like Layton and Mulcair (cf. Libby Davies scandal).
People like Cheri DiNovo, who has never expressed the slightest regret for her complicity in suppression of free speech.
People like Nancy Allan.
Atwood and Kreviazuk can only say what they think - and they can be influenced to see the light.
The others can tell us what to think, or face the consequences.
Michelle, there is nothing to fear, but fear itself...
If people are going to shut the hell up because speaking the truth might impact their lives, or should I say pocket book, in the case of performing artists, who have been prominent on human rights, then they need not look to their former fans to endorse their self-centered actions. When push comes to shove apparently Palestinians dead and dying do not mean very much. And indeed one should question whether they were really allies, or just self-promoting.
Her words are now suspect, by her own hand, just as Atwood's are.
am in no mood to pander to the entertainment elite to keep them allegedly on side, her caving has sent a bad bad message. In several areas.
Thanks for the IJV link.
If the Left insists on potential allies passing an ideological purity test, then it can continue to hold its meetings in a phone booth. At least until phone booths are abolished.
If the Left insists on potential allies passing an ideological purity test, then it can continue to hold its meetings in a phone booth. At least until phone booths are abolished.
Bravo. And it means being able to distinguish potential allies from dyed-in-the-wool enemies. That's a hard lesson to learn in a phone booth also - especially one with a mouthpiece and no earpiece.
Off topic a bit, I know, but since the point has been raised, I find the notion of boycotting anyone to try and twist his or her beliefs to our own to be creepy on a lot of levels.
Boycotts with clear terms and objectives against countries, groups or companies are one thing, But to gang up and blackball someone simply because he or she doesn't think like us doesn't help anyone.
On the actual issue - very embarassing response by the government on a mess they should never have been in in the first place, IMO. Really, I'm surprised that anyone would put such controversial contemporary subject on a school exam. This has nothing to do with whether taking a side in the conflict is right or wrong, but that schools tend to be prety antsy about anything that from a mainstream perspective is controversial.
So, i guess we have our exam answer. Or, anyway, a lively discussion about the role of entertainers in society.
Education ministers? Whatever their role should be, i'm pretty sure caving to every interest group isn't it.
Think you are mistaken.
Atwood recognized by all across Canada, as they have been forced to read her books in any academic setting they have attended, means her voice, more than that of Muclair, or even Libby, is heard. Hell, I actually know people who have never heard of either, but yet they have Atwood.
Same goes for CK, my friend who found out she has "Jewish" heritage, is very sympathetic to Israel and I have been sending her stuff to counteract that which she gets from Chapters Indigo. Now with her being a CK fan to a huge degree, she will hear Chantal's capitulation and nothing else, and there will be millions of women across Canada, who will hear the public capitualtion and never read the essay.
You do not capitualte out of fear. Will draw a compare, do you think the King of Denmark was not fearful of Hitler, when he ordered all Danes to wear the Star?
Pandering to the "elites" when they are concerned about their pocket books, hoping for them to be allies, is in no way a fight for human rights.
People don't know who most of the politicians are in Canada, and as such could not give a rat's ass what they say, however, entertainment elite are well known and have a much stronger and listened to voice. Indeed this is self evident, and I do not know why either of you are discounting it.
Take that back perhaps I do.
Not discounting the potential roles entertainers might play in shaping public opinion. Saying there is room for discussion - exactly as the students were asked to do - whether that is their responsibility. We don't listen to records or watch movies to tell us what to think; don't look at paintings to learn our political views. (Novels may be expected to stimulate a more intellectual side.)
If we are so swayed by actors and musicians, that's our choice, not the entertainer's. If we have to read a particular author in schools, that's a decision made by boards (and ministries) of education, not by the writers. We hire educators to teach, pay entertainers to entertain. If we confuse the two jobs, that's our problem.
@ remind
If you think you know my motives you should either ask me or tell me what's on your mind.
Fact is I don't discount the broadcasting power of the entertainment industry. I just think it is not anyone's business to barge onto someone else's stage uninvited. I am happy when I see a famous person supporting a cause of mine, but the fact it is that person's choice, and none of us has any right to twist someone into supporting us by force.
I know there are grey areas to it; there are artists I avoid because of their politics, especially if they actively support a cause I oppose. Where I think it is really out of line is when it gets to an organized campaign. I am not saying there are never cases in which it is appropriate, but I think to leap to the tactic over something like an apology or an award sets a dangerous precedent.
I am not even so worried about big name artists, because many of them have money; but I don't think people who aren't so well off deserve financial ruin simply because they disagree with me.
I also think vetting art and ideas based on how we interpret the artists' values and actions is extremely dangerous. I don't run out and buy someone's book just because he or she votes the way I do. Why should I do the opposite?
Off the top of my head, I can think of art, music and literature on my shelves made by a murderer, a card-carrying Nazi, a couple of fascist sympathizers, a convicted child molester, and quite a few nasty, abusive people. I think it is good to be aware of that, but I won't be using their works to toast marshmallows any time soon.
I can also think of one group - U2 - with whom I agree on the issue of support for Africa, but disagree with on the issue of copyright. Do I boycott them or not?
I do understand what you are saying, remind. I just think that if support isn't honest and freely given it is not worth having.
(edit) ...and I should say again, because it is even more important, anything that puts a chill on art and ideas is the devil's work.
I wasn't even speaking to you unless you are a sock puppet who forgot to change monikers..
Exactly my point actually, if they cannot be consistent with their support, do not bother to start with.
Agree completely that BBC and CJC et al are doing the "devil's work", too bad CK and Atwood succumbed.
I wasn't even speaking to you unless you are a sock puppet who forgot to change monikers..
Well the fact is you spoke to my point (as well as others, I know). If you are going to question someone's motives without coming right out and saying what you mean it would at least help to be clear about whom you were talking to.
And yes, I agree about the BB reaction to the test. Asking that students' papers be gone through is just unconscionable.
Expecting artists to toe the line once they sign up for duty.... even though I think support should have some consistency I'm not 100% with you on that one. Situations are sometimes complex, and just because someone voices support doesn't mean we own him or her.
...and in any case, I don't agree that someone who tries to give support and fails deserves to be punished.
You see, when people like CK and Atwood succumb, then other things like the attack on Libby occur, because the fuckwads think they are able to function with impunity.
Got no time to support either with my dollars, or words, those 2 women made their Israeli apologist beds, they can lie in them. My choice others can most certainly have their own.
@ remind
I respect your decision. I completely understand, and have made similar decisions myself.
As I said, it is an organized (or wildcat, actually) campaign I would have a problem with, because situations are unique and complicated (CK's change of mind and Atwood's decision to not support a boycott), and it could get even more complicated because I am sure not everyone who opposes Israel's actions supports banning an artist's work and not everyone sees these artists' actions as betrayal.
If someone catches me reading "Oryx and Craik" does that mean I am suspect? Does it matter if I got it from the library or second hand? I know you aren't saying this, but I'm just pointing out that boycotts without clear parameters can get really messy.
Don't feed the troll.
Anyhow, remind, I totally get where you're coming from on this. But people who aren't used to the back and forth on Israel-Palestine can be quite frightened by the smear machine when it comes after them. In the opening post, the article attributed this to B'nai Brith: "Kreviazuk's description of injured children will promote anti-Israel hatred among some of the students who wrote the test."
It's pretty scary for someone to be centred out like that. And her fame makes her an even bigger target because you know that her name will make it even more interesting for news outlets to pick up than if, say, you or I wrote it.
She didn't back down from what she said in the essay in that joint statement. I think she probably got a small taste of the shitstorm that was about to come when they declared the question (and by extension her essay) as "promoting anti-Israel hatred" and was intimidated into mitigating it.
This is not the time to attack people who are already feeling intimidated. This is the time to support them and thank them for every step, whether small or large, that they take to put a human face on the suffering in Gaza.
Don't feed the troll.
Oh for god sakes.
I have been called quite a few names in the past couple of days without resorting to personal insult myselft, and frankly my tone is mild compared to what I see many here using.
Now I can understand being on guard for agitators and cranks, but to automatically assume that is my motive just because I am new and have some opinions that are a bit different than some people here is well... not exactly hospitable.
Keep the focus on the idea, not the person. That's how I see it, anyway.
Michelle I see what you are saying, for yourself that is.
Have reached an age where I am not so kind hearted, and appeasing. And I doubt that she was intimidated, more worried about her income like Atwood, I would say. Have watched her in the media enough to know she self promotes like crazy, even so far as letting "Ben" in on her "second" marriage, and having the media follow her all around when it was going on.
Plus I no longer give benefit of doubt, to anyone.
See, Libby Davies also wrote a letter of "apology" - to the Ottawa Citizen - when in fact she had absolutely nothing to apologize for. That doesn't make her my enemy (on the contrary, she's still my hero, if you don't mind that word). And Kreviazuk isn't my enemy either.
Nancy Allan is the one who must be attacked. She is neither an ally, nor a potential ally. She is the problem.
We have to distinguish between those whom the Zionists mercilessly attack (Davies, Elmore, Kreviazuk...), and those who enthusiastically do their bidding (Nancy Allan, Cheri DiNovo) - and those who are still sitting on the fence.
"See" my post above where I stated most Canadians do not know who the hell Libby Davies is, unlike Kreviazuk. And Atwood.
Indeed the latter 2 are world renowned, which makes it worse yet.
Neither's recent actions makes them my ally.
You tow your own hard line on things unionist, while I tow my own. Are you sufggesting your hard line is better than mine or more worthy?
I agree with unionist and Michelle on this one.
I don't think anyone's suggesting that, remind. I think we're just trying to convince you of our point of view on it. :) Guess it isn't working. ;)
I know its late on this but I really do not think we can ignore the B'Nai Brith; they ought to be fought tooth and nail, confronted at every possible point and turn. It is just too bad there is no organization in Wpg to do that.
@ Michelle
@remind
I don't see why there should be a problem
If you are both working toward the same goal does it really matter if you use exactly the same tactic?
It's good understand why others do what they do, but really getting the house built is a bit more important than making sure you all use the same kind of hammer.
I know its late on this but I really do not think we can ignore the B'Nai Brith; they ought to be fought tooth and nail, confronted at every possible point and turn. It is just too bad there is no organization in Wpg to do that.
I do think B'nai Brith has to be confronted on some of their ridiculous bullshit (especially the slander they swing at Palestinian solidarity movements), but lets look at what B'nai Brith managed to accomplish in the last few months:
They tried to get Israeli Apartheid Week banned. Result: Israeli Apartheid Week had six events over five days, most of which were at or approaching a full house.
They then tried to get a motion passed in the Manitoba legislature condemning IAW. Result: the motion failed, they looked like they were trying to censor people.
Now, they're pulling this stuff with the exam. Result: Everyone, even the Winnipeg Free Press, is calling them on it, and the national organization has to put out a press release "clarifying" things. And even in the "clarification" story, they still came off looking stupid - reading between the lines, there's a big shot at them in the WFP story on the clarification.
Sure, they've managed to get a few shots in and some ridiculous slander printed, but that is largely due to a media which is more or less hostile to Palestinian solidarity organizing.
Brilliant, genstrike, thank you.
B'nai Brith is not a problem in this country. They are a fringe group of fanatics. The problem is Stephen Harper; Jason Kenney; Peter Kent; Thomas Mulcair; Michael Ignatieff; Bob Rae; Pat Martin; Judy Wasylycia-Leis; Nancy Allan; Cheri DiNovo; and others who have either power, or a real following. They are the ones who must be "fought tooth and nail, confronted at every possible point and turn" - to quote 2dawall.
LMAO, they are so a problem.
Funny as hell denial.
Are not! Nyehhh!
I think the discussion on this thread could provide material for a really really good answer to the essay question in question. I believe the question was asking whether or not celebrities should speak out on world issues. I think this incident with Kreviazuk points to one possible answer. If celebrities, outside of their art (assuming they;re artists), are going to make statements about anything going on in the world they should have the courage to stand up for what they're saying. Otherwise they are clearly just using world events to bolster their image. As for the question of boycott, it's kind of a moot point. Anyone here actually listen to Kreviazuk?
i agree!! What bugs me the most is that the minister of education and now kreviazuk are totally pandering to b'nai b'rith even though their claim is ludicrous and ultimately racist. Claiming that even talking about palestinian suffering is wrong is basically saying their lives aren't worth anything, because they're palestinian.
And if i was kreviazuk: she should have condemned B'nai for attack her like that and implying that she's some kind of jew hater for caring about palestinians without paying lip service to Israel in the same sentence. Unfortunately the pro israel fever in canada is at an all time high and all politicians and government employees are scared to say anything that can even remotely be perceived as going against Israels current government policy.
Unfortunately the pro israel fever in canada is at an all time high and all politicians and government employees are scared to say anything that can even remotely be perceived as going against Israels current government policy.
What exactly are you talking about? "Pro-Israel fever"? What utter tripe. That "fever" is coming FROM politicians, not the population. The politicians aren't "reacting" to anything. Have you noticed people afraid to demonstrate and speak against the murderous attack on the flotilla? Or turn in their awards and honours to Pride Toronto for banning all talk about "Israeli apartheid"?
There's been a lot of talk, in the wake of incidents like this and Libby's case, about how "careful" people, especially high profile, need to be in talking about Israel these days. I call bullshit. That's exactly the message that the Harpers and Zionists and others want to instil. That's the message the Carole James and Jack Layton have now imposed on various wings of the NDP - and what Cheri DiNovo tried to accomplish.
The ones who should be "careful" are those suppressing activism and the truth.
Politicians make notoriously unreliable allies. Look how many of its former good buddies the US has stabbed in the back - and other body parts. If/when the Israeli regime becomes too embarrassing, too expensive, too great a liability, Clinton and Harper, and all the dominos, will fall into anti-Israeli line, just as readily as they went pro.
I bet, with a half-way decently co-ordinated media campaign, popular sentiment could be turned in about 48 hours.
Politicians make notoriously unreliable allies. Look how many of its former good buddies the US has stabbed in the back - and other body parts. If/when the Israeli regime becomes too embarrassing, too expensive, too great a liability, Clinton and Harper, and all the dominos, will fall into anti-Israeli line, just as readily as they went pro.
I bet, with a half-way decently co-ordinated media campaign, popular sentiment could be turned in about 48 hours.
I agree with your point, but I don't think politicians should be anyone's blind supporter. I don't trust ones who are in the pockets of big business, and I wouldn't trust one who is just a puppet of an interest I support, either. I'm not saying a politician shouldn't be a staunch supporter of social justice, but we shouldn't feel betrayed when they don't do everything we want all the time. They have to balance their conscience with the public good and political reality, after all - quite a juggling act.
I should probably make it clear that this doesn't mean I support the province knuckling under on this one; as I have said already, I do not.
"I agree with you. I want to do it. Now make me do it."
Franklin Roosevelt - the guy who campaigned against joining WWII and then did it anyway.
As we've been told many times before, provincial NDP sections are not under discipline from the federal NDP. So they can oppose electoral reform, freeze wages, take Israel's side and take their base for granted as necessary to demonstrate that they are "responsible". Who else are progressive voters going to support anyway?
The same is true for all political parties in Canada. The provincial 'versions' of the parties are often markedly different from their federal incarnations. Another example that comes to mind is the BC Libs vs the federal Libs.
While I think that BB has blown this out of proportion, the essay question was about whether celebrities should get involved with causes. I think that they should have been able to find an example of a cause which had celebrities on both sides of the issue so that the focus was on the question of celebrity involvment rather than whether or not one agrees with the position of said celebrity.
The mention of any issue peripherally when the focus of the question is not on that particular issue is problematic especially considering Daniel Gilbert's research on the issue. If one is presented with information but made to focus on something else (ie the celebrity issue in a timed exam) then one is more apt to accept said information as true (unless one already has an opinion on the issue). I think that a person's support or opposition of an issue should be based on the facts. The fact is that Canada was no different than Germany was with the Jews or Israel was with the Palestinians - look what we did to the First Nations, Metis and Inuit within our midst!
And note what the student afraid of - that a focus on the bad things Israel had done would make people hate Jews. Think of this for a moment, can anything that Israel does motivate any of you to hate JUDES? And even The Canadian Islamic Congress, has only positive things to say about David Lewis (Naomi Klein's husband's grandfather):
Unionist says: There's been a lot of talk, in the wake of incidents like this and Libby's case, about how "careful" people, especially high profile, need to be in talking about Israel these days. I call bullshit. That's exactly the message that the Harpers and Zionists and others want to instil.http://www.canadianislamiccongress.com/ar/opeds_printer.php?id=12134
Politicians always have to be careful about what they say because there are those looking for a phrase that they can take out of context and blow out of proportion. That said, the Manitoba government doesn't want to make waves, in part, because they have no control over foreign policy (it is not Provincial jurisdiction). They may not realise that BB tends to vote Conservative any way so they would not be losing by sticking their neck out. Unionist, Libby appologised for getting the date wrong. That's it.
RE: B'nai Brith wants the department of education to check every student's paper, and count the anti-Israel comments.
As far as I know, the Dept of Education has no plans to do this. Their concern was in accomodating the one student so that becoming upset about this question doesn't influence the final grade. Whether the student should have gotten upset or not probably has less to do with the question and the fear instilled in said student at home.
RE: I would say that this is a new low for B'nai Brith, but I think trying to get the University of Manitoba to unjustly and without cause cancel Israeli Apartheid Week, and their vicious campaign of slander against IAW and its organizers is worse
This stuff is going to backfire on them eventually.The BB still has a lot of pull because it portrays itself as a human rights organization. Locally here in Wpg David Matas gets access to the media at any time he wants. Forwhatever reason, a couple of years ago a CanPalNet spokesperson here, Paul Burrows, actually gave a compliment to Matas due to his work with immigrants, completely ignoring the fact that Matas only does it to cover his BB work. I think all and any pro-Israeli groups should be met with anger, rage, etc and that includes the vastly underestimated, CAMERA and FLAME. As reviled as they are even by other Zionists groups, their ads in largely Gentile publications have a huge impact in the North American midWest. I cannot count the number of times that someone has repeated something from those ads as they appear in countless magazines, many of which are in medical clinic waiting rooms etc.
Incessant operant conditioning and turning lies into "truth".
perhaps someday they will grab a brain.
I am still wondering why b'nai brith is so concerned... it's not as if the students were asked a geography question, like, oh, "where is the capital of Palestine"...
They are evil and have control issues, I would say.
I am still wondering why b'nai brith is so concerned... it's not as if the students were asked a geography question, like, oh, "where is the capital of Palestine"...
They most likely can't tolerate even the suggestion that the IDF would ever kill the innocent, or that Israel itself is ever anything but a helpless, yet benevolent victim in this dispure. They would have to face the fact that, at some point, the state they are so unquestioningly defending switched from being David to being Goliath(or, maybe, was never David at all).
By the way, CBC News tonight had a segment by Naylah Ayed (sp?) on what life is like for the Palestinians under the Israeli blockade.
The thing with BB and all North American Zionists is that they have had their way for so long they cannot handle losing .1% of territory.
Locally here in Wpg David Matas gets access to the media at any time he wants. Forwhatever reason, a couple of years ago a CanPalNet spokesperson here, Paul Burrows, actually gave a compliment to Matas due to his work with immigrants, completely ignoring the fact that Matas only does it to cover his BB work.
I doubt Matas would view my article on B'Nai Brith and his apologetics for Israeli state terror to be a compliment. You are certainly right that I mentioned his other human rights and immigration work in passing, and did not want to write it off completely as a "cover" or a charade. I do not claim to know Mr. Matas's motivations or the merits or demerits of his other (non-Israel advocacy) work. I spoke solely to the issue of what he said and did about Israel and the Canada Palestine FIlm Festival in Winnipeg. Those words and deeds highlight his hypocrisy on this issue, and call into question the "human rights advocacy" of B'Nai Brith Canada. I still stand by what was written about this (five years or so ago), and now there is plenty more grist for that mill, because Matas and B'Nai Brith can't help themselves from jumping to Israel's defence everytime their favoured state commits a crime, and yelling hysterically (and calling people anti-Semites and self-haters) everytime someone with a shred of principles calls bullshit. For anyone interested in seeing the "compliment" I gave to Matas, they can read the Electronic Intifada commentary I wrote for themselves: http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article4222.shtml .
Cheers,
Paul
Heh - not all that "complimentary", Paul! Thank you very much for joining us here, clarifying some issues, and for your activism in a good cause. Now that's a compliment.
The thing with BB and all North American Zionists is that they have had their way for so long they cannot handle losing .1% of territory.
If they do, the whole thing unravels... keep pulling on the threads.
I doubt Matas would view my article on B'Nai Brith and his apologetics for Israeli state terror to be a compliment. You are certainly right that I mentioned his other human rights and immigration work in passing, and did not want to write it off completely as a "cover" or a charade. I do not claim to know Mr. Matas's motivations or the merits or demerits of his other (non-Israel advocacy) work. I spoke solely to the issue of what he said and did about Israel and the Canada Palestine FIlm Festival in Winnipeg. Those words and deeds highlight his hypocrisy on this issue, and call into question the "human rights advocacy" of B'Nai Brith Canada. I still stand by what was written about this (five years or so ago), and now there is plenty more grist for that mill, because Matas and B'Nai Brith can't help themselves from jumping to Israel's defence everytime their favoured state commits a crime,Paul
Sorry Paul but I am not talking about your news release; I think I am quoting an article that quoted you in either the Winnipeg Sun or the Toban. Unfortunately I cannot yet find it to reproduce. I may have a hard copy somewhere or search further but it was a reporter's article.
Newbie here, curious how come every other thread drifts towards the merits or shortcomings of the ndp?....
Anyway, this raises a number of curiosities--
Setting aside the Gaza/Israeli content of this exam question, the reading passage is too loaded with emotional content to appear on an exam, except if you are testing your subjects' emotional resiliency. After having to think about and write about Ms. K's descriptive images, I know that I'd find it difficult to move on to the next question. Would be curious to know what course this was for.
If I am a passionate animal rights activist, a similar descriptive passage, perhaps on the clubbing of seals might might make me want to follow Ms. K's example and just crawl into bed and have a good cry. Are only "artists" allowed to be emotional? Or are today's students expected to be coldly dispassionate as their future careers will demand?
Disturbing indeed is this idea:" Pull aside each one in which the student mentioned Israel as a victimizer," said Yusim."
Also, I find this quote of interest, "This was a new kind of horror and fear that I had not seen before on television. I don't remember what the next commercial was trying to sell me", but wonder if Ms. K is being deliberately ironic, or if this is a throwaway comment, reflecting our lack of attention span and a general perception of how we get our information (in soundbites and thirty second lifestyle melodramas.)
As usual, more questions than answers....
Do you ever get the feeling you're talking into an empty room?
I also question the inclusion of that question on the exam. Whether it was discussing the rape of women in Darfur, the 'collateral damage' in Iraq, or any other emotionally evocative description of the horrors we visit upon one another, I would be asking...what is the educational value of this question? What is the intended outcome? What is it testing? What course is this?
I also question the inclusion of that question on the exam.
Yup. Considering the performers at my niece's winter pageant weren't even allowed to say the word "Christmas" or sing any seasonal songs specific to that holiday (though this was in a different province) it is surprising that the question was there in the first place. Usually school boards steer away from anything that might have a hint of controversy.
I don't even think it was something added because it might blow up like this (though it definitely crossed my mind). I think a few people in the chain probably just missed having their coffee that morning and just weren't thinking.
What business is it of politicians to intervene in this educational issue on a political basis?
That's a vital question for a democracy. That's what the Minister of Education did. Does she read through all course and exam materials to ensure their pedagogical efficacy? Should citizens permit such a state of affairs?
The debate as to the pedagogical value and impact of the question is very different. I'd leave that to the pedagogues.
The politician in question in the Minister of Education.
...
It's actually part of her job description to butt in.
Well, Yiwah, we'll have to agree to disagree. I hope struggles, causes, and historical events of importance to you are never censored out of courses because an ultra-Zionist group complains to the government.
Well, Yiwah, we'll have to agree to disagree. I hope struggles, causes, and historical events of importance to you are never censored out of courses because an ultra-Zionist group complains to the government.
I wasn't citing her job description with approval.
The struggles, causes and historical events of importance to me and my people have always been censored out, continue to be censored out or lied about in the curriculum, not because of the complaints of some, but rather the complacence of the many.
Yes, Yiwah, I understood the Minister had the power to do what she did. I didn't think anyone doubted that. But you questioned why that question was included in the exam. My feeling is that such a debate, in the face of pro-Israel political interference, is a bit diversionary. Of course, you and watson have every right to explore the issue. My own view is that something darker and more dangerous is at work which needs to be explored first.
Don't forget, he also said IAW was similar to neo-Nazis and the KKK back in March