MP Adler: CUPW Union Leaders 'Spreading Hate' Of Israel

Fredericton postal worker’s trip to Palestine smeared by Conservative MP in House of Commons

Fredericton – Conservative MP Mark Adler for the Toronto riding of York Centre accused Fredericton postal worker Ruth Breen and her union, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW), of using public funds to pay for her trip to the occupied West Bank in Parliament’s Question Period on March 5th. A brief account of Breen’s trip appeared in the union’s newsletter, The Rose.

quote:

Breen says she is perplexed by Adler’s strong reaction to the use of “war crime” to describe Israel’s actions. She points to information found on federal government websites that support her assertion that Israel is committing war crimes.

Canada does not recognize permanent Israeli control over territories occupied in 1967 (the Golan Heights, the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip). The Fourth Geneva Convention applies in the occupied territories and establishes Israel’s obligations as an occupying power, in particular with respect to the humane treatment of the inhabitants of the occupied territories. As referred to in UN Security Council Resolutions 446 and 465, Israeli settlements in the occupied territories are a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The settlements also constitute a serious obstacle to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace.

….

Canada opposes Israel’s construction of the barrier inside the West Bank and East Jerusalem which are occupied territories. This construction is contrary to international law under the Fourth Geneva Convention. Canada not only opposes Israel’s construction of a barrier extending into the occupied territories, but also expropriations and the demolition of houses and economic infrastructure carried out for this purpose.

Adler’s attack comes at a time when the Conservatives are attempting to pass Bill C-377 (an amendment to the Income Tax Act) through Senate. The Bill attempts to destroy the ability of unions to do political activity. Union leaders say that Bill C-377 is partly about countering political work that is unpopular with the Harper Conservative agenda; this includes Palestine solidarity work....

http://nbmediacoop.org/2013/03/13/fredericton-postal-workers-trip-to-pal...

Breen will speak and show pictures of her trip to the West Bank at a public event in Fredericton on Wednesday, March 13th at 1:30pm at Carleton Hall Room 103, University of New Brunswick. The event is part of Israeli Apartheid Week, organized on mostly campuses across the world in March to raise awareness about the illegal occupation of Palestine and the Israeli Apartheid state.

..funny ndpp how we came across this item at the same time in different places.

..not even that part turns out to be true. more like adler spewing hatred against cupw.

quote:

According to Breen, Adler is ill-informed. “I traveled to the West Bank on Atlantic Regional I International Solidarity Funds. I did not travel to the West Bank with public funds as Adler is alleging,” says Breen.

"Public funds" is code for the fact that union dues are tax-deductible. That's also their pretext for Bill C-377. Watch for Harper to start wondering why dues should be tax-free.

Union dues are treated the same as professional dues, an expense required to earn a living.  As such they are a 100% deduction against income unlike charitable donations that are 15% for the first $200 and for rich people the rest is a 29% deduction.

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/chrts-gvng/dnrs/svngs/clmng1-eng.html

Last I checked, the Conservative Party (which is financed by "public funds" - i.e. political contributions - or in the case of MPs and cabinet ministers, government salaries and expenses) doesn't let a day go by without doing rabid pro-Israeli-regime propaganda. That would include the above-mentioned Member of Parliament The Honourable A[s]sshole[/s]dler. In fact, I believe Adler did it during working hours. I'd be happy to represent him in his dismissal arbitration.

bagkitty wrote:

Maybe it is just me, but every time I read (or hear) the descriptor "Union Bosses" I want to stuff a towel down the writer's (or speaker's) throat and watch them choke on it.

Thanks for putting my feelings into words.

bagkitty wrote:

Maybe it is just me, but every time I read (or hear) the descriptor "Union Bosses" I want to stuff a towel down the writer's (or speaker's) throat and watch them choke on it.

I'm partial to the term 'bureaucracy.'

They would be much better positioned to weather such attacks, providing there was a little more context to this story, such as a previous resolution from the membership authorizing a turn one way or another in the direction of international politics.  If they are on their own in this, and I don't know for certain if they are, the question of 'why' comes to mind among several others.  Do such decisions hinge upon the personal persuasions of a few, well intentioned though they may be?  Is it preferable for the sake of results that injustice be countered by demagoguery?  Do the dictionary makers need to be more specific by adding another line under the definition for solidarity, and representation for that matter?  Is it necessary to know what the membership would intend in this instance or others, before committing the organization as a whole to a specific course of action?

"Union bosses" is clearly synonymous with "mob bosses", implying that unions are associated with organized crime. As far as I know, unions aren't, as a rule, closely associated with either the Conservative or Liberal parties.

Well, whatever connection they make, "boss" is not a neutral or complimentary word. I don't see the MSM referring to the "church bosses" or even the "corporate bosses" or "Conservative bosses" or "Nonprofit charity bosses".

On Feb. 23rd 2003 50,000 or more of us met for a nice day of action on the lawn of the BC legislature. A Liberal Minister looking out from inside the building when asked by a reporter what he thought of all the people on the lawn he replied they are all just Union Thugs.  I still have my Union Thug button that became de rigueur at all future rallies for a number of years. Here is picture of me and my fellow Union Thugs. 

I hate the term union bosses as well. Maybe a campaign turning it around would be helpful. Something like, "I am a proud union member and yes WE are the bosses of our union."

I would like to see the mods change the title of the thread to remove "union bosses" it is not needed and it is disgusting

This is just Mark Adler spreading his hate of unions.

Thanks, NDPP, for opening this important thread - unfortunately now hijacked by a combination of attacks on unnamed union leaders and the rather strange effort to show that " union bosses" either isn't pejorative or else is richly deserved.

Too bad this BS needs to arise in the context of CUPW, one of the very few organizations in society with the courage to tell the truth about Palestine and Israel.

Yes of course, and I realize you were obviously just quoting. I still find some of the posts here about unions to be, shall we say, out of place.

Ok, NDPP, with respect, why are you quoting these neofascists as authorities for what Bob Rae and Joyce Murray and others said? Why are you linking to this shit at all?

The neofascists say that Bob Rae and Joyce Murray called IAW anti-Semitism "each... in their own way". Of course, they have no quote to that effect.

I guess what I'm saying is this: If Bob Rae or Joyce Murray or even Adler called IAW "anti-semitic", just show us the quotes - not the hate-filled lies of the pseudo-Jewish Offence League.

Unionist wrote:

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

 

Unionist wrote:

Thanks, NDPP, for opening this important thread - unfortunately now hijacked by a combination of attacks on unnamed union leaders and the rather strange effort to show that " union bosses" either isn't pejorative or else is richly deserved.

(See posts 11 and 12 if you're wondering where the focus began to shift.)

I wasn't wondering anything, as a matter of fact. The focus "shifted" when a participant asked for the thread title to be changed to make it clearer and less offensive. You, of course, have not shown any interest whatsoever in the actual topic of this thread

Ok, well I was allowing that discussion of the specific phrase; "union bosses", was perhaps not the original intent of the thread. But since you seem to think this thread only became "hijacked" well after that discussion spur had already emerged, then yes, I have shown an interest in the "actual" topic. You don't get to have it both ways. And yes, I agreed with Slumberjack's comments on the [i]other[/i] "actual" topic, too.

There ya go. Thread title changed. I will now return to what little family time I have left today.

Here's Bob Rae's full cowardly anti-solidarity statement. He wants to say "anti-semitic", but he's even too cowardly to do that explicitly:

Quote:

“The events in the next few days that go by the deeply prejudicial name ‘Israeli Apartheid Week’ continue to be a counterproductive way to achieve social justice in the Middle East. When all who desire peace in the region should be supporting and encouraging respectful dialogue between parties, this week sets out to do the opposite.

Canadian universities and academic institutions have a long history of providing a space to engage in enlightened discourse on issues of justice and equality. For this reason, it is all the more difficult to comprehend a focus that ignores terrible atrocities presently taking place in the region.
We should also be wary of group-vilifying speech that seeks to delegitimize or demonize. Indeed, as our own Supreme Court found unanimously just this past week in affirming the constitutionality of hate speech legislation, such speech seeks to delegitimize group members, reducing their social standing and acceptance within society.

The failure to stand up for these real and pressing injustices is undermined by an approach that puts all the blame for inaction on only one country. Demonizing one people and one country does not encourage reconciliation, cooperation or respectful discourse about peace and democratization in the Middle East. A constructive approach to the Israeli-Palestinian issue would be more effective if it persuaded governments and civil society to work with both parties to reach a negotiated resolution based on dialogue and understanding.”

I'll keep an eye out for Mulcair - although we already know where he stands (ask Libby Davies).

As far as I can see, the attacks in the House on unions for supporting Israeli Apartheid Week started in 2009, again with the Liberal Party. This particular rabid speech plays the "anti-semitic" card and calls for pro-solidarity activities on campuses to be suppressed:

<a href="http://data.parl.gc.ca/widgets/v1/en/intervention/2632609" target="_blank">Hon. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.)</a> wrote:

 Mr. Speaker, under the umbrella of free speech, some groups are using university campuses, like York, to undermine the fabric of civil discourse with events they have entitled “Israel Apartheid Week”.

    Such events will inevitably sow discord, promote negative stereotyping and fuel hatred.

    One might well ask what motivates groups like the Canadian Arab Federation, CUPE Ontario and CUPW in their endorsement and organization of “Israel Apartheid Week”.

    The safety and security of Jewish students and their instructors will be unnecessarily placed in danger by these demonstrations. The cause of peace in the Middle East will not be advanced by eroding the principles of freedom in Canadian universities.

    I invite the House to join me in condemning these “Israel Apartheid Week” activities and in encouraging university administrations to take steps to stop anti-Semitism and the dissemination of hatred.