I’ll admit, I lean to the right… but I know virtually nothing about The Israeli conflict. Not nearly enough to choose sides.
But, who cares who sponsored his tour? How does that take away any right of letting him speak at a scheduled gathering? It’s not like Netanyahu is making Canadian government policy or anything. Let me make up my own damn mind. Whats the difference if censorship comes from the other side?
I’m coming out of semi-retirement from this board, because I feel compelled to speak on this subject.
I’m a current Concordia Student, and until last year, a member of the journalism department and the Op/ed editor of the university newspaper The Link. I saw a lot of what’s being discussed very close-up.
You’re refering to Tom Keefer, a Marxist so radical, even his own far-left party distanced themselves from him. Keefer once told our editors he sees himself as something of a messiah of world revolution. He has no moral problem with violence towards achieving that end. He once lead an attempt to oust the editors of the Link because they printed less-than-complimentary things about him.
He is manipulative, machiavellian, and quite possibly sociopathic – in other words, an extreme case. Bringing him as an example of student politics at Concordia is like bringing David Duke in as an example of American politics.
The Link, in particular, has run a number of articles critical of unregulated, laissez-faire capitalism, as a way of counter-balancing the extreme globalization-cheerleading of the press, where concentration has lead to a dearth of opinion. It is the job of a journalist to play watchdog over the public interest. And it is the job of an alternative newspaper to present alternate points of view.
That being said, you make it sound like the editors of the link are red army militants quoting Lenin and Stalin. They weren’t when I was working there, and they aren’t now. Pick up the September 3 issue of the Link, turn to page 12, and look on the bottom of the page. There’s an ad there from the editors requesting someone to balance out Yves Engler’s radical anti-capitalist views on the Opinion page – when I was op-ed editor there, we were trying for a point-counterpoint style, and it looks like they’re still trying for it.
That, I guess, would have included me, back in my activism days. Our “campaign” consisted of one quiet little booth opened up next to the donor centre where we informed people going there about the red cross’s little bait-and-switch PR campaign.
You see, after the tainted blood scandals, the Red Cross went out of its way to give the appearance of a safe blood supply. One of the questions was “If you are a man, have you had sex with another man since 1979?” Until recently, another asked if you were Haitian or have been to Haiti – that would be the racism.
A sensible questionnaire would have asked, “Have you had unprotected vaginal or anal sex in the last six months.” Presumably, if the Red Cross is testing the blood supply, six months should be a large enough window to weed out the HIV+ people who will not yet register on a blood test.
The problem is, it’s believed that a smaller percentage of sexually-active heterosexuals consistently practice safe sex. So rather than ask about the donor’s recent sexual history (which might cause a good chunk of the blood supply to dry up), the questionnaire eliminates a whole chunk of the population (to create the illusion of safety). It’s a trick – it violates the public trust by perpetuating a stereotype. And it means – since heterosexuals who do not practice safe sex are not eliminated through the questionnaire – the blood supply is still not safe.
Try being a little more careful in your assertions. You might be interested to know that most of the protestors were asked there by SPHR (Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights) simply with the aim of voicing their views. SPHR was angry that attendance was by invitation only, because they’d wanted to start a debate with Netanyahu. Tasnim Elasmar told the Mirror that what upset him was that SPHR allows students from Concordia Hillel to come in and debate its speakers, and felt that SPHR should be granted the same privilege.
From the sounds of things, the protest was largely taken over by the Black Block, an anarchist organization that can’t seem to get it through their thick heads that violence can’t be stopped with violence. They are increasingly the pariahs of the activist community, and have a tendency to show up to these things uninvited. The Black Block’s argument is that peaceful protests don’t make the news. Sadly, they’re right – but they don’t seem to understand that in addition to being hypocritical and unethical, violence only wins bad publicity.
Holding the speech on campus was poor judgement to begin with. The university has large Jewish and Muslim communities with are often at one another’s throats over Israel – it’s a tribute to the patience of both sides that everyone’s been able to remain as calm as they have been, in spite of all the developments in the Middle East over the last 12 months. SPHR blames Netanyahu for killing the peace process in Israel, and for the deaths and suffering of their friends and relatives in Palestine – they hate him more than they hate Sharon.
I don’t want to paint a rosy picture of SPHR, of course. When I was working at The Link, they made frequent attempts to silence criticism at the paper, including participating in Keefer’s attempted coup of the editorial board.
But Hillel, too, has played dirty. It managed to convince B’nai Brith that Concordia was a “training ground for terrorists” – and B’nai Brith issued a press release nationally making that claim. Hillel’s aim seems to have been to embarass the school administration into silencing SPHR – for which reason SPHR has been very, very careful lately to keep its protests peaceful.
Even before the protest, there were concerns that the Black Block would take it over and try to stop the speech. The SPHR didn’t do enough to distance themselves from them.
Great. Because a small minority of protestors tried to shut down the speech, the majority will have their views silenced with a mouthful of pepper spray. Glad to see you support the right to free speech for everyone. :rolleyes:
Hamish Copley,
Former Journalism Student,
Current English Literature Student,
Concordia University
I have also participated in similar actions at McGill University. My colleague forgot to mention a crucial point about both his information action and mine: neither one called for the blood drive to be stopped: actually, it was the exact opposite - we wanted to donate!
We were encouraging every person who stopped at our desk to go give blood, but to ask the nurses why the unfair and unscientific question was on the questionnaire. At McGill, we have large sheets of paper upon which people who are turned away can pin pink triangles to signify a unit of blood lost due to prejudice.
I’m afraid you misunderstand me - I meant that we should be wary about what Izzy Asper’s papers have to say about an event that the Izzy Asper Foundation sponsors.
In a larger sense, it’s the job of a university generally to present alternate points of view, and enthusiastic student groups who challenge and criticize the status quo are a crucial part of the process. They should believe they can cause social change; it’s a natural consequence of being young and away from parental supervision for the first time. When student radicalism works well, it can be an immense impetus for social improvement. Unfortunately, in this case it works badly and the school itself falls under physical attack. How does that serve anything? I’m concerned about a form of radicalism that some students don’t grow out of, and they end up forming the core of this “Black Block” you describe and of which I was not previously aware. They are in an arrested state of outrage, eager to lash out because it feels good.
Great, but it doesn’t matter how I’m making it sound, the anti-capitalist slant of The Link is apparant. If they want to be the anti-GlobalCanWest, cool! I have no doubt the phrase “jackbooted thugs” or something similar will appear in the next issue’s articles about this incident.
And they’re not organized or focused enough to be red army militants. They couldn’t possibly invade Poland or Hungary, for example. At least not for more than one long weekend.
In any event, despite my dislike of The Link, I’m not advocating that they be blocked from publishing, and anyone who think I am advocating such a course is an idiot (though even idiots are free to express their idiocy). The protestors in question, however, did manage to block Netanyahu from speaking. Whether or not Concorida was an “appopriate” place for him to speak is irrelevant. He was in Canada legally and was preparing to speak in the auditorium with the full consent of the university’s management. No violation of Canadian law or university policy was in play, so how is it inappropriate? It was only contentious because some students objected (which is fine) and only violent because some students acted like savages (which is not).
Does The Link accept articles by alumni? I should contribute. If the editorial staff is more moderate now than they were in the nineties, I’d like to encourage them.
I do support that right, but the speech has to presented in a peacable fashion. Writing articles for The Link is peacable, even shouting and waving signs can be considered peacable, but smashing windows is not. By your admission, the “SPHR didn’t do enough to distance themselves from [the radical Black Block members].” I’m hoping they will learn to be more discriminating in future and shun the Black Block and the violent radicals within their own ranks. If not, let them eat pepper. In the meantime, they can still express their views through the student press. Although some of them were arrested, none (as far as I know) were casually executed without trial. Good thing we’re in Canada and not Israel or Palestine.
And as for the Red Cross thing, I was kinda hoping at the time that one HIV-infected hemophiliac would show up and state that the donor questionnaires weren’t strict enough. None did, however. Maybe they were all too busy being dead or on life support to attend.
SPHR may not have done enough to distance themselves, but what about everyone else at the protest? This argument has been brought up again and again whenever a tiny minority starts breaking shit and the police use it as an excuse to gas everyone. What exactly are we supposed to do when the Black Bloc shows up? Give up and go home?
When I was in Quebec City, those of us who were protesting peacefully distanced ourselves - physically - from anyone who was hucking things (a tiny minority). We shouted at them to stop and chanted peace slogans to clarify our stance. Didn’t help - the police teargassed us anyway.
In Genoa, the Black Bloc actually attacked the peaceful protesters. The police beat the shit out of everyone involved.
There’s not much you can actually do if these folks decide to show up at a protest. Even the police had trouble handling them with pepper spray this time around - how are unarmed protesters committed to nonviolence supposed to do it?
FYI -
Hamish-kun tells me that when he was there, they accepted articles from members of the general public, so I assume that one from an alumnus would be welcome.
Cool. I’ll go there tomorrow (I have to go to the computer store anyway) and pick up an issue. I intend to be radical in my support of capitalism and my dislike of loudmouthed malcontents.