Segacs's World I Know

Archive for the ‘Concordia’ Category

Editorials all over the place today decrying Concordia’s decision:

From the Gazette:

“We were pleased to hear,” Lowy told us, “that it was Barak who was invited. Barak is quite different from Netanyahu. We were surprised to learn that there wasn’t a distinction made,” by some Muslim students and their allies.

Oh really? Then Concordia’s “risk-assessment team” is in for more surprises each time the extremists who won another round this week decide to escalate. How long will it be until some hapless professor who happens to be Jewish is deemed “a provocation” or “offensive” or “a supporter of war criminals”? When that happens will Concordia cave in again? No? Then why cave in this time?

From the Globe and Mail (subscription required):

Concordia University in Montreal has handed a stunning victory to the forces of violence and intimidation. By refusing to allow Ehud Barak, a former Israeli prime minister, to give a speech on campus, it has in effect handed a veto over free speech to those who would riot to make a point.

And from Monday’s Toronto Star:

But forced silence on controversial issues is a much greater threat to the university than protesters ever could be. By supplanting freedom of speech by forced silence, Concordia’s administrators have made a mockery of the university’s motto: “Real education for the real world.”

Concordia is defending its decision to refuse to allow Ehud Barak to speak on campus, despite yesterday’s free protest attended by a couple of hundred people… and despite the fact that the RCMP contradicts Concordia’s assessment of how difficult the security situation really is:

They (police and Concordia security) may or not have exaggerated their worry, but they were anticipating a high degree of risk,” [rector Frederick] Lowy said in explaining why the university turned down sites on campus for the speech.

“We did not want our campus to be a police state,” Lowy said.

“Taking everything into consideration, our risk assessment team recommended to me that we not hold it at all.”

[ . . . ]

But yesterday a Montreal spokesperson for the RCMP, which was consulted on the issue and which would normally be responsible for security for a diplomatic VIP like Barak, said it doesn’t consider campuses an especially difficult environment.

“We’ve protected people before at mostly all the universities – McGill, Laval, the Universite de Montreal,” Michel Blackburn said after consulting with an RCMP VIP-security expert in Montreal.

It’s obvious to even the casual observer that the university is hiding behind the security concern… that they’re simply not willing to risk another flare-up by the Palestinian students, so they’re appeasing them. SPHR, of course, is delighted at their ability to shut down any Israeli speaker it wants now. As a result, free speech at Concordia only exists for those willing to resort to violence.

I haven’t heard anything about a concentrated letter-writing campaign. But if you’d like to let Concordia know what you think about all this, you can drop them a line:

Frederick Lowy, Rector – Frederick.Lowy@concordia.ca
Michael Di Grappa, VP Services – Michael.DiGrappa@concordia.ca

Mailing address:
Suite BC-101
Montreal, QC H3G 1M8
1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. W.
Canada

The Gazette reports that today’s Hillel rally outside Concordia was “peaceful”:

Almost two years after a violent demonstration outside Montreal’s Concordia University against former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, there was another protest.

Only this time, it was more vocal than violent.

About two hundred people staged a peaceful demonstration outside the university’s downtown campus Tuesday.

They were protesting the administration’s decision not to allow a speech by another former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak.

I’m sure we’ll be seeing lots more on the 6 o’ clock news. This story was just a placeholder. But even in its brevity, it says a lot.

Hillel holds peaceful protests. The right to free speech in Canada incorporates – and in fact, depends on – the right to peaceful protest.

But when the line is crossed into violence, protest becomes thuggery. That’s what happened when Netanyahu came to speak.

And now, Barak is denied his right to speak because of the fear of a repeat of the violence of the 2002 Netanyahu riots. SPHR has succeeded in shutting down any speech it doesn’t like at Concordia, through the use of violence.

But when speakers came who Hillel disagreed with, they protested peacefully. So speakers continue to come who Hillel disagrees with.

In other words, the viewpoint that the violent thugs agree with gets to be heard. But the viewpoint that the peaceful demonstrators agree with gets shut down.

Concordia is sending a strong message here: violence works. Who will be the next groups to employ SPHR’s tactics to muzzle speech they don’t like?

That’s why this isn’t just an issue for pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian students. It’s not just an issue for Concordia students. It’s an issue for all Montrealers, all Canadians, and all people committed to democracy. We cannot let violence win.

Sadly I couldn’t get off work to be there. But Adam Daifallah has pictures. More to follow.

Hillel:

“A small group of thugs are holding an entire university community hostage and deciding who is allowed to speak and who is not. All people who value democratic principles such as freedom of expression and speech should share our outrage with this intolerable situation.” – co-Presidents Jason Portnoy and Yacov Fruchter, in a press release.

“That peace that we all felt at Concordia was a Band-Aid. This was not resolved.” – Jason Portnoy, co-President, as reported by CTV news.

“I am truly embarrassed by such failures in a democracy in the 21st century. I am afraid to ask, but if my fellow students are not interested in free speech and inquiry for all of us on campus, regardless of a speaker’s political opinions, than what exactly are we learning at school?” – Tal Elharrar, in an opinion piece in today’s Link

Federation CJA:

“This is a day of great sadness for those who value freedom of expression in our universities and in Canadian society. Concordia University has allowed itself to be taken hostage by a small and violent group within its campus. With this decision, Concordia has demonstrated that the right to free speech is only as strong as the institutional will to protect it.” – Sylvain Abitbol, President, in a statement.

The university administration:

“It is unfortunate, but a reality nonetheless, that the safety of its community members and guests must occupy a central position in planning events at an institution dedicated to free speech.” – Concordia vice-president Michael Di Grappa, in a press release.

SPHR:

“It’s a matter of Canada respecting its own laws. You don’t allow someone into the country who’s an accused war criminal. [ . . . ] Bringing (Barak) to campus would have shown a general disregard for a very large number of people who don’t want him to speak.” – Erik Yingling, SPHR, in today’s Gazette

“He is a war criminal and he shouldn’t be allowed to speak at a public institution like Concordia. Free speech is not unlimited in Canada. I’m glad they learned from their first mistake and came to their senses.” – Chadi Marouf, SPHR, in today’s Globe and Mail.

“I want to make this clear, there would still be people who would not want him to come, he is after all an accused war criminal, but personally I would go to the speech and, if a question and answer period was guaranteed, I would call him out on the crimes he is accused of,” said Yingling. “That being said, I think the university exercised a good degree of common sense when rendering their final decision.” – Eric Yingling, SPHR, in today’s Link.

The Media:

“Freedom of speech is again under assault at Montreal’s Concordia University by administrators who seem to value tranquility on campus more than they do the rights of people to debate controversial ideas.” – Toronto Star editorial.

“[The SPHR] is amazed at its own success… they don’t even have to break windows again. Their reputation precedes them. The mere threat of violence was enough to get the university to capitulate.” – Tommy Schnurmacher, on CJAD radio this morning.

At large:

The contention that a speech by a former Head of State of a democracy can be classified as “provocation” is absurd; rather, it should be seen as a welcome beginning to open dialogue. The stigma associated with a “controversial” speaker represents a disturbing delusion. If a controversial viewpoint is defined as one that many people will disagree with, then controversial speakers are the ones who will most likely advance the course of debate on contentious issues. I’d far prefer to listen to a “controversial” speaker than one who attracts no dissenting opinions. – Josh Fisher, Concordia student in a letter to the Link.

“This would no doubt please the anti-Israeli activists who prevented Benjamin Netanyahu from speaking in 2002. With one riot, they’ll have managed to prevent two Israeli statesmen from speaking at a Canadian university.”- Jonathan Kay, posting to the National Post blog.

“Congratulations, my leftie friends. Concordia is yours. You will no longer have to suffer the indignity of viewpoints you don’t like being represented on campus. It may be some time before the dictatorship of the proletariat takes over society as a whole, but dang it, this is a start.” – Damian Penny.

Tommy Schnurmacher, as you might expect, has been all over this story.

A few choice quotes (and excuse me for paraphrasing, it’s hard to listen to the radio and type simultaneously):

“Why doesn’t the government say to Concordia, wait a minute, you get government funding and you don’t have the right to decide which political viewpoints can be expressed on campus and which ones can’t”.

“They [SPHR] are not interested in Israelis who make peace, they’re not interested in Israelis who don’t make peace… they don’t want any Israel in the Middle East, period.”

“[The SPHR] is amazed at its own success… they don’t even have to break windows again. Their reputation precedes them. The mere threat of violence was enough to get the university to capitulate.”

Tommy spent his hour-long radio show vocally decrying Concordia’s decision. Judging by the response he got, he’s not alone.

Concordia’s decision to bar Ehud Barak from speaking has now received press coverage in the Toronto Star, the National Post blog, and Ha’aretz.

It’s been blogged by LGF, Damian Penny, and even Instapundit.

And, it made the top stories on the 11 o’ clock news.

SPHR, of course, is characteristically claiming that freedom of speech does not apply to Barak, because he’s a “war criminal”. (In SPHR-speak, you see, all Israelis are “war criminals”. Therefore, none of them should be allowed to speak. Orwell would be so proud.)

Something tells me this is just beginning.

Many media outlets, when covering the tensions and flare-ups at Concordia, have tried to construct timelines. Most of them get it wrong, or at least omit many crucial points. Certainly it’s hard to be comprehensive, but here’s a partial look back at some of the key events of the past five years or so:

• April 1, 1999: The Rob Green executive is first elected to CSU office, ushering in an era of far-left dominance of the Concordia Student Union. His slate was re-elected one year later. A member of this executive, Sheryll Navidad, would eventually defraud $196,000 from the Union… something which the executive hushed up until a week after the CSU won provincial accreditation by a student referendum, ensuring that the University would have limited or no say on the Union’s actions.
• September 2000: The “Al-Aqsa Intifida” begins in Israel, setting off a wave of escalating violence. At Concordia, pro-Palestinian groups step up their tabling, exhibit, and promotion efforts.
• November 27, 2000: The CSU, upon request by SPHR, holds a general assembly to vote on whether to pressure the Canadian government to cut off ties with Israel for (in their view) not respecting UN Resolution 242. Though the assembly was boycotted by Hillel and failed to achieve quota, the CSU nonetheless decided to add this as a referendum question on the next CSU election ballot.
• December 18, 2000: The CSU condemns Hillel after SPHR complains about material that Hillel was distributing.
• March 2001: The leftist slate ACCESS is elected to the CSU to succeed the Rob Green executive. The referendum against Israel passes with 54% of the vote.
• August 20, 2001: Two leftist CSU executive members, Tom Keefer and Laith Marouf, are expelled and banned from campus for spraying anti-Israel graffiti on campus and threatening a security guard. The ban is reversed eight months later, after Keefer and Marouf complained of being denied due process.
• September 2001: The CSU publishes its student agenda, entitled “Uprising” which, among other things, calls for “intifada, anarchy, and revolution” and contains numerous articles containing antisemitism, incitement to theft and flag-burning, and violence. Released just after the 9/11 attacks, the handbook comes under fire from a large number of people.
• September 2001: Angry students begin circulating a petition to recall the CSU executive and force new elections. The petition eventually amasses over 3000 signatures – more than the number of people who voted in the election in the first place.
• October 15, 2001: Faced with the inevitable fact of the recall petition being submitted, Sabrina Stea resigns as CSU president, blaming the administration and forcing new elections.
• October 31, 2001: The CSU considers suing B’nai Brith for what it perceived as “racist” remarks made against the CSU. The CSU hurries to launch the lawsuit before it is forced out of office, but it never proceeds very far.
• November 29, 2001: The moderate Representative Union slate wins the by-elections with a record turnout, despite initial disqualification for fraud allegations that were never proven. The results of the election are, however, contested, and eventually annulled by the CSU judicial board. An interim CSU led by Leftist perennial Patrice Blais is appointed, leading to widespread disgust by the student body who had hoped, briefly, that their votes might make a difference.
• March 20-21, 2002: SPHR sets up their “Concordia Under Occupation” exhibit, setting up phony “checkpoints” at student entrances and harassing students for ID, then transforming the mezz into a mock graveyard with a sign saying “made in Israel”. The exhibit was received with widespread disgust.
• March 29, 2002: The widespread disgust from the November by-election leads to voter apathy. CanDo wins the CSU elections, under the leadership of Sabine Freisinger, ushering in a fifth straight year of leftist control of the Union, and a perceived mandate to “shake things up”.
• April 2, 2002: Hillel holds a peaceful sit-in, with singing and instruments, to protest SPHR’s virulent attacks on pro-Israel sentiment on campus.
• September 9, 2002: A mob of angry rioters, backed by the CSU and SPHR, violently shuts down Benjamin Netanyahu from speaking in the Hall Building auditorium. Many rioters are arrested and 11 are charged. The police have to use tear gas to disperse the crowd. The Concordia administration – in a move that implies that Hillel shares the blame for the riot – calls a “cooling-off period” issues a “moratorium” on all events or speeches having to do with Israel or the Palestinians. It also issues a temporary ban on student tabling of any kind.
• December 2, 2002: The CSU shuts down Concordia Hillel on the grounds that it was actively recruiting for a foreign military by distributing pamphlets about how people can volunteer for an IDF program. This gets widespread international coverage and criticism. The CSU later agrees to reinstate Hillel only if it signs a “pledge”. On principle, Hillel refuses to succumb to blackmail.
• December 5, 2002: Hillel holds a massive Chanukah rally to protest the unfair treatment by the CSU.
• December 21, 2002: Hillel files a lawsuit against the CSU, asking for unconditional reinstatement and an unfreezing of funds. The lawsuit is eventually suspended on the grounds that it is an internal matter, showing a lack of understanding of Concordia’s discrimination on the part of the justice system.
• March 12, 2003: CSU pro-Palestinian “activist” Laith Marouf draws a swastika on an Israeli flag in an art exhibit. He was acquitted of harassment charges.
• March 28, 2003: “Evolution, not Revolution” wins by a landslide in the CSU election, representing the first time that a moderate slate successfully ousted a far-left slate in five years (not counting the annulled 2001 by-elections).
• May 9, 2003: Global TV airs its documentary on the events of September 9th, entitled “Confrontation at Concordia”. The documentary comes under fire for being too “pro-Israel” in its bias.
• October 22, 2003: SPHR brings Eric Ben-Artzi, an Israeli “refusenik” and a nephew of Benjamin Netanyahu, to campus to speak. He is billed as a courageous dissenter. This is just one of a series of lectures that SPHR is allowed to hold, without any riots, protests, or violence.
• December 10, 2003: CSU council votes to ban Operation SICK, an international group opposed to children being used in warfare, from seeking club status at Concordia, on the grounds that it was loosely tied to Israeli Hasbara. An SPHR member called the group a “whitey-whitey group telling visible minority groups how to deal with their children.”
• March 26, 2004: “New Evolution” wins the CSU election, ushering in a second straight year of moderate CSU leadership.
• October 4, 2004: The university administration denies Hillel’s request to bring Ehud Barak to speak. Hillel plans a protest.

It’s impossible to list all the relevant events, but the above is a summary. The point is, the situation at Concordia is not just a series of isolated events. It is a pattern extending back a number of years.

And this latest flare-up proves that, while things have cooled down in the last year or two, they haven’t been resolved. When Jewish and pro-Israel students have their freedom of speech denied merely because people are afraid of things getting ugly, that’s not resolution, that’s avoidance.

Federation CJA has issued a release condemning Concordia’s decision on Ehud Barak:

“This is a day of great sadness for those who value freedom of expression in our universities and in Canadian society,” stated Federation CJA President Sylvain Abitbol. “Concordia University has allowed itself to be taken hostage by a small and violent group within its campus. With this decision, Concordia has demonstrated that the right to free speech is only as strong as the institutional will to protect it.”

I wonder how long we’ll have to wait to see similar condemnations from Muslim community leaders. I wouldn’t hold my breath…

Update: The Montreal Gazette, the CBC, and Canoe all have the story. Lots more coverage sure to follow. I’m sure the university won’t know what hit them.

Another semester, another scandal.

This time, Hillel submitted a request to bring Ehud Barak to speak at Concordia, but, according to a press release from Hillel, the university has denied their request for anywhere on both campuses – even Loyola. Now, they’re holding a protest:

FREEDOM OF SPEECH DENIED AT CONCORDIA

First Ehud Barak, WHO’S NEXT ???

Join us for a FREE SPEECH RALLY:

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 5, 2004

12 PM at the corner of McKay and De Maisonneuve

Please read the open letter below for more information.

Dear fellow student,

We are writing to ask for your support. Last week, Concordia University denied former Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Barak permission to speak anywhere on campus – including the quiet, and more easily guarded, Loyola campus – hiding behind a “security risk assessment”.

They claim that they cannot effectively secure their campuses. We say that it is their duty to protect their students and to allow freedom of speech to exist on their campuses.

A small group of thugs are holding an entire university community hostage and deciding who is allowed to speak and who is not. All people who value democratic principles such as freedom of expression and speech should share our outrage with this intolerable situation.

This is not acceptable in our Quebec and Canadian society. We ask for your cooperation in FREEING speech. We will be gathering outside Concordia’s Hall building on Tuesday at 12pm (Corner Mackay and Maisonneuve) calling for the Board of Governors, the Administration, the Faculty and students of Concordia to reclaim their campus.

This is a historic opportunity and no matter what your political affiliation is… This affects you!

Today is a day of great sadness for freedom of expression at universities and in Canadian society.

We invited Ehud Barak so that we could all learn from him. We have been told that the Administration has restored peace to its campuses. This unfortunate incident has demonstrated that we have appeased the violent side but we have not achieved true peace. Peace should not be confused with appeasement.

We will know that we have peace on campus when we can all learn together- when we can all reason together, safely, intelligently and constructively. For that, we and our parents sacrifice so much- in order to pay tuition and learn at this school.

In return, all we demand, is equal treatment and a safe learning environment, just like everyone else.

Is that too much to ask?

Looking forward to your support,

Yacov Fruchter

Montreal Hillel President

Jason Portnoy

Concordia Hillel co-President

When the idea was first floated to bring Ehud Barak – a left-wing dovish former Israeli PM who offered Yasser Arafat a historic settlement at Camp David in 2000 – to Concordia, there were mixed opinions. Some students thought he would be an interesting and valuable speaker.

Others, however, worried that bringing a “controversial” speaker like Barak (I guess at Concordia, anyone associated with Israel is controversial) would disrupt the relative calm that has returned to students’ lives over the past two years, and bring back the chaos and divisiveness of the period before and after the Netanyahu riots. For example, this student:

Forget all the bickering over how dovish or hawkish Barak is, or whether he has a right to come to Concordia. He’s a legitimate politician of a democratic state, and of course he should be permitted to speak, here or anywhere else. That said, it would be better for all of us if Barak did not come to Concordia. I say this not because I have anything against the man, but because this is the first year in all my time at Concordia where I can go to class without passing people in the Mezz screaming at each other, or reading inflammatory letters about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the Link. We’re not making national headlines because of riots, moratoriums or arrests; and people now are talking about tuition fee hikes, fair trade coffee, the excellent performance of this year’s CSU, and other issues much more relevant to Concordia students at home. I like this kinder, gentler version of Concordia, and would very much resent Hillel, SPHR, or any other organization’s attempts to sabotage that simply to make a point. Bring Barak to a synagogue or a community centre, and I’d be the first person to see what he has to say. But for the love of God, not at my school. Not at the cost of setting us back another two years. Signed, -Another Jewish student sick of it all.

I am all too aware of what it’s like to go to a school that is in the midst of hostile tensions. The atmosphere on campus is finally calmer and friendlier, and I can understand why students wouldn’t want to shake things up again.

I can understand. But I vehemently disagree.

You see, denying Barak’s right to speak means letting the people who rioted against Netanyahu win. They used violence to shut down Netanyahu’s right to speak. In the process, they ensured that nobody they dislike would ever be allowed to speak on campus again, because the university would be too afraid to let them. So pro-Palestinian speakers are more than welcome at Concordia – there were several last year – but Israeli speakers are shunned.

That’s victory to thuggery over reason. That’s victory to – and no, I’m not exaggerating – terrorism over freedom. Because using violence or the threat of violence to shut down free speech is in fact a form of terrorism. SPHR and their friends have terrorized the university, the student population, and the administration, into

Above all, that’s a lack of a free, open exchange of ideas, which is what education is supposed to be all about.

This isn’t really about Barak who – despite his dovish politics, is going to be as demonized by SPHR and the Palestinian lobby as any Israeli. It has nothing to do with whether I liked Barak’s policies or Netanyahu’s or Ariel Sharon’s or anyone else.

This is about a competition of ideas, and whether one set of ideas will be allowed to shut down and stifle another. It’s about the future of Jewish students at university campuses all over North America, and whether they will have the right to bring in speakers or openly proclaim their views without fear of violence. It’s about whether we – as a society – want to accept the notion that anyone can speak at a university campus… except an Israeli.

As a Concordia alum, I support Hillel in this call to action. It is my hope – though, sadly, not my expectation – that any reasonable student, regardless of political affiliation or background – who supports the right to free speech, will go out there and join them.

I won’t be there in person but I’ll be there in spirit. Please spread the word.