Segacs's World I Know

Posts Tagged ‘benjamin netanyahu’

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.

September 9th, 2002, when this was the scene at Concordia:

The riot forced cancellation of Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech, but that was just the short-term effect. It brought a campus war to a head, resulting in endless finger-pointing, international media attention that dragged Concordia’s name through the mud, and all-out political dissention that devolved into a CSU fight against Hillel. Concordia became known as “Gaza U”, as a hostile campus environment for Jewish students, and as a school that had pretty much hit rock bottom.

So what’s changed in two years? In March of 2003, anger at the CSU for the Netanyahu debacle was partly responsible for an upset victory for the moderates in the CSU elections. This was repeated in 2004, and the two years of relative calm have done a lot to help the student atmosphere. Activism is still alive at Concordia, but moderation is trumping extremism, and, on the whole, students are free to go to class without harassment. Speaking to friends who are still students there, I’m told that the difference between the atmosphere of two years ago and today’s campus atmosphere is like night and day.

But has progress really been made? Or is it just another sort of defeat? Could Hillel bring a pro-Israel speaker back to Concordia now, or would the event be shut down – not by violent protest, but by insinuations that they shouldn’t “rock the boat”? Is that really better?

For the past two years, the goal has been to ease tensions, cool everyone down, and neutralize the campus atmosphere. A lot of progress has been made on that front. But come March, if the extremists get elected again, things could go right back to the way they were. Unless the next step is taken: that of standing up for what’s right. Students need to be able to express their opinions freely, and not suppress them for fear of being provocative. They need to be able to do this in an atmosphere where they have the freedom to say what they think, without the risk of violence or being shut down. They need to be able to wear their support of Israel with pride, not hide it away because it’s not politically-correct.

There’s still much work to be done. Luckily, the new crop of student leaders seems to be rising to the challenge. I wish them luck and strength.

SPHR invited Netanyahu . . . ’s nephew to speak at Concordia, only just over a year after violently rioting against Netanyahu himself to get his speech shut down.

Eric Ben-Artzi came to speak on behalf of the Refusenik movement – Israelis who would prefer to go to jail than serve in the IDF.

SPHR once again demonstrated that the only speech it will tolerate is speech it agrees with. As for Ben-Artzi, the only thing he proved – besides being shameless about trading on his family connections – is that he represents nothing but a fringe minority in Israel:

The bigger issue involves his repeated claim that he represents the Israeli centre, while he himself admitted that despite the million Israelis who serve in the army, and the six million citizens, only 550 make a point to refuse to serve. He went further and explained that 1,300 other Israelis signed a petition in solidarity. That still makes it far fewer than one per cent of the population.

If we were to have a legitimate discussion about people refusing to serve in the Israeli army, I think the focus would most likely be on the thousands of people who don’t serve due to religious exemptions. Or even on the under-the-radar Israelis who look for creative ways to skirt the draft, including medical excuses or “instead of” service. The first group – and even the second – are surely much more numerous than the “Refuseniks”.

Either way, even the fringe element that Ben-Artzi represents doesn’t want to see SPHR’s goal of no more Israel. But SPHR wasn’t interested in any of that. They saw an opportunity to exploit him for their propaganda purposes, that’s all. As usual. Only this time, the attempt was as transparent as glass.

September 9th, 2002:

They came to shut down free speech. They violently rioted, as explained in this widely-circulated eyewitness account. They didn’t want Benjamin Netanyahu to give this speech – or, indeed, to speak at all – and so they gathered to riot, cause mayhem, and rough up people trying to attend.

The fallout made international headlines, led to the blame game almost immediately, and caused a ripple effect that is still being felt.

September 9th, 2003:

They’d have us believe that everything has changed. There’s a new CSU executive, a big orientation party for incoming and returning students, and a lecture series on conflict resolution.

But ultimately, behind the scenes, very little has changed despite surface appearances. Hillel, which had its privileges suspended by last year’s CSU is still fighting to get them restored. The so-called “activists” are still defending the rioting. Benjamin Netanyahu has been invited back to Montreal but not to Concordia. Antisemitism still gets printed in the Link as “legitimate political criticism”. Indeed, there is still much work to be done.

One year later, some baby steps in the right direction have been taken. What happens from here, we’ll just have to wait and see.

A comment just below questioned my stance on freedom of speech. I started to reply to it, but realized this is a core issue on this blog and I should address my thoughts to all readers. Some of you will agree and some won’t, but for what it’s worth, here’s how I view this very complex and touchy issue.

Freedom of speech is a precious and inalienable right. David H is correct in saying: “Allowing one group of people to decide that the words of another group are so dangerous that they must be silenced is a dangerous precedent.” I have repeatedly stated that freedom of speech need apply to all, and not only to those we agree with. If I, for example, say that Kevin Spacey is a good actor, and an angry mob of people disagrees with me and decides to riot to prevent me from speaking those words, then they are denying my right to free speech.

But freedom of speech does not imply freedom from the consequences of that speech. And that is where laws about incitement of hatred come into play.

The angry mob that chose to silence the speech of Benjamin Netanyahu was denying the right to freedom of speech by deciding ahead of time that based on who Mr. Netanyahu is – namely, the right-wing, former Prime Minister of a country that they hate – he shouldn’t have the right to address a crowd. That was wrong for many obvious reasons. Having read the text of the speech that Netanyahu planned to give on September 9th of last year, it is clear that – though it contains a political opinion that is unpopular amongst the Left at Concordia, it is far removed from any sort of hate speech. If Netanyahu were to have been permitted to speak, however, and if he did in fact incite hatred, then he would have been subject to the consequences of this under the law, just like anyone else.

I think a great deal of misconception comes from the word “censorship”. The C-word is taken as a given evil, and people scurry away from it screaming. But, to quote the old cliché, freedom of speech doesn’t give you the right to yell “fire” in a crowded movie theatre. Not permitting the yelling of “fire” isn’t censorship; it’s protection of public safety. Similarly, it doesn’t give you the right to approach a contract killer and ask that he murder your wife. That may be speech, but it’s also contracting murder which is – rightly – extremely illegal.

So, of course it is obvious that there are limits to speech. Those are clear-cut cases, but what about cases that aren’t so clear-cut? For example, what about somebody publishing a website denying the Holocaust? This is where societies differ – in the U.S. it’s legal, in Canada it’s not. There are arguments on both sides of the issue here. Some would argue that denying this freedom is ultimately more dangerous, because if the situation were to be reversed and the tyranny became the majority, they could conceivably deny the freedom to you. The true test of freedom of speech, they would argue, is whether we can bear to watch a Ku Klux Klan march, or a neo-Nazi rally, without succumbing to our natural desire to shut these racist assholes up.

I think they make a good point. And that they’re wrong.

Freedoms are not absolute. They end at the point where they interfere with the rights of their fellow human beings. Incitement of hatred has real consequences for the groups against which it is directed. And a society must draw the line somewhere in order to function civilly.

Hate speech is not without cost or consequence. To assume that speech is always peaceful is like saying that contracting a killing is a peaceful, protected act. Certain groups have learned very quickly that if you repeat a lie often enough, people come to believe it as truth. And if you spew hate loudly enough and often enough, you recruit others to your cause, and ultimately create what Ursula Owen calls a “culture of hate“:

In the face of such enormities, the political correctness debate has rather muddied the waters, diluting the wider implications of what hate can produce. For the most dangerous threat behind hate speech is surely that it can go beyond its immediate targets and create a culture of hate, a culture which makes it acceptable, respectable even, to hate on a far wider scale. Such a culture of hate is not easy to define, and does not necessarily have one trajectory, but its evolution is evident in the circumstances surrounding some events in recent history.

[ . . . ]

Words can turn into bullets, hate speech can kill and maim, just as censorship can. So, as dedicated opponents of censorship and proponents of free speech, we are forced to ask: is there a moment where the quantitative consequences of hate speech change qualitatively the arguments about how we must deal with it. And is there no distinction to be made between the words of those whose hate speech is a matter of conviction, however ignorant, deluded or prejudiced, and hate speech as propaganda, the calculated and systematic use of lies to sow fear, hate and violence in a population at large?

Owen has been one of the world’s most staunch supporters of freedom of speech. But even she concedes that the area of hate speech is tricky, and that there are no clear-cut answers.

Speech is a weapon as well as a right. There ought to be a wide range of what is considered acceptable speech. We shouldn’t censor speech simply because we disagree with it or find it distasteful. But when it crosses the line into outright incitement of hatred, then it stops being a healthy part of society and becomes a cancer.

If the majority becomes the tyranny, then hate speech laws may be used against the good minority. But we must prevent the majority from becoming the tyranny in the first place, or else we’ll have a lot more to worry about than laws on freedom of speech. We’ll have lost our humanity.

Well, it’s official: Benjamin Netanyahu will be returning to Montreal. But – perhaps wisely – he’ll likely stay far away from Concordia this time; he’ll be speaking at a local synagogue instead:

Netanyahu’s visit this fall will be as minister of finance in the government of Ariel Sharon. He will meet with Quebec business executives about investing in Israel.

The official nature of his planned tour contrasts with last year’s visit here – and to Ottawa, Toronto and Winnipeg – when he came as a private citizen. He was invited to Concordia by Hillel, the main Jewish organization on campus.

Various levels of security will be on duty the night of the planned synagogue speech, which Poupko said will be open to all “as long as they behave themselves.”

On the one hand, it would have been nice for him to be invited back to Concordia merely to prove a point about free speech. On the other hand, I wouldn’t put it past the same idiots to riot again, just like last year. At least this way, Netanyahu’s speech will likely be heard.

The Jerusalem Post has an interesting interview with Benjamin Netanyahu, currently Israel’s Finance Minister, about his plan to reverse the disastrous trends in the Israeli economy.

Israel with a right-wing economic policy, focusing on lowering taxes, paying down the deficit, and privatization and decentralization? This should be interesting indeed.

Today is Yom Hashoah, the official Holocaust Remembrance Day.

It’s a day to take a moment and reflect. A day to light a candle in remembrance of the six million. This is what the US Holocaust Memorial Museum says about Yom Hashoah:

Holocaust Remembrance Day is a day that has been set aside for remembering the victims of the Holocaust and for reminding Americans of what can happen to civilized people when bigotry, hatred and indifference reign. The United States Holocaust Memorial Council, created by act of Congress in 1980, was mandated to lead the nation in civic commemorations and to encourage appropriate Remembrance observances throughout the country. Observances and Remembrance activities can occur during the week of Remembrance that runs from the Sunday before through the Sunday after the actual date.

While there are obvious religious aspects to such a day, it is not a religious observance as such. The internationally-recognized date comes from the Hebrew calendar and corresponds to the 27th day of Nisan on that calendar. That is the date on which Israel commemorates the victims of the Holocaust. In Hebrew, Holocaust Remembrance Day is called Yom Hashoah.

The Holocaust is not merely a story of destruction and loss; it is a story of an apathetic world and a few rare individuals of extraordinary courage. It is a remarkable story of the human spirit and the life that flourished before the Holocaust, struggled during its darkest hours, and ultimately prevailed as survivors rebuilt their lives.

For more information, a few good links to visit are the Nizkor Project, the website for Yad Vashem, and the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s website.

Perhaps not incidentally, Simon Wiesenthal announced his retirement from six decades of work pursuing and catching Nazi war criminals. The 94-year-old and his organisation are responsible for apprehending about 1,100 war criminals, and he is finally ready to quit:

“My work is done,” he said. “I found the mass murderers I was looking for. I survived them all. Those who I didn’t look for are too old and sick today to be pursued legally.”

It may seem like a small event, but Wiesenthal’s retirement is probably symbolic of the turning point that the world finds itself at today. Normally quiet to almost the point of being reclusive, Wiesenthal has spoken out this year about current events, including the riot at Concordia that prevented Benjamin Netanyahu from speaking:

Famed Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal has urged Concordia to reschedule last month’s speech by Benjamin Netanyahu, saying that anti-Israel protesters have succeeded in restricting freedom of speech for the entire student body.

“I never thought I would live to see the day when there would be more open expression of hate against Jews than in the 1930s,” said Wiesenthal in a letter to Rector Frederick Lowy. “Tragically, that is the situation today around the world.”

Perhaps this is never more relevant as right now. The last generation of Holocaust survivors is ageing, and sadly, there will soon no longer be anyone alive to bear witness. The horrors of the Nazi regime will become just another chapter of history, remembered by Steven Spielberg movies and the hundreds of archives that are frantically being assembled by museums and historians. And the more remote in time it becomes, the easier it will be for the racists and revisionists to twist history. And the easier it will be for history to repeat itself.

At the same time, the world is witnessing an outbreak of antisemitism that – while it would be unfair to all to compare it to the Holocaust – is clearly heightened.

Tomorrow’s challenges are already crystallizing today. It will no longer be sufficient to point to history, because too many people are loudly rewriting history to make it fit their prejudices and perspectives.

I’ve frequently heard criticism that there is too much focus among Jewish organizations on the Holocaust, and that we ought to move forward after so long. That may be, but anyone who moves forward without remembering history is bound to repeat it. We say that so often, it’s become somewhat of a cliché. But it is also an irrefutable truth.

Yes, this is a turning point in history. Something to think about in the coming hours of Yom Hashoah.

Well, this is a bald threat if I’ve ever heard one: The SPHR and other activist groups are threatening a protest that will “make the September 9 protest look like nothing” in order to voice their displeasure with the election of Evolution to the CSU:

In an attempt to send a message to the both the administration and to already beleaguered students, activist groups are planning to stage a massive protest, one prominent student politician tells me. At issue is the policy of the new Executive to put activism second and academics first. The act of civil disobedience will apparently “make the September 9 protest look like nothing. They will take over the entire Hall Building.” What’s more, people will be flown in from outside of the country “to do the dirty work.”

My source, who has strong contacts with many student associations (including the SPHR), assures me that this protest will take place sometime in the early fall, and that it will “show that only CSU slates that support activism will be able to maintain order at Concordia.” “People should have voted for Clean Slate,” he says, “because they support activism. The message is that Concordia is about activism.”

This is the way these people operate. They hail democracy as long as it works in their favour. But if students democratically elect people they disagree with, they try to blackmail the students by threatening violence.

Absolutely disgusting. Not too surprising, though.

(Via Wordniness).

Update: Having posted this on the Link’s website, in a response by Adam Slater, he seems to suggest that this may not be true. Well, I can’t confirm or deny it one way or the other. Maybe it’s true, maybe it’s not. But, like I wrote in response to Mr. Slater, there’s only one way to find out: if there’s a riot in September, then I guess it’s true. Although I’m sure the SPHR cronies will maintain that “the Zionists started it”, like they did after September 9th.

Speaking of SPHR, they appear to be moving ahead with their agenda, unfazed by their massive loss in the CSU elections. In what they’re calling the “Karameh Campaign”, they’re planning on issuing “demands” to Concordia’s administration.

Most of this seems pretty transparent. The constant use of “war criminal” is an attempt to slander Benjamin Netanyahu with a false allegation that they know they cannot prove. Their reference to the “criminalization of dissent” flies in the face of evidence that conclusively states that what they are engaging in is, in fact, the politicization of criminal activity. Their “demand” that charges and sanctions be removed from the rioters is nothing short of a joke (incidentally, if you have not yet signed the petition to bring these criminals to justice, please do so!)

The “inquiry into racism” was already called for by the CSU, which gives some insight into its true motives. However, with the old CSU out and the new CSU coming in, it will hopefully end up being more of an opportunity to raise discussion points, rather than a witch-hunt against the “Zionists” and the administration.

As for the third point, normally, students can use space to hold events, and a police presence wouldn’t be necessary if SPHR didn’t insist on turning these events into violent clashes.

Their “principles” are equally transparent: Their standard calls against the “criminalization of dissent” and the “discrimination against refugees”. Their reference to “civil disobedience” would be all very well and good, except for their stubborn conviction that smashing windows and beating up people in kippas consists of “civil” disobedience. And note their use of “in Palestine” – um, last I checked, Palestine isn’t a country.

Finally, perhaps most offensive is their attempt to re-define “anti-Semitism” as meaning “racism against both Arabs and Jews”. That is a racist attempt to twist two thousand years of history around and turn the Arabs into the innocent victims. There’s no such thing as a “semitic” race – that’s an invention of racists. Antisemitism means racism against Jews. Don’t like it? Write to the publishers of the dictionary. Nobody’s denying them the right to protect against other forms of racism, including anti-Arab racism. But their twisting of the term antisemitism enables them to claim to be against antisemitism, when in truth they’re perpetrating it.

SPHR is looking for groups to “endorse” these demands before presenting them to the university. Hah! If you’d like to let these jokers know what you truly think of them, you can send them an e-mail to express yourself.

Update: I’ve removed the actual text of their “demands” and “principles” from my site, because I realized it could be mis-construed that I was actually promoting the damned thing. Of course, as nothing is further from the truth, I took it down to avoid confusion, but I left the link up so that you can read it and see for yourself what they’re up to.