Tommy on Concordia

10.05.04

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.

{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }

1 Roundhead 10.05.04 at 5:48 PM

Dear Sari,

Your work in bringing the world information about this under-reported outrage over the Israeli – Arab conflict at Concordia University is much appreciated, by myself as a defender and lover of freedom in Canada, and no doubt by many others.

I will now say something perhaps that you will not like.

When I first encountered your blog a couple of years ago, I was delighted to read you and the CSU controversies.

As time went on, though, I was became more and more distressed as to how an understanding of the realities of the Middle East – how the situation has been distorted by the mainstream media as a `cycle’ of violence, in the mildest instance – realities that did not seem to translate into a larger understanding of the realities of life apart from this important issue.

For one thing, I was distressed when, for example, you would invoke terms such as `non-mainstream’ or `fringe’ with regard to the Conservative Party of Canada, and its leader, Stephen Harper, as a reason why they shouldn’t be elected to office, etc. This is just one example of how you characterized political positions not conforming to liberal-leftism as `out of the mainstream’, etc.

This confused me, because obviously the `mainstream’, which is to say, the media consensus, is either indifferent, antagonistic or outright hostile to Israel in its struggle against the Palestinians, has no or little understanding of the issues or history involved, and is inspired toward `anti-Zionism’ by anti-Semitism.

Yet, you’re willing to defer to the `mainstream’ with regard to non-Israeli issues? What gives?

Consider this friendly criticism.

Reply

2 segacs 10.05.04 at 6:41 PM

Hi Roundhead, thanks for reading. I’m not sure I quite understand the basis of your criticism. I’ve long held that support of Israel and support of the Canadian Conservative party do not necessarily go hand in hand… and I’m not really sure what you’re getting at. Perhaps you’d like to e-mail me privately?

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: