Winnipeg Free Press | 24Apr2010 | Orest Slepokura
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/is-this-free-speech-letter-of-the-day-91892519.html
"Is this free speech?"
Comment posted by: Orest Slepokura
April 24, 2010 at 8:59 AM
Anyone sitting through the 3-hour-long audio-visual presentation on the
severe medical crisis provoked by Israel's 22-day-long Operation Cast
Lead invasion of the Gaza Strip by the Norwegian physician Dr Mads
Gilbert, as I did this past winter in a University of Calgary lecture
hall, will grasp that Israel is a criminal state that does not hesitate
to maim or massacre defenseless civilians, including small children --
as much today as it did in 1982, during its brutal invasion of Lebanon,
culminating in a relentless weeks-long terror-bombing campaign of
civilians in West Beirut's residential districts, in which thousands
were burned by phosphorus bombs and dismembered by cluster bombs and
punctuated by the bestial slaughter of several hundred Palestinian
civilians at the Sabra and Chatila refugee camps by Israel’s Lebanese
Christian allies.
Against that grisly backdrop, watching Manitoban pols debate the use of
the term “apartheid” is risible.
Letter of the day: Is this free
speech?
I wish to comment on the article concerning the debate in the Manitoba
legislature (NDP draws flack from Jewish leader, April 16, 2010) about the
private member's bill condemning Israel Apartheid Week (IAW) at the
University of Manitoba. It is evident that none of the members who
spoke on the motion attended the event they so thoroughly condemned and
asked to be banned. This is so because none of their accusations comes
close to describing its content or the atmosphere that prevailed
throughout the week.
I attended all the sessions and was involved in arranging a debate that
was to include a representative of the mainstream Jewish community.
David Matas originally agreed to be a panel member, then withdrew at
the request of the B'nai Brith, he informed me. Other prominent members
of the Jewish community were subsequently approached and they refused
as well. It is evident that leaders of the Jewish community were
determined to boycott the IAW -- which is, of course, their right to
do. But then to accuse the organizers of IAW of violating the canon of
free speech is unfair, to say the least.
Apartheid is a legal term, not a hate word, and nothing hateful
transpired over the week. The Jewish people were not "smeared." The
discussion was calm, respectful and academic as is appropriate at a
university setting.
Is Israel an apartheid state? Several prominent South Africans
including Desmond Tutu, believe so. But more to the point, why is this
not a legitimate topic for discussion and debate? Why would Manitoba
legislators want to censor this question -- in the name of free speech,
of all things?
Finally, the B'nai Brith does not speak for the Jewish community. Why
would the Free Press not also contact Independent Jewish Voices, one of
the co-sponsors of Israel Apartheid Week for its comment on the debate
in the Manitoba legislature?
CY GONICK
Winnipeg
Those who cherish democratic values will celebrate the defeat of a
resolution in the Manitoba legislature condemning Israeli Apartheid
Week. The recent IAW events at the University of Manitoba took place
without any incident that violated the Manitoba Human Rights Code or
the university's respectful work and learning environment policy. That
did not stop MLAs Heather Stefanson and Hugh McFadyen from engaging in
fear mongering to convince legislators to eradicate IAW.
Apartheid: The term is being used widely to describe government
policies that use forms of segregation to perpetuate racism. In India,
apartheid is employed to describe segregation facing Muslims and
Dalits. In Canada, it has been used to describe government policy
toward aboriginal people. In Israel, academics, journalists and
politicians discuss the danger of "creeping apartheid" in reference to
policies towards Arab Israelis and Palestinians in East Jerusalem.
Typically, we think the term applies only historically to South Africa.
This is not true.
Is apartheid always applied appropriately? We will have different
views. Why do Manitoba MLAs want to prevent us from debating our
differences, but only in relation to Israel? Apparently, we could
organize Canada Apartheid Week; in fact, this topic was discussed
during IAW at the U of M. Why do the MLAs not care if we discuss our
differences except in the case of Israel? MLAs must dismiss groups like
B'nai Brith that seek to pressure them into adopting exceptional
measures for Israel at the cost of jeopardizing our democratic rights.
Fortunately, most Manitoba MLAs agree.
HOWARD S. DAVIDSON
Winnipeg
Republished from the
Winnipeg Free Press print edition April 23, 2010 A15