June 15, 2011
Background to An Open Letter on Israel, Free Speech and Human Rights
June 14, 2011
by Diane V. McLoughlin
Toronto City Councillor Sheila Grimes has clarified that the legality of the term
'Israeli Apartheid' is not going to be voted on either as a matter of
principle, or policy, by Council.
As the Councillor at the same time wondered about it, I thought I might try to
briefly explain why individuals such as myself felt concerned enough to write.
Toronto City Council presides over one of the largest cosmopolitan cities in
Canada. Council felt compelled to look into whether or not the term 'Israeli
Apartheid' was legal, or, conversely, illegal hate speech. This is symptomatic
of something taking place on a larger canvass. There is tremendous
pressure being brought to bear on elected officials to intimidate them into silent
acquiescence.
An example of this recently transpired in the Ontario Legislature.
Certain provincial members of Parliament singled out a university student,
Jennifer Peto, who is Jewish, to denounce her graduate thesis:
'The Victimhood of the Powerful: White Jews, Zionism and the Racism of
Hegemonic Holocaust Education' .
Her thesis was denounced for the public record - as "shockingly anti-Semitic";
"disgusting"; "hateful". The National Post and others waded in, as well.
I've read her thesis and wrote about it. While I can see how it would be
shocking to some - novel ways of looking at things can be - anti-Semitic,
disgusting or hateful, it isn't. In fact, what Ms. Peto actually advocates for is
decency, at not inconsiderable personal risk to herself.
Our ability to steer the ship of state clear of rocky shoals - erosion of civil
liberties; the imposition of ideas antithetical to Canadian values; the support
for, or unnecessary engagement in, immoral war - are always to be guarded
against in societies that wish to remain democratic and free.
In November 2010, I wrote the essay entitled, 'Hate Speech Laws to Shield
Israel From Accountability?', regarding an international conference that took
place the same month in Ottawa which was funded to the tune of half a million
Canadian tax dollars.
One hundred parliamentarians from 45 countries were invited to attend.
Enquiries regarding the conference were shunted to a public relations firm that
touted itself as, 'help[ing to] influence public policy...and...fundamentally
change public attitudes...'.
For a year prior leading up to the conference, a small group of federal
members of Parliament took it upon themselves to study something they called
'the new anti-Semitism.' The CPCCA was an ad hoc committee that was not
appointed by Parliament. They appointed themselves. Groups such as
Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East were excluded from
presenting to the committee. Members of the Bloc party had the integrity to
resign in protest.
A central aim of the committee, as well as the conference, was to promote
outlawing criticism of Israel as a 'Jewish collectivity' as spelled out in the
London Declaration.
If this is so, if we are to view it as illegal to suggest that Israel is anything other
than a Jewish collectivity, how then are we to view the million-plus in
Israel-proper who are Palestinian-Israeli citizens?
Well, for one, Avigdor Lieberman, a Russian-Israeli immigrant now Israel's
minister of foreign affairs, not so long ago thought that a 'transfer' of
Israel's Palestinian-Israeli citizens would be a good demographic move to
preserve superior Jewish numbers in the state: ethnic cleansing.
In the West Bank, ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people in favour of Jews
overtaking and 'settling' their space is an ongoing, brutal, affair aided, in no
small measure, by generous donations collected in Canada and elsewhere. As
the occupation is illegal under international law, obviously all such donations
should be outlawed forthwith.
Twenty percent of Israel's citizens are Palestinian. Include the illegal
military-besieged 1.5 million Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, the millions of
Palestinians languishing under illegal military occupation in the West Bank, and
the millions of Palestinian refugees that Israel illegally prevents from returning
to their homes - the rather surprising fact of the matter is that the numbers of
Palestinians and Israeli-Jews are pretty much the same, or at least closer than
we think.
Taking it from another angle, the hypocrisy is more obvious if we were to
imagine how we would feel if the American Deep South were to adamantly
assert that it was to be respected as a 'democratic white collective' -
threatening legal sanctions for daring to suggest otherwise. (Or, more close to
home, how we would feel if legislation were passed making it illegal to suggest
that Canada was anything other than Anglo-Saxon.)
It is a matter of fighting oppression. It is a matter of fighting racism and
injustice. It is a matter, now, of fighting for the democratic fundamental right
of free speech here in Canada. It is one of the most fundamental issues of
justice in our time.
So, this is why I wrote to the Honourable members of Toronto City Council.
The attempt to outlaw the words 'Israeli Apartheid', or to outlaw the
suggestion that Israel is anything other than a democratic 'Jewish collectivity', is
part of an on-going struggle for justice. Declarations such as the Ottawa Protocol
are endeavours meant to permit the legal harassment of anyone who
would dare to say so. I believe that the bitter irony of it is that instruments
such as the Ottawa Protocol may well inhibit, rather than promote, prospects
for peace. As elected representatives, I wrote because I thought you should
know.
For your interest, the other letter I wrote today was addressed to the leaders of
Canada's federal political parties to share my view that Canada should not be
involved in any way, shape or form with the military assault on Libya, the real
aim of which is western corporate control over African wealth.
I am, most sincerely and respectfully yours,
Diane V. McLoughlin
by Diane V. McLoughlin
Toronto City Councillor Sheila Grimes has clarified that the legality of the term
'Israeli Apartheid' is not going to be voted on either as a matter of
principle, or policy, by Council.
As the Councillor at the same time wondered about it, I thought I might try to
briefly explain why individuals such as myself felt concerned enough to write.
Toronto City Council presides over one of the largest cosmopolitan cities in
Canada. Council felt compelled to look into whether or not the term 'Israeli
Apartheid' was legal, or, conversely, illegal hate speech. This is symptomatic
of something taking place on a larger canvass. There is tremendous
pressure being brought to bear on elected officials to intimidate them into silent
acquiescence.
An example of this recently transpired in the Ontario Legislature.
Certain provincial members of Parliament singled out a university student,
Jennifer Peto, who is Jewish, to denounce her graduate thesis:
'The Victimhood of the Powerful: White Jews, Zionism and the Racism of
Hegemonic Holocaust Education' .
Her thesis was denounced for the public record - as "shockingly anti-Semitic";
"disgusting"; "hateful". The National Post and others waded in, as well.
I've read her thesis and wrote about it. While I can see how it would be
shocking to some - novel ways of looking at things can be - anti-Semitic,
disgusting or hateful, it isn't. In fact, what Ms. Peto actually advocates for is
decency, at not inconsiderable personal risk to herself.
Our ability to steer the ship of state clear of rocky shoals - erosion of civil
liberties; the imposition of ideas antithetical to Canadian values; the support
for, or unnecessary engagement in, immoral war - are always to be guarded
against in societies that wish to remain democratic and free.
In November 2010, I wrote the essay entitled, 'Hate Speech Laws to Shield
Israel From Accountability?', regarding an international conference that took
place the same month in Ottawa which was funded to the tune of half a million
Canadian tax dollars.
One hundred parliamentarians from 45 countries were invited to attend.
Enquiries regarding the conference were shunted to a public relations firm that
touted itself as, 'help[ing to] influence public policy...and...fundamentally
change public attitudes...'.
For a year prior leading up to the conference, a small group of federal
members of Parliament took it upon themselves to study something they called
'the new anti-Semitism.' The CPCCA was an ad hoc committee that was not
appointed by Parliament. They appointed themselves. Groups such as
Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East were excluded from
presenting to the committee. Members of the Bloc party had the integrity to
resign in protest.
A central aim of the committee, as well as the conference, was to promote
outlawing criticism of Israel as a 'Jewish collectivity' as spelled out in the
London Declaration.
If this is so, if we are to view it as illegal to suggest that Israel is anything other
than a Jewish collectivity, how then are we to view the million-plus in
Israel-proper who are Palestinian-Israeli citizens?
Well, for one, Avigdor Lieberman, a Russian-Israeli immigrant now Israel's
minister of foreign affairs, not so long ago thought that a 'transfer' of
Israel's Palestinian-Israeli citizens would be a good demographic move to
preserve superior Jewish numbers in the state: ethnic cleansing.
In the West Bank, ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people in favour of Jews
overtaking and 'settling' their space is an ongoing, brutal, affair aided, in no
small measure, by generous donations collected in Canada and elsewhere. As
the occupation is illegal under international law, obviously all such donations
should be outlawed forthwith.
Twenty percent of Israel's citizens are Palestinian. Include the illegal
military-besieged 1.5 million Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, the millions of
Palestinians languishing under illegal military occupation in the West Bank, and
the millions of Palestinian refugees that Israel illegally prevents from returning
to their homes - the rather surprising fact of the matter is that the numbers of
Palestinians and Israeli-Jews are pretty much the same, or at least closer than
we think.
Taking it from another angle, the hypocrisy is more obvious if we were to
imagine how we would feel if the American Deep South were to adamantly
assert that it was to be respected as a 'democratic white collective' -
threatening legal sanctions for daring to suggest otherwise. (Or, more close to
home, how we would feel if legislation were passed making it illegal to suggest
that Canada was anything other than Anglo-Saxon.)
It is a matter of fighting oppression. It is a matter of fighting racism and
injustice. It is a matter, now, of fighting for the democratic fundamental right
of free speech here in Canada. It is one of the most fundamental issues of
justice in our time.
So, this is why I wrote to the Honourable members of Toronto City Council.
The attempt to outlaw the words 'Israeli Apartheid', or to outlaw the
suggestion that Israel is anything other than a democratic 'Jewish collectivity', is
part of an on-going struggle for justice. Declarations such as the Ottawa Protocol
are endeavours meant to permit the legal harassment of anyone who
would dare to say so. I believe that the bitter irony of it is that instruments
such as the Ottawa Protocol may well inhibit, rather than promote, prospects
for peace. As elected representatives, I wrote because I thought you should
know.
For your interest, the other letter I wrote today was addressed to the leaders of
Canada's federal political parties to share my view that Canada should not be
involved in any way, shape or form with the military assault on Libya, the real
aim of which is western corporate control over African wealth.
I am, most sincerely and respectfully yours,
Diane V. McLoughlin
June 09, 2011
An Open Letter to Toronto City Council on Israel, Free Speech and Human Rights
June 9, 2011
To: Members of Toronto City Council
CC'd: Leaders of Canada's federal political parties
From: Diane V. McLoughlin, writer, peace activist
main website: mcloughlinpost.com
Re: Respecting City Manager's findings on whether the words 'Israeli Apartheid'
violate laws regarding hate speech.
Dear Councillors,
On June 14, please vote to accept the Executive Council’s
determination regarding the legality of the term 'Israeli Apartheid'.
Upholding the fundamental right to free speech is important in
any democratic society that wishes to remain so. [1]
The Manager's report concludes that the term 'Israeli Apartheid'
does not violate Toronto's Anti-Discrimination Policy,
Ontario's Human Rights Code,
or Canada's Criminal Code regarding hate speech.
Apartheid - 'apart' - that is how Palestinians are treated;
they are second-class citizens within Israel. Palestinians have
no rights in Gaza or the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
The extreme right wing-dominated Israeli legislature - the Knesset -
for example, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu,
has recently approved a law giving communities in Israel
the right to reject prospective residents deemed 'unsuitable'.
In the American Deep South, that
was once otherwise known as Black.
In Israel, it's indigenous Arab-Israeli citizens.
Different yardsticks are used for everything from garbage pickup,
dollars per student on education, medical care funds
for the sick, to who will get that public service job -
it depends upon whether a citizen is Jewish-Israeli or Palestinian-Israeli.
Supporters argue that Israel is 'the only democracy in the Middle East' -
this would certainly be something to crow about, if true. Is it?
'A 2002 report from the Human Rights Association of Nazareth
documented nine cases of Arab Knesset Members being assaulted
by security services over the preceding two years, seven of whom
were hospitalised.' [1a]
I guess it depends on what one's definition of democracy is, or for whom.
The illegal military siege of Gaza, and the illegal occupation of the West Bank
have their own horrendous tales of suffering to tell. In the West Bank,
Palestinian children have stones thrown at them by grown adult settlers
screaming racist obscenities while trying to go to school, or they are
frustrated by Israel's occupying army just trying to get from point A to
point B. Olive orchards are burned or torn up. Farmers are attacked
or shot at. Mosques are burned. Children's schools are sprayed with graffiti
such as 'death to Arabs'.
Suffice to say that democratic societies should consider with care
whether or not it is prudent or wise to outlaw criticism of a State.
If for no other reason, I would propose that if we outlaw criticism of one State,
in this case the State of Israel through the banning of such descriptions
as Israeli Apartheid, without a doubt other countries will be swiftly
lining up demanding the same shield when they are abrogating citizens'
human and civil rights.
The push to outlaw criticism of Israel is being driven by
pro-occupation supporters at the highest levels.
Some fear that after the Holocaust, there is no other
place for Jews to be safe but in a state of their own carved
from Palestinian territory.
But the subjugation of the Palestinians, the oppression,
displacement or ethnic cleansing of Palestinian people
could in no way cause Jewish people to be more secure.
Peace or security could not possibly be established this way.
What happens in Israel, what future is determined for the long-suffering
Palestinian people, is one of the most important issues of our time.
In sometimes surprising ways, this issue affects us all. While it is still legal
for anyone to do so, I thought I would share my view on the matter.
Most sincerely and respectfully yours,
Diane V. McLoughlin
-------------------------------
Notes
[1] For more, see, Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME): http://www.cjpme.org/ItemCollectionPage.aspx?ICID=67#TorontoCouncillors ;
[1a] Article: 'Can equality exist in the Jewish state?';
Kieron Monks; June 4, 2011; Al Jazeera;
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/06/2011648192849821.html ;
To: Members of Toronto City Council
CC'd: Leaders of Canada's federal political parties
From: Diane V. McLoughlin, writer, peace activist
main website: mcloughlinpost.com
Re: Respecting City Manager's findings on whether the words 'Israeli Apartheid'
violate laws regarding hate speech.
Dear Councillors,
On June 14, please vote to accept the Executive Council’s
determination regarding the legality of the term 'Israeli Apartheid'.
Upholding the fundamental right to free speech is important in
any democratic society that wishes to remain so. [1]
The Manager's report concludes that the term 'Israeli Apartheid'
does not violate Toronto's Anti-Discrimination Policy,
Ontario's Human Rights Code,
or Canada's Criminal Code regarding hate speech.
Apartheid - 'apart' - that is how Palestinians are treated;
they are second-class citizens within Israel. Palestinians have
no rights in Gaza or the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
The extreme right wing-dominated Israeli legislature - the Knesset -
for example, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu,
has recently approved a law giving communities in Israel
the right to reject prospective residents deemed 'unsuitable'.
In the American Deep South, that
was once otherwise known as Black.
In Israel, it's indigenous Arab-Israeli citizens.
Different yardsticks are used for everything from garbage pickup,
dollars per student on education, medical care funds
for the sick, to who will get that public service job -
it depends upon whether a citizen is Jewish-Israeli or Palestinian-Israeli.
Supporters argue that Israel is 'the only democracy in the Middle East' -
this would certainly be something to crow about, if true. Is it?
'A 2002 report from the Human Rights Association of Nazareth
documented nine cases of Arab Knesset Members being assaulted
by security services over the preceding two years, seven of whom
were hospitalised.' [1a]
I guess it depends on what one's definition of democracy is, or for whom.
The illegal military siege of Gaza, and the illegal occupation of the West Bank
have their own horrendous tales of suffering to tell. In the West Bank,
Palestinian children have stones thrown at them by grown adult settlers
screaming racist obscenities while trying to go to school, or they are
frustrated by Israel's occupying army just trying to get from point A to
point B. Olive orchards are burned or torn up. Farmers are attacked
or shot at. Mosques are burned. Children's schools are sprayed with graffiti
such as 'death to Arabs'.
Suffice to say that democratic societies should consider with care
whether or not it is prudent or wise to outlaw criticism of a State.
If for no other reason, I would propose that if we outlaw criticism of one State,
in this case the State of Israel through the banning of such descriptions
as Israeli Apartheid, without a doubt other countries will be swiftly
lining up demanding the same shield when they are abrogating citizens'
human and civil rights.
The push to outlaw criticism of Israel is being driven by
pro-occupation supporters at the highest levels.
Some fear that after the Holocaust, there is no other
place for Jews to be safe but in a state of their own carved
from Palestinian territory.
But the subjugation of the Palestinians, the oppression,
displacement or ethnic cleansing of Palestinian people
could in no way cause Jewish people to be more secure.
Peace or security could not possibly be established this way.
What happens in Israel, what future is determined for the long-suffering
Palestinian people, is one of the most important issues of our time.
In sometimes surprising ways, this issue affects us all. While it is still legal
for anyone to do so, I thought I would share my view on the matter.
Most sincerely and respectfully yours,
Diane V. McLoughlin
-------------------------------
Notes
[1] For more, see, Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME): http://www.cjpme.org/ItemCollectionPage.aspx?ICID=67#TorontoCouncillors ;
[1a] Article: 'Can equality exist in the Jewish state?';
Kieron Monks; June 4, 2011; Al Jazeera;
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/06/2011648192849821.html ;
June 07, 2011
June 06, 2011
June 03, 2011
Bloggers of the World - You are Getting Sleepee
I was asked to participate in a survey about political blogging. It was sent to me for my blog, when, really, my main website is McLoughlin Post (no offense intended, I do like Blogger because readers can leave comments - something I do not have on my website. So, I usually post what I write on blogspot, too, but I do more over on my site.) Anyway, I thought the survey biased.
As in all areas of human endeavor, there is a range of ability as it pertains to writing. There are schlocky blogs out there. Otherwise, it seems to me that political bloggers are put-down and marginalized because their views can be threatening to the status quo.
Writers write because that is their calling. Most writers do not make much money. The survey treats blogging as 'something to do' and asks what does the blogger do for a 'real job?'
My writing is my career. My career just, so far, does not make money. Independent writers like me need patrons, just as artists are financially supported by the wealthy in other fields of creative endeavor.
Even though I post a donate button on my site, I don't get, and I otherwise don't ask. Times are tough for
others too. Terrible times.
I haven't made a dollar yet from ads I post around my site, either,
for the record. They look nice, though.
Elsewhere in the survey, the questions 'how much do you sleep?' - or go to church, work, or spend time with family, are found. Here, I believe I detect further slant. We would not judge poorly other hard-working professionals such as doctors or lawyers for putting in long hours. It's expected. This is a common ploy used to marginalize the blogger as obsessive.
Unlike the survey under discussion, most multiple-choice surveys would provide options such as 'don't know', or, 'prefer to leave blank' when it comes to religious or political affiliation, family and work. I find some of the questions to be unbelievably intrusive.
'Other' in the religion category is slotted as 'non-Christian', when an agnostic may feel closest to Christianity with their doubts. Why not just say 'other'?
As it was somewhat odd that the request to participate in the survey was e-mailed and addressed to me personally, I googled the sender before opening the e-mail in case it was spam, or worse.
I found the survey sender's webpage, and on it there was posted, among other documents, a paper which I did not read (no link) - entitled:
'How does the political blogosphere represent -- or distort -- the voice of the electorate?'
I'll concede the point - misrepresenting the voice of the electorate is done all the time - by politicians, most of all.
When I write, I analyse a particular situation to the best of my ability and try to provide an independent view. I would never wish to distort the voice of the electorate as it is. Rather, through strength of argument, like other opinion writers I try to get people to consider something from a fresh perspective.
We used to hold firmly to the conviction that the earth was flat --- a simplistic illustration of the fact that us humans can believe something deeply and yet be just profoundly wrong. Captains would not sail their ships past particular geographic points marked on maritime maps for fear of literally sailing right off the edge of the world. Somebody had to go out front of the pack once they figured it out, to argue that this was wrong. 'The Earth? She is not a-flat! The Earth, she is a-round!' This did not agree with the prevailing scientific view. It didn't corrupt; it wasn't blasphemy or heresy: It was, simply, true.
New ideas and discoveries seem radical, at first. They also can be scary as hell. If we can get the flat Earth thing so wrong, what else might we be wrong about? That's why it's scary. It shakes our world view.
Things don't always go so well for those brave souls trying to point out flaws in our assumptions and beliefs. It takes guts to go against the flow.
I hasten to admit that in any political discourse, be it in the blogosphere, mainstream media or anywhere else, there are always bad actors who stoop to using distortion, character assassination and sometimes flat-out lies in service of some percieved higher ideal, or for personal gain.
As in all areas of human endeavor, there is a range of ability as it pertains to writing. There are schlocky blogs out there. Otherwise, it seems to me that political bloggers are put-down and marginalized because their views can be threatening to the status quo.
Writers write because that is their calling. Most writers do not make much money. The survey treats blogging as 'something to do' and asks what does the blogger do for a 'real job?'
My writing is my career. My career just, so far, does not make money. Independent writers like me need patrons, just as artists are financially supported by the wealthy in other fields of creative endeavor.
Even though I post a donate button on my site, I don't get, and I otherwise don't ask. Times are tough for
others too. Terrible times.
I haven't made a dollar yet from ads I post around my site, either,
I would be happy to work in the mainstream press but
the mainstream press more times than not fails to explore
the issues fairly or fully. There is no place in MSM for
me that I can see. The fact of the matter is that when
I wrote human interest stories, I could get published,
and I did.Elsewhere in the survey, the questions 'how much do you sleep?' - or go to church, work, or spend time with family, are found. Here, I believe I detect further slant. We would not judge poorly other hard-working professionals such as doctors or lawyers for putting in long hours. It's expected. This is a common ploy used to marginalize the blogger as obsessive.
Unlike the survey under discussion, most multiple-choice surveys would provide options such as 'don't know', or, 'prefer to leave blank' when it comes to religious or political affiliation, family and work. I find some of the questions to be unbelievably intrusive.
'Other' in the religion category is slotted as 'non-Christian', when an agnostic may feel closest to Christianity with their doubts. Why not just say 'other'?
As it was somewhat odd that the request to participate in the survey was e-mailed and addressed to me personally, I googled the sender before opening the e-mail in case it was spam, or worse.
I found the survey sender's webpage, and on it there was posted, among other documents, a paper which I did not read (no link) - entitled:
'How does the political blogosphere represent -- or distort -- the voice of the electorate?'
I'll concede the point - misrepresenting the voice of the electorate is done all the time - by politicians, most of all.
When I write, I analyse a particular situation to the best of my ability and try to provide an independent view. I would never wish to distort the voice of the electorate as it is. Rather, through strength of argument, like other opinion writers I try to get people to consider something from a fresh perspective.
We used to hold firmly to the conviction that the earth was flat --- a simplistic illustration of the fact that us humans can believe something deeply and yet be just profoundly wrong. Captains would not sail their ships past particular geographic points marked on maritime maps for fear of literally sailing right off the edge of the world. Somebody had to go out front of the pack once they figured it out, to argue that this was wrong. 'The Earth? She is not a-flat! The Earth, she is a-round!' This did not agree with the prevailing scientific view. It didn't corrupt; it wasn't blasphemy or heresy: It was, simply, true.
New ideas and discoveries seem radical, at first. They also can be scary as hell. If we can get the flat Earth thing so wrong, what else might we be wrong about? That's why it's scary. It shakes our world view.
Things don't always go so well for those brave souls trying to point out flaws in our assumptions and beliefs. It takes guts to go against the flow.
I hasten to admit that in any political discourse, be it in the blogosphere, mainstream media or anywhere else, there are always bad actors who stoop to using distortion, character assassination and sometimes flat-out lies in service of some percieved higher ideal, or for personal gain.
But I think people who work to contribute to the public square of ideas, including bloggers - the good ones -see the world for what it is and believe we can do better; that we deserve better. And they deserve our respect. More or less I said so in one of those little boxes provided for additional comments in the on-line survey, near the end where the survey instructed bloggers not to write about the survey until told they were free to do so.
I'm not saying which survey it was or by whom, because I think it was done by young people still learning the ropes. But I feel it is important to say something generally about surveys, because in order for surveys to hold any merit whatsoever, the surveyer needs to abide by the dictum of, first, 'know thyself' - and park the personal bias firmly at the door.
I don't know if it is just me, but I am noticing more and more surveys that are not representing the voice of the electorate. It is a worrying trend, one which I fear is part of a larger, corrupt, political picture.
Sufficient cause, I will here admit, for losing sleep.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)