Exercising your Charter rights – there’s an app for that
There are certain words that are almost too weighty to use. You can’t say “holocaust” without reminding us of mass graves at Auschwitz; similarly, if you utter “crusade,” you automatically invoke the spectre of Christians and Muslims battling for Jerusalem.
Apartheid is often considered one of these words. It shouldn’t be used, some say, unless we’re talking about pre-1994 South Africa. The Legislative Assembly of Ontario seems to agree.
Thirty members of the legislature banded together late last month to discuss a motion regarding Israeli Apartheid Week (IAW), which is held every year at universities and colleges across the globe.
According to the IAW website, the event is held to “educate people about the nature of Israel as an apartheid system and to build Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) campaigns as part of a growing global BDS movement.”
The 30 MPPs in Queen’s Park that day, representing all colours of the political spectrum, unanimously condemned the event, adopting a motion tabled by Peter Shurman.
During the discussion, Shurman said the use of the word apartheid was “just wrong” and “close to hate speech.”
This is a familiar – and false – accusation: any condemnation of Israel’s policies is tantamount to anti-Semitism, and thus constitutes hate speech.
That is simply not the case. It goes without saying that anti-Semites probably agree with those who are opposed to Israel’s political and military actions – but the inverse is not necessarily true.
Many believe in Israel’s right to exist, but strongly disagree with its treatment of the Palestinian people. Whether or not they are right is neither here nor there; at question is their right to express this belief.
Calling Israel’s actions apartheid is not hate speech, and it is not anti-Semitism. It is a perfectly valid opinion – one that, as Linda McQuaig noted, is shared by Jimmy Carter and Desmond Tutu.
It would be equally valid to hold a Palestinian Extremism Week – and if pro-Israel groups want to hold such an event, they should be free to do so.
The unanimous motion also raises serious questions about what can or cannot be said in the ivory tower.
The motion is thankfully toothless; it does not entail any punishment for students participating in IAW. But the fact that the legislature bothered to pass it – and the repeated references to hate speech during the discussion – are unnerving.
According to the Toronto Star, John Milloy, the minister for training, college and universities, was not present at the vote, but nonetheless said he “certainly understands the concerns about that term.”
This is from the same minister who said, in the same article, that universities and colleges “are places for debate and discussion – they often get into areas that can offend people, can challenge people.”
Echoing this sentiment, Mr. Shurman said that he raised the issue “by way of asserting that I or anyone else can debate such issues any time, any place, as long as such a debate is respectful and fair to all who seek to express an opinion.”
The minister and Mr. Shurman are absolutely right on that account, which is why their support for the latter’s motion is so surprising.
This country’s universities are perhaps the most important places where freedom of speech and thought should not just be permitted; they should be encouraged.
If not here, then where?
