Carleton University Administration violates free expression – bans and confiscates posters
Write to Carleton University president to demand the restoration of student rights
February 18, 2009
On February 8, Students Against Israeli Apartheid at Carleton University put up 100 posters for “Israeli Apartheid Week”, a series of lectures and public events that will occur on campuses in over 40 cities around the world. On February 9, these posters were taken down at the request of Carleton’s Equity Services, under the rationale that the posters “could be seen to incite others to infringe rights protected in the Ontario Human Rights code” and are “insensitive to the norms of civil discourse in a free and democratic society”
The poster was created by noted cartoonist Carlos Latuff and depicts a situation – a child being killed by aerial bombardment – that occurred over 430 times in Israel’s latest attack on Gaza according to United Nations reports. We encourage everyone to view the poster: here. Since it depicts a situation that has a factual basis and its intention is clearly to invite people to a lecture series, the notion that it is an incitement or a violation to norms of civil discourse is preposterous.
This is part of a wider pattern of repression of academic freedom and rights to free expression, especially on Israel/Palestine, on Canadian campuses, including Carleton University. It is accompanied by double standards. When 56 Carleton professors asked President Roseanne Runte to condemn Israel’s bombardment of the Islamic University of Gaza, the President refused. Neither the direct killing of hundreds of children nor the direct bombing of a campus are enough to elicit condemnation, but her administration has decided that a poster inviting people to discuss the conflict ought to be banned. Instead of being lauded by their university, students affirming the humanity of all peoples and the universality of international law have been threatened by Carleton University’s Provost with expulsion.
The Carleton administration had already taken a biased political stand on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and is now violating free expression to prevent alternative views. Both the current and former Carleton Presidents have taken very clear positions on the Israel-Palestine conflict by condemning the academic boycott of Israel out of hand, offering no alternative to this justice-oriented civil-society initiative. Students and faculty at Carleton have requested that the administration hold a public debate on the issue, to allow the Carleton community to determine the most responsible course of action, yet have been repeatedly rebuffed.
Far from defending human rights, the Carleton administration is treating them with contempt. In a memo to students on February 12, the Provost wrote that “all reported incidents of racial or religious intolerance will be investigated vigorously and addressed regardless of the persons or groups involved.” The administration should begin a vigorous investigation of its own behaviour, including its discrimination against students who seek an open debate on a political issue but are being silenced because they happen to disagree with the president’s stand.
That Carleton’s administration is using human rights grounds to violate free expression on its campus is a double insult. Internationally, the movement against Israeli apartheid has been endorsed by hundreds of universities, unions, religious groups and social justice organizations. This campaign is proudly anti-racist, and founded on the principles of opposition to all forms of racism, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. It draws its inspiration from the global campaign to end South African apartheid and is led by many of the same individuals who were at the forefront of that earlier struggle. By contrast, the administration that banned the poster could not summon enough concern for human rights or the right to education to speak against the bombing of a Gazan university.
SAIA Carleton demands that the Carleton University administration:
1. Immediately lift the ban on the Israeli Apartheid Week poster and publicly apologize for the banning.
2. Explain, publicly and precisely, how the profound error of banning the poster was made and address how to prevent such violations from occurring in future.
3. Sponsor a full public debate– ensuring generous access to the entire university community– on Carleton’s position on the proposed institutional boycott of Israeli academic institutions.
4. Appoint a university/community Commission to investigate the record of the University in relation to democratic discourse and equity around issues of Palestine solidarity.
This attempt to repress free expression will ultimately fail. The Carleton University administration should understand that debates on campuses on some of the most important human rights questions of our times cannot be silenced by administrative rulings.
We call on student organizations, social justice groups and concerned individuals around the world to support students at Carleton and the broader fight for freedom of expression.
Please take the following actions:
* Immediately email the Carleton University President, Roseanne Runte, at presidents_office@carleton.ca demanding that she immediately restore the Charter rights of Carleton students and send a copy of your message of support to Students Against Israeli Apartheid (SAIA Carleton) at saia.carleton@gmail.com
* Call or fax Carleton University President, Roseanne Runte, at 613 520-3801(phone) or 613 520-4474 (fax) demanding that she immediately restore the Charter rights of Carleton students.
February 19, 2009 at 3:45 am
I am sympathetic with Palestinian rights and nationhood, but associating this campaign with a man who won 2nd prize in a “Holocaust Cartoon Contest” (!) is a grave mistake. If his poster speaks for you, your campaign does not speak for me.
February 20, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Re Yves: So much for relevance – guilt by association strikes again!
February 20, 2009 at 10:36 pm
Tadhg,
Latuff didn’t simply add his signature to a petition; he created the poster that is this campaign’s official image. I will not march under the banner of a “Holocaust cartoonist”.
(When I participated in the Gaza protest last month in Montreal, there were chants of “Al Yahud Kelabna”. I was horrified when I discovered what that meant. The cause of Palestine is not advanced by condoning anti-semitism.)
February 21, 2009 at 3:00 pm
I agree completely – but I’m sure we both realize that in any particularly large demonstration, there might be a tiny minority of arseholes, whose damage to the credibility of the whole can be considerable. In Latuff’s defence, however, it should be born in mind that he is not a holocaust denier, would never chant “Al-yahud kalabnaa,” and that his stuff is pretty terrific.
February 21, 2009 at 9:53 pm
Latuff is despicable. I don’t care that he draws well and supports Palestine. Anyone who would participate in Iran’s “Holocaust Cartoon” contest is beyond the pale. No, he’s not denying the Holocaust; he’s saying that Jews are the new Nazis. Clever eh?
Here’s one of his more vile cartoons in this vein (posted on a Brazilian indymedia site following a series of homeless murders in São Paulo; the police blamed neo-Nazis but Latuff knew better):
http://www.angelfire.com/journal2/midiajudaica/images/804.jpg
The caption translates as: “The end of the hungry in São Paulo. Nazism has passed. The swastika now has a different shape.”
Ironically, Latuff’s work has been eagerly displayed on neo-Nazi sites like Stormfront.
The Palestinian cause does not need such friends.
February 22, 2009 at 4:02 pm
I find the São Paulo cartoon somewhat confusing myself, Yves – was Latuff reminding us of the historically close working relationship between the Israeli government and repressive security forces and paramilitaries around the world? Latuff consistently uses the Mogen David to represent Israel and zionism.
I must admit, however, that I have less sympathy for your apparent fastidiousness about the use of holocaust and nazi imagery in attacking zionism, and I’m troubled by your contention that Latuff conflates nazis with Jews (and by extension, Jews with zionism); I see no evidence for this whatsoever. If you’re saying that the aforementioned imagery is “beyond the pale,” I must respectfully disagree. On the contrary, it is often quite apt, particularly when Israeli deputy defence minister Matan Vilnai feels free to threaten the people of Gaza with a “new shoah,” as he did in February of 2008.
As for his stuff appearing in what I assume are neo-nazi sites – that’s really neither here nor there, and not the calibre of argument I expected. Norman Finkelstein uses his stuff all the time, while, on the other hand, the fascist British National Party supports Israel. What can this mean?
February 22, 2009 at 9:22 pm
Tadhg,
Your comment is replete with precisely the kind disingenuousness that turns many sympathetic but fair observers away from campaigns to support the people at issue here, namely the Palestinians.
1. Vilnai may be a nasty individual (as defence ministers are wont to be; I don’t know much about him), but the word he used is “shoah” which means destruction or calamity in Hebrew (pace my Hebrew-speaking university colleague). It is not “HaShoah” (“ha” is the prefix “the” in Hebrew) which refers only to the Holocaust (in caps; as opposed to a more mundane lower-case use of the word). To conflate the two is dishonest.
2. “historically close working relationship between the Israeli government and repressive security forces and paramilitaries around the world” ?? There is no evidence that Brazilian government security forces under Lula have had any contact with their Israel equivalents, nor is there any evidence that the security forces were in any way implicated in the homeless murders. To suggest otherwise is conspiracy-mongering of the highest order. You’re welcome to Latuff’s theories, if that’s indeed what they are.
3. Citing Norman Finkelstein as a character reference for Latuff is a bit ironic. Finkelstein himself is a somewhat sleazy character who has made a minor career using the Holocaust to his own advantage while smearing everyone who has taken exception to his mendacity. Finkelstein blasted Human Rights Watch for having the temerity to question Hezbollah’s behaviour; and his praise for Hezbollah was so over-the-top (google it yourself) that it prompted sharp ripostes from the moderate Lebanese media.
4. I will repeat what I said at the start of the thread: If Latuff’s poster speaks for this campaign, this campaign doesn’t speak for me. I support Palestinian aspirations to nationhood out of a sense of justice and fairness. I will have nothing to do with (indeed will actively oppose) racism and calumny. Don’t count on honest people to be your accessory.
February 22, 2009 at 9:40 pm
Yves:
Talk about disingenuous and anti-fair-minded! I must say I was following this thread with piqued interest until you called Dr. Finkelstein “sleazy.” Such character-assassination of this renowned academic has amounted to his being black-listed from tenure and from Israel-lobby groups posting flyers in his apartment building demanding his removal from the neighbourhood. I don’t know if you’ve actually READ his work or if you just are constructing his character based on google searches, but I’d say saving that kind of language for the despicable and most immoral of characters is in order – and it should not be directed at a tireless and tested scholar whose work continues to push for the rights of Palestinians against all obstacles.
February 22, 2009 at 11:07 pm
Ezra,
Not only have I read Finkelstein but at one time I cited parts of his doctoral thesis in my graduate seminar. I have since changed my mind about him. I have found his claims to be often unreliable and he is hardly a “tested scholar” (i.e. he has published no scholarly papers at all in his field). Along the way Finkelstein has become shrill and somewhat unhinged, lashing out wildly at a wide variety of people ((he has described Elie Wiesel as a ‘clown’ and the Simon Wiesenthal Center as ‘immoral crooks’, he refers to Deborah Lipstadt on his web site as the ‘Elsie the Cow Chair in Judeo-Yenta Studies’ and he is reported to have called Irshad Manji a ‘semi-Muslim lesbian’). He rubbed many Lebanese (including my wife) the wrong way by suggesting that they should be emulating Hezbollah. And so on… I would be very leery of using him as a reference.
February 22, 2009 at 11:41 pm
Is it your position, Yves, that Elie Wiesel’s position on Palestine is above reproach? Or that of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre? Or that a case cannot be made that Irshad Manji is indeed an opportunist dilettante and tame Muslim, running interference for Islamophobes? And as for Deborah Lipstadt, she’s always spoken very highly of Professor Finkelstein: “Think of him as the dirt you step in on the street and you know what kind of dirt I’m talking about. It has no importance unless you fail to clean it off your feet before you go into the house.” It was in response to that comment that Finkelstein came up with the “Elsie” crack. Personally, I find his acerbity rather diverting.
Are there any other sacred cows which other “sympathetic but fair observers” might hold, and of which we should be made aware?
February 23, 2009 at 7:01 am
“running interference for Islamophobes”?
I am an atheist and regard all religions as laughable nonsense. But religious intolerance and militancy are anything but laughable and contemporary Islam probably evidences more of them than the others. The reason for this is that – as Irshad Manji has astutely pointed out – among the major religions only mainstream Islam remains adamantly literalist. Unlike Christianity and Judaism, it has never undergone any sort of Enlightenment or Reformation; there has been no movement to moderate its essential fundamentalism. So while Manji remains a Muslimah (unlike my wife, who is permanently “lapsed”), she is pressing for an “ijtihad” to bring reform to her religion, especially in the area of women’s rights. Only misogynists, theocratic thugs or political opportunists would consider this anything but a noble endeavour.
February 23, 2009 at 11:10 am
Your colours have become clear, guys, so I’ll sign off. You are patently less interested in the Palestinians (a branch of my wife’s family is Palestinian so I have a personal interest in their welfare) than in using their plight as a stick with which to beat Israel, “Zionists”, the “West”, secular liberals, moderates and anyone who doesn’t fit your agenda. You may be surprised to learn that there are many Palestinians who object to being fodder for your “neo-anti-imperialist” cannons and simply long to live in a secular democracy alongside Israel, not to replace it with an Islamist theocracy. And I, meanwhile, will be reminded once again that my enemy’s enemy is not necessarily my friend.
February 23, 2009 at 11:37 am
It is not “HaShoah” (”ha” is the prefix “the” in Hebrew) which refers only to the Holocaust (in caps; as opposed to a more mundane lower-case use of the word). To conflate the two is dishonest.
An interesting exchange, until Yves’ inevitable flounce. But the above statement leapt out at me. It’s staggeringly dishonest.
The difference, we are told, is essentially between “a holocaust” and “The Holocaust.” Since no one has ever claimed that what is happening to the Palestinians is “The Holocaust,” I find this defence of Matan Vilnai incredible. And somebody should get hold of Claude Lanzmann pronto.
It’s acceptable, the argument seems to run, to threaten Palestinians with “a holocaust.” But it’s anti-Semitic to compare what’s happening to the Palestinians with “The Holocaust.” Umm…OK.
I should note that I don’t consider references to the Holocaust appropriate in discussions about the ME. It seems to me that it’s a “disproportionate response.” The Palestinians are being treated brutally by an occupying power, but until gas chambers are set up in newly-constructed death camps, it’s a foolish and inflammatory comparison that gets us nowhere.
But that aside, we can’t wave away a comment like the defence minister’s. However–I would like a reference for it.
February 23, 2009 at 11:39 am
PS:
And I’d missed a vital word in Vilnai’s comment: “a new shoah.” New? What was the old one he was referring to, then?
February 23, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Yves,
It’s good you’ve signed off as your civil candour has itself lapsed into name calling and lashing out. Manji is a revisionist whose rendering of the history of Islam and Islamic culture, literature and arts has been laughed out of the academy. Yes, women’s rights is a noble struggle, just as is the struggle for Palestinian rights. It’s unfortunate when those we disagree with feel compelled to step in and tell us who we are and what we believe. I’m going to go with my Palestinian and Jewish friends on this one: they support my stance on Israel/Palestine. It’s your prerogative not to, but please try and restrain your categorizing me and others into corners, such as “anti-imperialist” and dogmatic.
I am here discussing/debating to construct knowledges – not to make assumptions about those I know little of. And yes, for the record, Finkelstein’s “style” is off-putting to me as well, but feigned civility is well, academic BS.
February 23, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Dr.Dawg,
You (conveniently?) ignored this from preceding sentence: “the word he used is ‘shoah’ which means destruction or calamity in Hebrew”.
The best overall summary of the Vilnai controversy that I could find is here (at quick glance a moderate leftwing pro-Palestinian site) -
http://exmypar.wordpress.com/2008/02/29/shoah-mistranslated-as-holocaust/
See also -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7270650.stm
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/03/02/news/Israel-Holocaust-Comment.php
http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2008/03/holocaust-inven.html
I hold no brief for Vilnai and am no authority on Hebrew usage (my wife can recognize some words that are close to Arabic) but it seems clear from the above that he meant the word as “disaster” not “Holocaust” (caps). And I can find no trace of the adjective “new” actually linked to “shoah” – i.e. “a new shoah” – in any reliable quote of Vilnai’s words.
(I notice that you have a site of your own and may drop in to continue this conversation some time if I find it civil and a place where the Palestinian plight is not cynically misused for ulterior ends. That is certainly not the case here.)
February 23, 2009 at 5:45 pm
“…where the Palestinian plight is not cynically misused for ulterior ends.”
If academic freedom is an ulterior end, then I am indeed guilty. But cynical? Misused? The accusations continue to fly without any apparent aim or direction…
And for the record, this site is devoted to academic freedom, and I hope that it doesn’t remain exclusively bogged down in the minutiae quagmire that is the debate on Palestine/Israel.
February 23, 2009 at 7:51 pm
Yves:
I try to run a civil blog. Come on over and join the discussions.
The actual words used were “”Yamitu al azmam shoah gdolah yoter.” You are correct–the word “new” ain’t in there.
Your first source doesn’t really say what you apparently think it does, unless you meant to link to Melanie Phillips directly.
Then there is a news source that merely reports what Vilnai said. Then another, containing furious backpedaling. Finally an article by Norm Geras, who is somewhat of an apologist for everything that Israel gets up to these days.
Here are some additional sources you might want to take a look at:
1) David Hirsch (a strong supporter of Israel, by the way) comments.
2) Here’s another report.
3) And: http://www.thejc.com/articles/2008306213/not-a-shoah-just-a-pr-calamity.
February 23, 2009 at 8:07 pm
Dr Dawg:
Thanks very much for your input in this discussion and for the links.
February 23, 2009 at 9:07 pm
Thank you back, for this forum. And you, too, of course, are welcome at my place.
February 24, 2009 at 1:36 am
[...] and SAIA Clarify Details? Posted by daxdorazio under Campaigns, Policy Following the call for letters of support from Students Against Israeli Apartheid (SAIA), the Carleton administration has so far received [...]