[current thought]
[thoughts index]

September 18, 2002

Last week, the United States commemorated the anniversary of the terrorist attacks of 9/11.  But while the country, continent, and world mourned, another battle was being fought right here in Montreal following the events of, not September 11th, but September 9th 2002.

What happened?

The catalyst was a planned lecture to be given by Benjamin Netanyahu, former Prime Minister of Israel, at Concordia University.  It was cancelled in the wake of a large demonstration that quickly turned into a violent riot, organized and planned by several organizations including SPHR (Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights) and with the participation of many members of the CSU (Concordia Student Union).

Protestors smashed windows, threw desks, jostled and intimidated people trying to get into the lecture hall, shouted antisemitic slogans, and tried to burn an Israeli flag.  Numerous people reported being attacked and assaulted.  Riot police stepped in and used pepper spray to control the crowd, which resulted in the university having to evacuate the Hall building and cancel classes for the remainder of the day.

Mr. Netanyahu returned to the hotel where he had given an earlier press conference, and decried the protestors as “terrorists”.  In the meantime, the protestors themselves defended their use of violence and claimed a great victory.

The blame game

The finger-pointing began almost immediately.  Us human beings have an endless capacity to pass the buck and shirk responsibility.  For those of you having trouble sorting it all out, here’s a summary of the blame game being played:

• The CSU blames the administration. No surprise here.  Like the eternal Péquiste solution of blaming Ottawa, the CSU’s mantra of blaming the university administration is so tired and predictable, it’s almost a joke. The CSU issued a statement the day following the protest calling upon university rector Dr. Frederick Lowy to resign. The student union’s position is that the administration is to blame for allowing the speech in the first place.  In their logic, Mr. Netanyahu should never have been invited because his appearance was likely to spark violent protest.  (Oh yes, and it’s also the administration’s fault for being undemocratic, having a board comprised primarily of people from corporations, and pandering to the world capitalist conspiracy.)
   
• The administration blames the CSU. Right back atcha.  The university rector issued a statement immediately after the cancellation of the speech, declaring a temporary moratorium on all on-campus events related to the Middle East. And they pointed the finger right at the CSU for encouraging and participating in the violence rather than trying to stop it.
   
• The violent rioters blame the police.  Again, no surprise (this could all have been written in advance). In the grand tradition of protestors, they blamed the police for “brutality” and for using pepper spray in a building filled with students. The brutality charges closely echo those following the fiasco in Quebec City, last year’s G8 protests in downtown Montreal, and other such demonstrations (mostly anti-capitalist).  It seems that when protestors are violent, they are merely exercising their right to freedom of expression, and are justified. But when police react by doing their jobs, they are brutal thugs.
   
• Palestinian supporters blame Hillel. SPHR, the so-called “Coalition for a Just Peace in the Middle East”, and the other organizers of the protest defended their use of violence and said they were proud of their accomplishments.  Furthermore, they say it’s all the fault of Hillel for bringing in Mr. Netanyahu in the first place, and it’s Mr. Netanyahu’s fault for holding the views he holds.  Again, no surprise from an organization that openly hates Israel anyone who supports it.  The protest only happened, they claim, because Mr. Netanyahu is a “murderous war criminal” that is “not welcome at Concordia”.  For the record, SPHR also blames Pratt and Whitney for manufacturing engines for F-16 fighter jets that are sold to the Israeli army, the university administration for being biased in favour of Israel, Izzy Asper for sponsoring Netanyahu’s speech, the United States for wanting to invade Iraq and for being Israel’s ally, and, of course, Israel. Always Israel. If prizes were being given out for the group pointing fingers at the most people, SPHR would win in a heartbeat.
   
• The Jewish community blames the administration and the Montreal police for not taking enough measures to ensure security and bring the perpetrators to justice. This week’s MIB (Montreal/Israel in Brief) calls upon members of the community to write letters demanding the expulsion of all students involved in the violence, and that they be brought to justice. Online petitions call for the same thing.  What these well-intentioned people don’t realize is that, by playing the blame game, they’re playing right into the hands of the CSU.
   
• Etcetera . . . There’s no shortage of finger-pointing going on out there.  This week’s Link was filled with opinion pieces blaming anyone and everyone. Event organizers are being blamed for “segregation” in that only ticket-holders were to be allowed to attend the speech. Ticket-holders are being accused of “taunting” protestors. Hillel is being blamed for insisting that the speech be held downtown, instead of at the more remote (and likely safer) Loyola campus, simply to prove a point.  (Never mind that the point was an essential one to prove: if a university campus is so controlled by the Palestinian student groups that violent riots greet any Hillel speaker, then there’s something wrong with the university, not with Hillel.)   The media – campus and mainstream – is being accused of bias. Capitalism is being blamed for being the root cause of all of the world’s problems.  And the finger-pointing continues.

But who’s blaming the rioters?

Well, it’s not all bleak.  When asked, a significant portion of people (62% according to an un-scientific online Link poll) say that yes, the protestors are to blame. But upon closer inspection, this doesn’t go far enough, because nobody’s calling on them to change, apologize, or take any action. The prevailing attitude is that their violence is a given, something to be dealt with, with the only remaining question being who should we call upon to deal with it?

Personal responsibility gets lost in the shuffle when the blame game is played.  The person to blame for a smashed window is the one who smashed it.  The person to blame for a burned flag is the one who burned it. The person to blame for the assault of innocent people trying to get to the lecture is the one who assaulted them. And the person to blame for a violent mob is the one who incited the mob to violence.

Will any of these people be called upon to account for their actions?  Doubtful. Five arrests were made, and the CSU has already passed a motion to pay their legal fees with student money (one of the arrestees is a member of the CSU executive, and the rest are friends of theirs). What is certain is that many, many more arrests SHOULD have been made. These people should be expelled from university, and a strict zero-tolerance policy for violence and hate is an immediate must. Neither of these are likely to happen anytime soon.

Some background

As a community reacts with shock, and a university’s reputation gets flushed down the toilet, it is important to point out that Monday’s events did not come out of nowhere. Those of us who have been monitoring the situation know that these problems have been going on for the past two years or so – about the same amount of time as the Palestinian “intifada”.  The student union is dominated by pro-Palestinian members. Exhibits, handbooks, demonstrations, and scandals have rocked the university for a while now. Concordians have grown weary, but the fight doesn’t seem to be dying down anytime soon. Passions on campus run very high.

So when Hillel invited Benjamin Netanyahu to speak, it didn’t take a clairvoyant to forecast fireworks. And a community, shocked out of its complacency, suddenly realized what us Concordia students had been trying to tell it for two years: we have a problem.

What does it all mean?

This group of “activists” is comprised of some of the most hypocritical people I have ever had the displeasure to encounter.  They claim to defend the right to freedom of expression, and yet stifle the freedom of expression of anyone with whom they disagree.  That is not protest or democratic action, but mob rule.

Most of them do not attend class full-time; instead, they register for perhaps a single course to maintain their standing as a student, and devote the rest of their time to being professional shit-disturbers. They spend the money that students are forced to pay them in union dues to advance their political agendas. They are well-organized, well-funded, and have endless propaganda at their fingertips.

It would be a mistake to dismiss these people as idiots. They’re very, very smart – as smart as they are misguided. Which is exactly what makes them so dangerous. Using twisted logic, empty rhetoric, and calculated analysis frighteningly devoid of moral grounding, they could talk a leopard out of its spots. And they are firmly believe that they are doing the right thing.

Their argument that Hillel is to blame for scheduling the lecture despite foreseeable violence is faulty, because they are blaming the victim.  Would we blame a rape victim for her rape, claiming she should not have worn skimpy clothing? Would we blame a child for being abused, claiming he should not cry so loud or antagonize daddy when he’s been drinking?

Their argument that the university is to blame is also twisted.  According to the CSU, no speaker should be allowed at Concordia who needs extra security in the first place, since this puts students in danger. That line of thinking punishes the calm and rewards the violent. If we follow it, only speakers with whom SPHR approves should have the right to speak, since Hillel doesn’t use violence in its protests and SPHR does.

In a classic hypocritical double-twist, these same people reacted angrily when a planned lecture by Norman Finkelstein was cancelled. Finkelstein, a US author and academic, claimed in his book “The Holocaust Identity” that American Jewish elites have been conspiring to exploit the Holocaust as an industry to gain money from European countries and to shield Israel from any criticism. He was being brought in by the CSU to give a guest lecture as part of campus orientation events, and the CSU reacted with outrage when the lecture was cancelled as a part of the administration’s moratorium on Middle East events.  The irony apparently has escaped them; in one breath they deny the right to freedom of expression to Benjamin Netanyahu, and in the next they defend it for this man, whom they planned to bring to Concordia (with student money.)

Also in the name of freedom of speech, the SPHR is blatantly violating the university’s moratorium on Middle East events.  Yesterday, they set up an information table on campus, and passed out handouts including an advertisement for a protest to take place in Ottawa at the end of the month.  The university hasn’t done anything to them for violating the ban, claiming to want to spell out clear penalties first before enforcing them. This is probably a smart move, since any attempt to punish the people violating the ban right now would probably get thrown out because of a lack of clear guidelines. The admin is learning, albeit slowly.

But freedom of expression is more than a right; it’s also a responsibility.  The demonstrators on Monday had a responsibility to keep things peaceful, to curb violent outbreaks, and most of all, to not hurt or violate the rights of anyone else.  They blew it, on all these counts.  And, understandably, people are angry.

Where do we go from here?

We’ve heard too much talk and too few proposed solutions or calls to action. People are angry. People are upset. People are motivated to do something . . . but what?

I’ve seen petitions calling on the university administration and on the police to deal with the perpetrators of the violence, but blaming either or both of these groups only plays into the hands of those who are trying to pass the buck.    I’ve heard of people withholding donations from Concordia until the school cleans up its act – but the school administrators would love nothing more than to get rid of these thorns in their side; their hands are tied, and they’re just as frustrated with the situation as we are.

I’ve heard talk from students about getting rid of the CSU.  All I can say to them is, good luck!  The student union’s been around for decades and isn’t likely to just disappear anytime soon.  Thanks to student ignorance and complacency, accreditation passed a couple of years ago, giving the CSU immense legal power and standing.  Recalling the executive would do no good; we did it last year, remember? A petition started by concerned students obtained over 3,200 signatures in the wake of the CSU abuses last September. We even voted in a more moderate slate afterwards. But the election result was disallowed, thanks to scandals and corruption and an incompetent and biased chief electoral officer.

Even a petition to reverse accreditation – an idea I’m hearing being bantered around – would be a near-impossible feat. It would require the signature of an unrealistically large percentage of students. Still, if someone wants to give it a try, I’d be happy to spread the word.

The truth is, I don’t know what to do. I don’t have the answers.  I wish I could urge people to sign a petition, write a letter, or take some sort of action.  I wish we had a direction or a plan.  But for the life of me, I can’t think of a way to fight back.  Spreading awareness of the problem is all very well and good but it takes on no meaning without action.

All I know is, this fight is about much more than just Concordia.  With every victory, those who hate grow stronger.  With every action that goes unanswered, they grow bolder. As long as the silent majority remains silent, the vocal minority gets heard. And if they win at Concordia, next will be McGill and Université de Montréal and other campuses. And if they win there, they’ll take on the city, the country, the continent . . . and sooner or later, there will be nobody left to fight back.

The world has turned upside-down in the past 24 months.  There can be no denying that. With a rise in antisemitism in Europe, horrific stories emerging from the Middle East, and a wave of support for the “Palestinian cause” on the Left and among the academic and intellectual world, it is increasingly clear that there will be no public world outcry to help Israel and Jews around the world. We must be ever vigilant.  In the spirit of “Think Global, Act Local”, I suggest that Concordia is our fight. Montreal’s fight.  Canada’s fight. And it must be won.

If only I knew how.