CUPE ban is out to lunch!

In his latest article, Michael Coren wrote: “Peaceful and legal protest against Israel or any other nation is entirely acceptable and even helpful in a free and democratic society, even when it’s ill informed and predictable.”

I think we would all agree, however, that CUPE’s support for a “a ban on Israeli academics doing speaking, teaching or research work at Ontario universities as a protest against the Dec. 29 bombing of the Islamic University in Gaza”, is absolutley absurd. Simply put, Sid Ryan, CUPE president, wants to see Israeli academics condemn Israel’s current military operations in Gaza, or banned from teaching in Ontario universities.

Obviously I do not need to go into why this ‘ban’ is out to lunch; but I will anyways.

Firstly, but not necessarily most importantly, the very foundation of post secondary education is, or at least should be, about promoting free academic inquiry. This of course, has the ability to create debate, discourse, and dialouge. To simply say that there is but one ‘right’ academic view on the military situation in Gaza is a slap in the face to academic freedom.

Secondly, why Israel? Why not go futeher; banning all academics that do not denounce the military action in Gaza. Interestingly enough, I heard no calls to ban Chinese academics over China’s role in Tibet, or Russian academics for Russia’s role in Goergia. “As Bernie Farber, Canadian Jewish Congress CEO, pointed out last week, CUPE has not called for Palestinian academics to be banned over Hamas rocket attacks.”

Thirdly, this ‘ban’ does not target those who have made the decisions in Gaza. Instead, they target members of the academic community who happened to be born in the Jewish state. Most probably, these men and women had no role in creating or enacting the government policies that resulted in the military invasion into Gaza (and they certainly are not the ones firing rockets from Gaza into Israel). Yet, it is still these men and women that CUPE has decided to target.

I could go on and on. Simply though, the problem with such a ban is that is is contrary to the freedom of expression, it undermines academic freedom, and is hypocritical.

Most importantly, however, it is simply anti-Semitic. As Steyn concludes, this is just a form of the ‘oldest’ kind of hatred. “Once upon a time on the Continent, Jews were hated as rootless cosmopolitan figures who owed no national allegiance. So they became a conventional nation state, and now they’re hated for that. And, if Hamas get their way and destroy the Jewish state, the few who survive will be hated for something else. So it goes.”

Public Opinion and the Coalition

As a Professor of mine recently argued, political junkies, political science students, and the like are outside of the realm of ordinary Canadians when it comes to political issues. That is to say, we are out of touch with the views and rationalizations of average Canadians in terms of the political process and political developments.

Take, for example, the recent idea of a coalition govenrment replacing the Conservatives in the event that the Harper government loses the confidence of the House. Most of us who are politically aware were excited about the developments taking place over the past month. Though the idea of a Liberal, NDP, Bloc coalition may have made us uneasy, we none the less accepted that such a development was well within the convention of our parliamentary democracy and our constitution. Ordinary Canadians on the other hand, seemed outraged and even disgusted by the possibility.

A recent Nanos public opinion poll appears to confirm this, to an extent:

In Quebec, 62 per cent wanted the opposition parties to have a chance to govern, while 30 per cent wanted an election called. Those numbers were reversed in western Canada, where 65 per cent wanted an election and only 29 per cent favoured an opposition coalition. Ontario and Atlantic respondents were more closely split, with 46 per cent and 49 per cent respectively favouring an election. Forty per cent in both regions favoured a coalition government

These numbers are hardly surprising. It is not unreasonable that Quebecers would welcome the opportunity for the Bloc to have a role in government, and the perks that would inevitablky bring to the Province . It is, however, somewhat of a paradox: a seperatist party propping up and activley participating in Her Majesty’s Government.

 For those outside of Quebec, the public opinion can be explained by two factors. Firstly, while the coalition would not be undemocratic (as Harper has suggested), but it would be unCanadian. The lack of precedent is single handedly the most important reason for the coalitions lack of support. Secondly, is the prestiege, power, and influence that the Bloc would be given if granted an active role in the government. Indeed, this prospect does not resonate with the rest of Canada, especially those in the West.

Another Interesting Judicial Ruling

I usually tailor my posts towards Canadian politics, but this story in the globe and mail caught my eye.

A Toronto man is responsible to for continued child support payments after a DNA test has shown he is not the biological father of two 16 year old twins. If this were the end of the story, it would be somewhat reasonable and not un precendented. This man raised two girls for 16 years as their father, and as such, should continue to be so. The story, however, is not over: the man did not know he was not the father. The mother had affair which resulted in her pregnancy, and ‘bamoolzed” the husband into believing they were his children.

The man, who has already paid child support for some 10 years, is claiming that he is a victim of fraud. This claim, however, was not sufficient for the court. The Judge concluded that:

“While the failure of Anciolina Cornelio to disclose to her husband the fact that she had an extramarital affair – and that the twins might not be his biological children – may have been a moral wrong against Mr. Cornelio, it is a wrong that does not afford him a legal remedy to recover child support he has already paid, and that does not permit him to stop paying child support”.

The judge went on to argue that child support is ” the right of a child even if a parent behaves poorly”. These are indeed strong words from the judge: possibly too strong. I would have been much more comfortable with the judge arguing that the father had a legal obligation to pay, but to say that the children have the right  to child support, that may be going overboard.

Like it or not, this is the age we live in: the age of rights.