Activism

In Canada, BDS loses in the House of Commons but wins on university campuses (Updated)

Update:

Regretfully, the online ratification of the McGill BDS resolution (which follows the actual live vote at the General Assembly of the Student Society) was not successful. As mentioned in the conclusion of the original article, the Zionist pushback was expected and follows the pattern in other universities. The students have pointed to alot of “dirty tricks” used by various pro-Zionist on and off-campus groups, that violated the rules of no campaigning during the online vote. In a statement on their website, the McGill BDS Action Network concluded: “We will be pursuing recourse for the fact that there was illegal campaigning to vote no on the motion. Thanks to everyone for all your support. The fight is not over.” And indeed, the fight is not over! The struggle continues.

 Original Post:

So the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions BDS movement had a big day on Monday, Feb. 22, 2016 in Canada, both in the House of Commons and on university campuses.

Within a few hours of each other, Canadian politicians voted 229-51 to condemn BDS and even individuals who promote it; then the Students Society at McGill, a leading university in Montreal, voted to support BDS. An interesting irony here is that the new Canadian PM, Justin Trudeau is an alum of McGill and even personally condemned the efforts to support BDS at McGill when it was first introduced a year ago.

Lets deal with the motion in the House of Commons first (not yet a bill but it was made clear that’s where some MPs would like to see it go). It was introduced (not surprisingly) by the opposition Conservative party, the same party that governed Canada for the previous 10 years and were incredibly staunch supporters of Israel. It stated:

“That, given Canada and Israel share a long history of friendship as well as economic and diplomatic relations, the House reject the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which promotes the demonization and delegitimization of the State of Israel, and call upon the government to condemn any and all attempts by Canadian organizations, groups or individuals to promote the BDS movement, both here at home and abroad”.

Note particularly the inclusion of “individuals” in the condemnation phrase. So of course the Conservative Party supported the motion overwhelmingly. And those who had voted in the new Liberal government hoping for change were immensely disappointed as it was announced (and followed through with) that the government would also support the motion. Three brave Liberal MPs did actually vote against it and others abstained. But the logic of the Liberal Party as to why they were supporting it was a real lesson in political double-speak and illogic.

The new Foreign Minister, Stephan Dion, when commenting on the wording of the motion in the debate in the Parliament, which happened several days before the actual vote, stated that … “this rhetoric elicits mistrust and it comes from the Conservatives, who in recent years have constantly tried to transform support for Israel into a partisan issue in Canada.” But then also said “We must oppose anything that stands in the way of stronger ties between Canada and Israel”.

As Neil McDonald, a veteran CBC journalist, noted in a wry commentary about the debate and Minister Dion’s comments:

“There is also, added the minister, the small matter of freedom of speech and debate. Dion denounced the Conservatives’ opposition day motion…as just more “politics of division.”

The Tories, he said, are just “bullies” who want to turn the defence of Israel into a partisan issue. They’ll portray anyone who votes against their motion as “dissidents.”

‘It’s not us who wrote this motion,’ Dion complained, ‘but we have to vote yes or no.’

So, um, yes. Reluctantly, yes.”

The take-away message from the official Liberal position was something like this: yes, this motion infringes on freedom of expression, we are against that, but we’re going to support it anyway to show our support for Israel. Really?! So support for a foreign country or government is more important than the right of free speech in Canada and upholding the Charter of Rights? Would this approach apply in all cases, or just when it comes to Israel?

Now, the position of the New Democratic Party, who did vote against the motion along with the Bloc Quebecois, was summarized like this during the debate by one of their MPs, Charlie Angus:

“Mr. Speaker, To be clear, we are not debating issues of racism and anti-Semitism.

That is not what this is about. This is about a political tactic and whether we agree with that political tactic or not.

The House, supported by the Liberal government of the day, is supporting actions for the government to condemn any attempts made by individuals or organizations.”

Right on, and words we could get behind and cheer for if this wasn’t the same party that purged some of their own candidates for speaking out on this issue back in August 2015 during a heated election campaign. It would seem that the issue of Palestinians rights and lives is a political football in Canada (the Greens being the one exception). We must content ourselves with accepting whatever limited crumbs are thrown our way whenever it suits the prevailing winds and are criticized if we’re not grateful.

Lets go back to the Student Society at McGill. The McGill BDS Action Network had submitted a resolution calling on the Student Society to:

“stand in support of BDS campaigns and to recommend to the Board that McGill divest entirely of all its holdings in companies that profit from the occupation, as well as implement a screening mechanism that would prevent future investments in similar companies. The motion will specifically support the campaign for McGill to divest from corporations that profit from the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. These corporations include Re/Max Holdings Inc., whose Israeli subsidiary sells real estate in settlements throughout the West Bank, and Mizrahi-Tefahot Bank, which has financed settlement construction projects and provides mortgages to homebuyers in settlements. A third company, L-3 Communications Inc., has supplied equipment to Israeli checkpoints, signed contracts with the Israeli Ministry of Defense for the production and remanufacture of tank engines, and developed the Hermes 900 drone with Elbit systems, used for the first time in Operation Protective Edge in 2014.”

The motion passed with 512 in favour, 357 opposed and 14 abstentions. This represents the future and embodies all our hopes for justice for the Palestinians. The Canadian House of Commons, alternately, reminds of the opposite.

The main lesson here for activists is that only effective grassroots organizing will really help the Palestinian people in their struggle and intensifying BDS work is part of that effort. The efforts and ultimate success by the McGill BDS Action Network is just one positive example of that, although the pushback from the Zionist lobby has already begun and surely will continue. But the hard work of networking and maintaining BDS campaigns have proven to be the best strategy for international supporters who want to see the Palestinians be able to live in freedom and dignity.

58 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Fury as German city plans tolerance prize for pro-BDS group
Israel’s ambassador to Berlin ‘appalled’ that boycott-supporting Code Pink being honored ‘in Germany of all places’
http://www.timesofisrael.com/fury-as-german-city-plans-tolerance-prize-for-pro-bds-group/

The “occupied territory of the West Bank” is not occupied. […]

Meanwhile and seemingly seamlessly

http://www.smh.com.au/world/european-parliament-calls-for-saudi-arabia-arms-embargo-20160226-gn49h3.html European Parliament calls for Saudi Arabia arms embargo

Worth noting:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/parliament-votes-to-reject-campaign-to-boycott-israel/article28863810/

Canada’s Globe and Mail, Feb. 23/16

“Parliament votes to reject Israel boycott campaign”
By Patrick Martin

EXCERPTS:

“Israel is increasingly concerned with the successes of the boycott and divestment efforts. In 2014, foreign direct investment in Israel dropped 46 per cent from the previous year, in part, a United Nations report said, because of BDS efforts.

“These initiatives are taking hold at North American universities, churches and trade unions, where many institutions are dropping investments in Israel or Israel-connected companies. In Europe where hundreds of academics and entertainers are personally boycotting Israel, major companies such as telecom Orange and water company Veolia are pulling out of Israeli ventures, and some EU governments are putting warning labels on products produced in Israeli West Bank settlements.”

“Specifically, the non-violent punitive measures are to be maintained until Israel ends ‘its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and [dismantles] the Wall’ (a reference to the security barrier erected to cut off Palestinian communities from Israel); recognizes ‘the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality,’ and protects ‘the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194.’

“These goals are not dissimilar from Canada’s official positions on Israeli occupation, settlements and human rights, and are not, on the face of it, what most people would consider anti-Semitic.

“Israel’s reaction has been to launch a worldwide campaign by its overseas missions and supporters to discredit the BDS movement.”

“The important thing to note about the reference to UN Resolution 194 is that this resolution calls for “negotiations” with Israel over the terms by which the Palestinian rights to return would be implemented. The 2002 Arab Peace Initiative also refers to Resolution 194, even as it offers full recognition of Israel.”

“This was another popular refrain in Parliament – that the BDS movement’s singling out Israel from among all nations is proof of its anti-Semitic nature.

“Yes, the BDS campaign singles out Israel, quite naturally. It was started by a group of Palestinians, including Mr. Barghouti, to elicit help in dealing with Palestinians’ biggest problems. It was not intended to solve all the problems of the world. Just as the worldwide campaign against apartheid in South Africa did not address the ills of the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia, or the dictatorship in Somalia, this BDS movement is uniquely tailored to safeguarding Palestinian rights.

“The fact that this anti-BDS parliamentary motion passed is ridiculous, says Diana Buttu, a Canadian-born Arab Israeli and former adviser to Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas.

“‘Canada follows international law and correctly labels Israel’s colonization of the West Bank as illegal,’ she notes. ‘BDS aims to hold Israel accountable for its illegal acts,’ she points out, ‘yet the government passes a resolution condemning those who aim to uphold international law and Canadian foreign policy?’

“’It’s nuts,’” Ms. Buttu said.”

Until recently I was a monthly donor to the Liberal Party of Canada. I have notified them that that has shifted to the NDP.
I note that the chief fundraiser for the LPC is Stephen Bronfman… of the Taglit Bronfman family. I suspect that this has had something to do with the “Pragmatically P.E.P” position of the Liberals.
My own MP, Nathan Cullen (NDP) spoke as follows on this issue: (shared with me by Tyler Levitan of IJV, Canada)
“I have a very specific question for my friend [Sean Casey, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]. We find things that we do not agree with all the time as legislators. We see movements come and policies brought forward by constituents or groups around the country that we do not agree with, yet we agree with the principle of allowing them to have that freedom of speech. That is the basis of this place we call Parliament, the place
where we speak not the place where we ban speaking. That would be a different word and a different place. My question is this. Does the member or his government allow for this idea?”