Ontario Legislature vs Israeli Apartheid Week

[myata]

Mc Gill Daily: Ontario on Israeli Apartheid Week

And so, perhaps feeling anxious to be left behind the latest innovations in practical democracy, like e.g. Russia's moves to regulate history (Wikipedia), our very own Ontario Parliament has decided to weigh in on the appropriate use of the "apartheid" terminology in the province.

No, it's not the matters of competence that are of issue here, even given the fact that a prominent survivor of apartheid, South African Archibishop Desmond Tutu has characterised Israeli policies in the occupied territories in very much the same way as what he experienced in South Africa (BBC: Tutu). But granted, our very own experts on "real" apartheid in Queens Park will know better.

No, it's the matter of expression. After all, the word is not inappropriate, or violent, it's readily found in your English dictionary, and been used by many spakers on numerous occasions both within and outside the context being discussed. The only difference is that somebody has thought that it's not the right way to characterise certain policies by certain government, and voila - now we have an official legislative statement on the matter. Not unlike Russian government's policy on judging statements about recent history (though they also prosecute the "wrong" ones; we arent' there just yet, but appear to be on the right track).

I would just dismiss it as another ridiculous flick by our busy legislators, except that with the recent "burka" law in Quebec; and the fact that our two "natural" government parties can no longer be distinguished under strongest known to the science microscope we maybe vitnessing a worrying pattern.

No I've no involvement in the "weeks" nor have ever taken any part or visited one. But the fact that this unanimous act has slipped so easily under the radar screen without public discussion or explanation is strange; and maybe worrysome. Perhaps in our comfortably aging societies we're growing tired (and uneasy?) about all the messiness that comes with real and vibrant freedoms, and starting a (long and gentle) slide toward complacency and conformism?

[Shady]

The term 'Israeli Apartheid' is clearly hate speech. And if I've learned anything over the last several weeks, specifically regarding the Ann Coulter incident. It's that hate speech cannot be tolerated on University campuses.

[myata]

The term 'Israeli Apartheid' is clearly hate speech. And if I've learned anything over the last several weeks, specifically regarding the Ann Coulter incident. It's that hate speech cannot be tolerated on University campuses.

Except, our terminology conscious legislators have apparently forgotten to share with us their recommendations with respect to Ms Coultier's opinions. Busy, busy.

Quelle dommage, without it we'll simply be lost as proverbial children trying to figure out which "hate speech" is OK froom those particularly malicious forms that necessitate Parliamentary guidance to the society.

[ToadBrother]

The term 'Israeli Apartheid' is clearly hate speech.

It may be inflammatory, hyperbolic and inaccurate, but perhaps you could spell out precisely how it is hate speech.

[Bonam]

I'm not sure if I'd call the term itself "hate speech" but the events that go on at IAW are some of the most virulently hateful and disgusting I have ever witnessed in Canada.

[myata]

Regardless of our personal attitudes to these events and that, the question still remains: should it be the call of our legislature (Ontario; Quebec; Canada) to provide moral guidance to the society on all sorts of miscellaneous and oftentimes controvercial happenings and goings? Or should it rather stick to its primary objectives, i.e. create good laws and hold the government accountable? Something that it sometimes really struggles to achieve (especially in the latter part).