Legitimate reasons for ESS referendum
Dear Editors,
Re: “ESS separation puzzling” (Journal, Jan. 9, 2009)
The ESS recognizes that its constituents are not the demographic served by the AMS. The education program is an after-degree professional program, and as such the ESS has legitimate reason to offer its constituents the opportunity to sever ties with the AMS and join the Society of Graduate and Professional Students. In a survey conducted by the ESS last year of approximately one third of the B.Ed students, 49.6 per cent responded that they did not feel as though they had been served by the AMS, and an additional 27.2 per cent responded that they had never heard of the AMS. Only 3.9 per cent felt served by the AMS. Claiming the ESS has an ulterior motive for holding a referendum is as ludicrous as suggesting the position taken on the subject by the Journal (an AMS publication) is politically motivated.
Jimmy Wintle
M.Ed ’10
ESS Faculty Board Rep 07-08
Media’s overt bias
Dear Editors,
Re: “Standing up for Gaza” (Journal, Jan. 13, 2009)
Thank you. For once, someone is audacious enough to point out the overt bias of supposedly “neutral” media outlets in this country (and most western countries). It seems as if everyone is painting a one-sided picture of the Israeli-Hamas conflict—with our journalists and leaders reiterating the same old phrase incessantly: “Israel has a right to defend itself.” Yes it does. But Israel is not free from blame here—and no, saying that does not make me a Hamas sympathizer. Both sides have committed war crimes and it’s time for us to admit and report that. Hopefully the Journal can heed its own advice and show the two-sided conflict with respect to the prorogation of Parliament as well.
Omer Aziz
ArtSci ’12
Don’t make excuses for Hamas
Dear Editors,
Re: “Standing up for Gaza” (Journal, Jan. 13, 2009)
Your so called democratically-elected Hamas government has proceeded to indiscriminately beat and murder citizens of Gaza for the last few years. What I don’t understand is why people actually think Hamas has done a single good thing for anybody ever.
Beyond the murders and public beatings of its own citizens, Hamas has been at war with Fatah (the leadership of Palestinians in the West Bank, which represents more than double the population of Palestinians) for years. Even the Palestinian Authority and Fatah leaders recognize Hamas as a terrorist organization. The fact that you would make excuses for an internationally recognized terrorist organization is disgusting.
Funny, I don’t see people making excuses for Al-Qaeda (whose leader Osama Bin-Laden has recently supported Hamas), the Taliban or other Islamic Jihadist movements. These are the same radical fundamentalist terror organizations whose goal is expressly genocidal. Hamas indoctrinates children with a hatred of Jews and westerners of all kinds, the glorification of martyrdom is pushed on them since birth and Hamas explicitly brags about their use of women and children as human shields (check out Children of Hamas on YouTube). Get real here, Hamas is the enemy to Palestinians, Israelis, westerners and Jews anywhere in the world. They are nothing more than evil men doing Iran’s dirty work.
Israel warns people in targeted areas by dropping leaflets or even directly calling the location in advance. Israel even accepted a three hour lull in the fighting, and what does Hamas do? They mobilize, re-arm and pack the area with as many civilians (specifically women and children) as they can find to enhance the death toll of civilians. How can you consider yourself a human rights activist of any kind and support Hamas? If you really want to help the Palestinians get rid of Hamas, make sure Fatah (the legitimate leadership of Palestinians that actually pursues peace) is in control and stop blaming those in the trenches fighting the war on terror.
And one last thing, Canada bears absolutely no responsibility for the death of Palestinians. Anyone stating otherwise is extremely distorting the facts.
Matthew O’Reilly
ArtSci ’10
CUPE resolution “unreasonable”
Dear Editors,
The resolution recently put forth by Sid Ryan, The CUPE Ontario president, states that Israeli academics and professors should be banned from speaking, teaching or researching at Ontario universities unless they “explicitly condemn the university bombing and the assault on Gaza in general.” The resolution was put forth in response to the Israeli Air Force bombing of the Islamic University in the Gaza Strip which occurred on Dec. 29, 2008. This is a completely unreasonable and unbalanced resolution. What Ryan failed to mention in the presentation of his resolution is that the Islamic University is a centre of support for Hamas, the terrorist organization which controls the Gaza Strip. The Islamic University has been used for meetings between top Hamas officials who are responsible for the rocket fire which has been aimed at Israeli towns for the past eight years and has killed, injured and terrorized civilians. Ryan also neglected to mention that the Israeli air strike targeted two laboratories in the university which served as research and development centres for Hamas. Under the careful guidance and care of professors at the Islamic University, the labs were used to develop explosives to be used against Israel.
As a Queen’s student who greatly appreciates the value and need for education of the highest degree I believe that it is a tragedy that a university has been bombed. However, universities exist to serve as institutions of higher learning in an effort to make the world a better and safer place. When the Islamic University is used to service a known terrorist organization it no longer upholds the values that a legitimate university should.
Banning Israeli academics and professors from the Ontario university campuses is not a legitimate response to this event. Not only does this assume bias based on nationality alone, but it also serves to punish Israel and Israelis for acting in self-defense, a right of every sovereign country in the world. It is not up to professors of Israeli nationality, whether they are Jewish, Christian, Muslim or of any other religious affiliation, to publicly judge these actions of their country, and it is an infringement on the right of free speech for CUPE to attempt to force them to speak out against their homeland in order to continue their work.
Carli Kadish
ArtSci ’12
Let’s have real debate
Dear Editors,
The clean campaign the AMS is running has become excessive. Having both teams agree beforehand that rebuttals will not be used during debates and that questions which may lead to criticism of a team’s platform should be banned carries things too far. Let me ask, which of the teams would be the first to publicly say, “I need a rebuttal because what the other team just said is just factually wrong.” And what harm would be done by questions like, “what is the most unfeasible part of the other team’s platform?” and “what would downright not work?” Who would they hurt? This type of discussion allows us to analyze not only a candidate’s ideas but their ability to think critically—an essential part of any political process.
Sometimes candidates have no idea what they’re talking about. As voters it’s important that we not allow politicians to run away with unmitigated rhetoric and instead get real answers to our questions. It’s shameful that our own government is censoring us.
Now that all three debates have come and gone, it seems the question, “what won’t work” will never be asked of these candidates in a public forum. However, the Journal editorial board is still to come. I know the editorial board usually asks tough questions but I’d like to ask that special emphasis be given to transmitting the candidate’s answers to students.
These candidate’s opinions are important. Besides their creators, no one else is going to spend months of their lives on this but the competition. At the end of the day, the people who know a platform best are the opposition.
Gillian Wheatley
ArtSci ’08
Electoral wisdom
Dear Editors,
I have to admit, when January comes along, I get excited about AMS elections. I’m a nerd, I know, and since I’ve already graduated that makes me an even bigger nerd for still being interested. Nevertheless, I know there are others out there who have also graduated and are still checking the Journal website from abroad, laughing to themselves about the whole process.
After six campus campaigns, I’ve seen it all. Over time you tend to see the same promises recycled, such as “exam scheduling at an earlier date” or “work to address sustainability on campus” or “more funding for clubs.” Four years ago, RHM successfully used the gimmick of giving back your salary. Then there’s my personal favourite: feedback forums. So much time and effort have been wasted on this promise that never works.
Either way, teams will say what they think will get them elected. When it comes down to it, my only advice is to vote for the team that you have the most confidence in and who you think is the most capable and dedicated, not just the team the Journal endorses or the one with the largest Facebook group. And don’t just vote for the team that talks about the issue of the day or has the flashiest posters or the loudest volunteers. Make sure they know what they’re talking about, have the ability to look past petty campaign issues, will run the AMS by hiring the best people and that they will do what is right and not just what they campaigned for. Being able to admit when an opponent is right is essential. Candidates need to show you they have the ability to learn and to compromise because, despite what you may think, there will be real consequences to their actions and inactions and whichever team is elected will have an effect on you and your education.
Alvin Tedjo
ArtSci ’06
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s)-in-Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be contacted, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to journal_editors@ams.queensu.ca.