Why You Should Never Take Kate Carraway to IKEA
The Lee's Palace Mural is Dead! Long Live the Lee's Palace Mural!
Peeve Patrol
Polling Booth: "Kick a Ginger" Controversy
Sound Advice: Hit & Run EP by Sloan
CUPE Ontario's university workers are now officially like the awkward kid no one wants to play with at recess. As we reported earlier, that branch of the union passed a motion a few days ago calling for an academic boycott "aimed at Ontario universities and any institutional connections pertaining to research that help the military of the state of Israel." Today, in letters to both the National Post and the Globe and Mail, and in a statement on the union's homepage, CUPE's president Paul Moist did his best to distance the national organization from that move, saying that "The views expressed in the resolution are those of a small number of CUPE Ontario members. The resolution does not represent CUPE National policy." This is the second time in two months Moist has had to publicly chastise CUPE Ontario, currently operating under the contentious leadership of Sid Ryan: an earlier version of the boycott came in for even harsher criticism, with Moist saying that it would have violated CUPE's own anti-discrimination standards. No word on whether Ryan has also been uninvited to Moist's birthday party.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebookTIP US OFF
Most Popular
Haydain Neale, 1970–2009 (37)
Why You Should Never Take Kate Carraway to IKEA (30)
The Lee's Palace Mural is Dead! Long Live the Lee's Palace Mural! (24)
Edgewater Hotel Sign Comes Down (18)
Transit City and Transit Cities (17)
Peeve Patrol (17)
Historicist: "The city that nobody loves" (16)
Please Insert Station and Try Again (14)
The Making of a Medley (14)
Polling Booth: "Kick a Ginger" Controversy (14)
Do all of CUPE's leaders have names like porn stars?
Can someone explain to me - and I don't mean this is an accusatory way, I'm really just confused - why or how can Ontario's CUPE leadership can take a stance on something that a) bears no direct relation to their members' labour issues and b) hasn't been discussed with their membership? Nevermind whether their stance is morally correct or politically important - aren't they supposed to represent their members? Or is to okay for them to take offical CUPE stances on this without the assent of their members? I know this sounds like a loaded question but it's really not - I don't really know the policy on this sort of thing.
From CUPE Ontario's FAQ on this resolution:
As far as I can tell, this is in reference to the following paragraphs from Article II of CUPE's constitution [PDF], listing its objectives:
I have to wonder if, when that constitution was drafted, they foresaw any problems with subjective interpretations.
I feel like Sid Ryan et al. want to create a powerful social justice organization, but they can't get the funding or the numbers, so they've cast CUPE to play the part. And they feel perfectly validated in doing so, in expectation that the ends (peace, love, and a living wage) will justify the means (speaking for their members instead of representing them). Before Sid Ryan releases another statement on how CUPE feels or what CUPE wants, I want him to ask himself: who is CUPE?
lol!! (on the names)... :)
the ouwcc voted, which represents the membership in the university sector, so it was a democratic decision from the available evidence...
also, i'm not clear how the targeting of over 60 colleges, universities and schools in a 3-week period by a military force isn't a cause for concern for education workers?
the ouwcc voted, which represents the membership in the university sector, so it was a democratic decision from the available evidence...
But does it represent the membership? I know that's its official role, but my whole point here is that the people who were elected to represent the membership do not, in fact, seem to be representing the membership.
also, i'm not clear how the targeting of over 60 colleges, universities and schools in a 3-week period by a military force isn't a cause for concern for education workers?
I disagree with how you've framed this.
(a) I think Sid Ryan et al would press CUPE to take action even if schools hadn't been affected, because this isn't really about education. I think they know it's a political and human rights issue, and they're hoping that by playing up the education angle, they can make it more palatable to CUPE members and critics.
However, although their stance may include education, it's also packaged with - more significantly - taking a particular side in the Israel/Palestine conflict. To frame this as just an education issue (and we all love education!) ignores the loaded, contentious politics that come with it. Those politics are why it is not okay to act on the assumption that one's members are all on board.
(b) It's also worth noting that for this being a matter of education, Sid Ryan et al have been pretty selective about which educational crises are require action from CUPE and which don't. Let's drop this sham that it's really about the universities. We all know damn well it isn't. I'm fine with Ryan wanting to do things that aren't education-based - if they represent the members. But I'm not convinced he's put much effort into ensuring that.
(c) I don't think you can assume that the membership would agree with how you've framed the conflict, let alone whether or not it's a concern for education workers. You've said "I'm not clear how...[it] isn't a concern" but you've made an implicit assumption that the membership has the same political priorities and ideas that you do. Aside from your own personal convictions that they should be concerned, how are you clear that the CUPE membership is on board here?
Finally, I want to stress that I'm, if anything, very critical of Israel. I consider myself a Jew whose support lies predominantly with Palestine. My issue here isn't a pro or anti Palestine one, my issue is with representation.
Calling all CUPE trolls!
I wonder if CUPE is passing a similar boycott to Palestinians, since Islamic University in Gaza was reportedly stocking missiles and doing weapons research.
I mean, it only makes sense, right?
and this boycott is only about sensical matters, right?
and how about the Syrian boycott for their weapons research? Sudan? Iran? United States? North and South Korea? Taiwan?
Bullshit always smells like bullshit, Sid Ryan. I wonder if CUPE will be paying you out when you are turfed, or if we taxpayers will be forced to support you...
atomeyes: other than the israeli military what is your source for the claim, disproven by UN officials on the ground about the islamic university stockpiling weapons? also, last time i checked there aren't many syrian, sudanese or north korean officials in canada nor are there joint development projects with these states' militaries at US universities. CUPE-Ontario, btw, is responding to a call from every major professional association in Palestine which sees boycott, divestment nad sanctions (BDS) as a peaceful means of putting pressure on israel to: (1) end the military occupation of palestinian lands, (2) give justice to the nearly 5-million palestinian refugees and their descendants and (3) give full juridical equality to palestinian 'citizens' of israel. cupe has responded to similar call from solidarity from unionists and colleagues in other crisis areas (such as endorsing a boycott of coca-cola for its actions in columbia targeting unionists, a call fro boycott that was made by unions in columbia)...
Tell me, endapartheid, these "UN officials on the ground" - are they the same officials who first accused Israel of bombing a UN school and killing "42 civilians", but then had to backtrack and admit that the school wasn't hit, that instead, Israel targetted a road next to school, from where mortars had been fired? And then had to admit that the casualty list topped out at 12 (not even close to 42!), of whom 9 were confirmed combatants? Are these the same UN officials who see nothing wrong with employing Hamas operatives within their organization, and then claiming impartiality?
Last time we crossed words, I congratulated you on your vast knowledge of Israel. I also challenged you, but then you disappeared. Now that I have found you, I make that challenge again. In acquiring your intricately-detailed knowledge of Israel and dredging for every possible bit of "bad news" you can find, you must have come across some positive things Israel has done. I challenge you to prove your credibility as a poster by listing just three. Or are you about to disappear again?
*crickets*