While it is clear that the Uppal motion condemning Israeli Apartheid Week failed, as Marky Mark pointed out, the vote was unrecorded. Would it have been a voice vote? Nevertheless, the above suggests that support/dissent fell entirely along party-lines. I'm not sure how the CIC could know that.
3 comments:
Libby Davies has so far been the only MP to express her disapproval of Uppal's motion. That is probably why the CIC targeted the NDP for disapproval.
The CIC did mention that the term "apartheid" serves to intimidate and ostracize Jewish students at universities. However, it did not provide any evidence that people have intimidated them.
The CIC did mention that using Israel and apartheid together is not true and not legitimate criticism. Please provide a list of criticisms that you deem legitimate, CIC. I do have a problem with the "not true" part--not because I think that Israel is an apartheid state, but because the "not true" words may cast a doubt over other historical events and occurrences. These words could take a way the credibility of what supporters of currently structured State of Israel may say or write about other issues.
I will give credit to the CIC for not referring to the NDP or Ms. Davies as anti-Semitic or hateful.
Interesting that the other half of the BQ motion isn't mentioned--the one denouncing the use of the term "anti-Semitic" to describe criticism of Israel.
I noticed that. It was not interesting. It was so predictable I didn't even feel the need to mention it.
What is interesting is that they're congratulating the BQ for half of its own motion, while condeming the NDP for the defeat of the Uppal Motion, which likely was opposed by the BQ as well.
How do they keep this stuff straight? Well, it helps if you're dishonest, because then, it simply doesn't matter.
Post a Comment