Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Canadian Cow Conundrum | Main | Words of wisdom »

Sunday, January 14, 2007

Anti-Semitism and the Ontario Teachers' Union

The executive committee in District 12 of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Union will be voting this Thursday on a motion that criticizes Israel for the problems in the middle east [link via Judith]. The text of the motion is

BIRT District 12 STBU Council endorse the following motion for AMPA 2007:

“BIRT AMPA 2007 urge the Provincial Executive to express OSSTF’s criticism of Israel’s continued violation of the human rights of Palestinians as well as its belief that the achievement of justice for the Palestinians will help bring peace to the Middle East and to the people of Israel by taking the following actions:

a) Request the provincial Human Rights Committee to develop an educational campaign for its members as well as curricular materials for the classroom, to be ready for September’s Provincial Council, on Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, Palestine’s role in this conflict, the role of Canada in the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the international community’s response.

b) Request the Human Rights Committee to devise a campaign to materially and morally support the students of the occupied territories unable to receive an education due to the occupation and make links with teacher unions and student organizations both in the occupied territories as well as Israel who are seeking a just and peaceful solution to this region’s conflicts.

c) Write a letter to the prime minister as well as to the leaders of the oppositions parties, urging them to:

i) Pressure Israel to comply with international humanitarian law including the decisions of the International Court of Justice and the Fourth Geneva Convention;

ii) Call for Israel’s withdrawal from all occupied territories;

iii) Demand the removal of Israel’s “separation wall” which has resulted in the annexation of Palestinian land and extreme hardship in the daily lives of Palestinians;

iv) Pressure Israel to restore the revenues collected by them to their rightful owners, the Palestinian Authority;

v) Publicly criticize Israel’s aggression against Gaza and Lebanon and

vi) End Canada’s sanctions against the democratically elected government of
Palestine which has resulted in the paralysis of the civil service and the extreme impoverishment of the Palestinian people.

d) Develop ways OSSTF can demonstrate its support of the growing international call for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel.”

Estimated cost: to be determined
J. Kunin, Vaughan Road Academy/H. Hulays, Harbord CI

This is sheer nonsense, and it is frightening that educators in Ontario might believe it. It smacks of standard appeasement, and it is wrong.
  • The security fence (it really is more of a fence than a "wall") has saved countless lives in Israel by deterring suicide bombers.
  • Poor education in Palestine can hardly be seen as the fault of Israel when Palestinian leaders have absconded with billions of international aid and when their schools spend so much time teaching hatred of Jews and not enough teaching basic skills.
  • The Canadian gubmnt was absolutely right to withhold aid to the Palestinians after the election of Hamas, an organization with the stated goal of destroying Israel. That the Ontario teachers want this aid re-instated suggests to me that they, too, favour the obliteration of Israel.
  • Why no mention of the kidnapping of Israelis by Hamas and by Hezbollah?
  • And why no mention of the incessant hail of rockets from Gaza into southern Israel?
  • And how about condemning human rights abuses in China, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela? Or dont' those count?
What appalls, puzzles, and angers me is that educators here and in the UK, so eager to support a David vs. Goliath cause, can be so blind to the facts and the history of the Middle East. I can only conclude that there is a strong anti-semitism underlying this motion, and I shudder to think of the biases its sponsors might be imparting to their students.

As Charles says at LGF,

At every juncture, over the course of many years, the Palestinians have shown the world that they simply don’t care about having a state. They care about destroying Israel. After Arafat died, the Palestinians had a historic opportunity to change course and move toward statehood—and instead they elected an openly genocidal terrorist gang.

I really doubt if the OSSTF supporters of this resolution understand any of this.

Posted by EclectEcon on January 14, 2007 in Current Affairs | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d8350ceb8e69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Anti-Semitism and the Ontario Teachers' Union:

Comments

The issue is not what position the OSSTU is taking but the fact that they are taking one at all. The OSSTU as an organization has no business taking ANY position whatsoever on Israel. Unions should stick to union business: representing the teachers' interests with their employer, the provincial government.

Posted by: Mark Logan | 2007-01-14 9:11:20 PM


1. Teachers' unions are the worse communist organizations in Canada nowadays, at least in ON and particularly in BC. However, motions are not the same as decisions.

2. While I agree that the OSSTU's mandate is not to making international politics, they are free to express their wishes, if their members vote accordingly. It is pretty much the same as the Churches calling upon their members to oppose SSM and vote against such parties, which support SSM.

3. Re the matter itself: the motion is right in most counts.

4. Already the title, starting out with "Anti-Semitism" reflects the arrogance and impudence of rabid North-American Zionists, equating criticizing Israel's politics with anti-Semitism.

5. The rest is a collection of unmitigated bullshit and Zionist propaganda. The only question is, if that is in this particular case the expression of brazenness or stupidity.

Posted by: Cato | 2007-01-14 9:51:43 PM


I agree with Mark Logan here, this is not what Unions are about nor has this issue, Israel and it's position in the Middle East, got anything to do with Canadian teachers.

Are there large numbers of Jews or Israelis immigrating to Canada? NO.

Jews are leaving Canada and emigrating to Israel.

What in the Sam Hill does that have to do with these communist tools?

I think these teachers should be more concerned with sex education. At least that would have an effect on classroom size in the future.
8.P

Posted by: Speller | 2007-01-14 11:32:18 PM


What is it with Ontarians and anti-Semitism? No wonder Zundel lived there for so long! It's where his supporters were - and there appear to have been lots of them.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-01-14 11:34:41 PM


When I read this I at first thought it was a joke and then my whole mind recoiled and a cold ghostly shudder went down my spine.

These are teachers? In schools in Ontario? In Canada? Oh how I wish you had made this up.

I cannot imagine how a Jewish student would be treated by teachers who would not rip up this scrap of filth and stomp on it.

What is happening to my country? Teachers who should be educating young people to be good citizens are fueling the fires of hate towards a group of people who were nearly eradicated from earth just over 50 years ago. The Jewish people have rebuilt and I am quite sure I can understand why they would want to move from Ontario to Isreal, that lovely nation where they are welcome.

Shame on you teachers of Ontario for painting Canada as a country who does not 'like' certain people because they had the unmitigated Gaul to build a successful state in the middle of a hostile land. If the Jewish people had continued to be 'helpless' and 'stateless' they would appeal to the nasty 'we are here to help you if you will kow tow to us' left wing elitist crowd.

Makes my stomach churn in disgust.

Posted by: jema54j | 2007-01-15 12:00:40 AM


So much for multiculturalism. This is a license to spread hate. If it were anywhere else but racist, bigotted Ontario, I'd be shocked. But I'm not. Only white Christians matter in Ontario.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-01-15 12:04:21 AM


"Only white Christians matter in Ontario."
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 15-Jan-07 12:04:21 AM

Yeah, right, Scott.
Ontario is internationally known for it's love of Christians. That's why they almost got Sharia civil courts last year and the homos parade in Toronto with their Johnsons hanging in the breeze.

You are such an idiot sometimes. You're like DJ. You lurk just to shank Ontario the way DJ lurks to shank the Jews but neither of you ever have anything to contribute to the political solution by being coherent and convincing.

Look at the issue here. Don't just be a knee jerk circle jerk.
Even Mark Logan got it right and he's a Leftist.

It's sad enough that Unions are messing up the domestic political scene without them spending their Union dues, pension funds, and strike funds on the international issues.

It was a bad thing that organized crime insinuated itself into the Private Sector Unions now Islam looks to be an influence in the Public Sector Unions.

Think. If only Christians matter in Ontario then why were you saying last year Ontario was Sodom and Gomorrah?

Are Unions a Christian phenomena or are you making a mistake here?

Posted by: Speller | 2007-01-15 12:29:53 AM


What planet is Zebulon Pike living on? Ontario only cares about White Christians?

ARE YOU KIDDING? OR ARE YOU JUST STUPID?

Under the banner of "multiculturalism" "White Christians" have pretty much been obliterated from public education. Just about every culture (other than British) and religion (other than Christianity) has a place at the multiculti table in our public schools.

And the teachers' unions are some of the worst culprits. They've been taken over by leftist pro-feminist and pro-gay factions, which automatically means "White Christians" are considered the bad guys, and if a teacher objects to having to pay dues to promote political groups with whose agendas they disagree, they are given short shrift.

I knew a teacher who wrote an article for the union magazine, in which he disagreed with the premise in an article which had appeared in the previous magazine. The editors would not publish the article, and the reason given was that "it wasn't well written." It was far more articulate than the original article, and "not well written" was just a smoke screen for saying that the editors didn't agree with what this teacher had written and that they didn't want their membership reading the article. The fact of the matter is, there is no dissension within the teachers' union. You either toe the party line, shut up, or get out.

Posted by: 'been around the block | 2007-01-15 6:54:46 AM


This line is very serious to me


"Request the provincial Human Rights Committee to develop an educational campaign for its members as well as curricular materials for the classroom, to be ready for September’s Provincial Council, on Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, Palestine’s role in this conflict, the role of Canada in the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the international community’s response."

So they want to teach our kids that Israel is the bad guy.

Posted by: Fred | 2007-01-15 7:11:28 AM


Disgusting, beyond belief. There is something very sinister going on here here. It's more than worrisome.

Ontario has also been found in violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by the United Nations Human Rights Committee because they fund Roman Catholic Schools and not those of other religious faiths.
They use the Constitution as an excuse but it does not bind them to it, it is not carved in stone.
Newfoundland put an end to all religious school funding. Quebec did also. And there is also Manitoba, which used it's version of our section 93(3) in the Constitution Act, 1867, the Manitoba Act, 1870 to abolish it's system of denominational schools.

Ontario is rife with problems in Education, from top to bottom.
They have a social disgrace on their hands.

Posted by: Liz J | 2007-01-15 7:22:50 AM


This is not a surprise, and I agree with Mark Logan
-but the Union's attitude is a spinoff from their association with Ontario and Federal Bureaurcats who are notoriously anti-semitic and anti-Israeli, we have seen it first hand for many decades. Nova Scotia recently was compelled to abolish their largest School Board because of overt racism and incompetence. The large Board was replaced with one (repeat one Veteran Bureaucrat). I suspect the next target for the NS Government is the Human Rights Commission which I and many other have advocated for years be abolished. Ontario Teachers should be provided with a Lesson Plan entitled "What Will I Do When The Government Abolishes My Job" MacLeod

Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2007-01-15 7:26:24 AM


Anti-Americanism and Anti-Semitism is already part of their curriculum, has been for years.

It has been clear that this kind of indoctrination has been going on for some time now.

Why would anyone be surprised they finally want to write it up and make it across the board?

Posted by: deepblue | 2007-01-15 7:57:56 AM


Mr. MacLeod is right that NS's largest school board has been abolished, but readers should know that a new board will be put in place soon; the "Veteran Bureaucrat" is a temporary measure.

To the main point of the post: I find it alarming that our public school systems seem to favour telling only one side of the story. Are truth and fact not the irreducible minimums of a sound education anymore? Has our public education system been reduced to the teaching of what is politically expedient instead of historically accurate? If so, then our education system is as undone as the Palestinian one, no?

Pinning the source of Middle East troubles on a single nation is the very antithesis of education and the very definition of propaganda. This should worry all Canadians.... But it should also give us impetus to get off our collective butts and involve ourselves in school board meetings and elections. *Action* is required if motions like these are to be deprived of the light of day.

Posted by: Mark | 2007-01-15 8:01:36 AM


Looks like the bigots of Ontario can't stand to lose control over their society. Only white people matter in Ontario at all - all others aren't even considered human, except temporarily by white politicians who need non-white votes.

The Jane Creba case is the clearest case of Ontario's racial boundaries at work. 77 other people were murdered in Toronto that year - but only pretty white teenager Creba mattered. The only possible explanation is racism.

I'd tell you people to deal with it, but I'm having too much fun laughing at your pitiful excuse for a society. The sooner Alberta secedes and leaves Ontario in the dust, the better. I can't wait to see you people bring back slavery.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-01-15 8:31:04 AM


It never ceases to amaze me how others can bend over backwards to justify the hatred of Israel. How often has it happened that you have talked to someone who would expel the evils of racism and the glory of multi-culture and in the very next breath justify the blinding hatred of the Jewish and Israel?
http://www.pmw.org.il/ (documents the hatred of Israel in the Palestinian media)
http://www.jihadwatch.org/

Posted by: freedomisnotfree | 2007-01-15 8:31:24 AM


I doubt that a "new" School Board will be appointed
or created for Halifax HRM NS by the Provincial Government which is faced with other highly incompetent and problem School Boards which are subject to due diligence as I write this. Meanwhile
the current NS Government under the direction of Premier Rodney MacDonald (Rodney The Fiddler) is facing internal revolt and almost certain Political
Defeat. One of our Companies was contracted by Private Sector companies to analyse the purchasing
criteria and abuse of the Tendering process by all NS School Boards. No surprise to us, they all failed to meet Provincial purchasing guidelines.I have not had direct contact with Teachers for many decades, my daughters are about the age of Belinda Stronach, but over the years the big Teachers Unions have become increasingly militant and difficult to deal with. Their agenda appears to have nothing to do with actual "teaching" and dealing with students. MacLeod

Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2007-01-15 8:32:59 AM


"But it should also give us impetus to get off our collective butts and involve ourselves in school board meetings and elections. *Action* is required if motions like these are to be deprived of the light of day."

Mark,

These are the same people that recently sent over 100, lying, stealing socialists back to parliament instead of obscurity where they belong.

The people you look to for the solution are more than likely the problem. The fact these sort of motions even see the light of day tells you the degree to which central Canada has digressed.

It is time to consider that Central Canada, and particularly Toronto has been lost, the challenge for the rest of Canada is how to disengage from the political reality that gives them the balance of power before they take the rest of the Canada down with them.

Posted by: deepblue | 2007-01-15 9:04:22 AM


The only way to mitigate the power of Teachers Unions/Provincial Education Bureaucrats is to have a whole lot more parents, and yes-grandparents - become actively involved/publicly vociferous re the curriculum and what is happpening/not happening within the schools of their children.

Proportionately, very few teachers are active within the Unions - except of course they must pay their dues.

It is very difficult to mitigate much from within teacher ranks. To do so is to be on the outs with the so-called majority group think of the time (now very left wing) and is probably career stagnating or at worst, career ending.

The academically elite (u. faculties/think tanks) have been allowed to self-generate/select students based on their own thinking (left wing/multi culti) and in so doing are basically deterring a whole lot of very capable people people from even going into teaching, much less continuing once in.

Education is led by the faculties of education and the provincially hired education bureaucrats who often have may letters after their name but are often shy in classroom experience. People having the least influence in terms of what goes down are the front line teachers. If a whole lot of the public at large want change - it will happen - but so far this desire just doesn't seem to be there.

Sooooo... those who actively want to pursue their own agenda and represent enough of a block number of people, make their way into the upper levels of the system. Unquestionably the movement within education has been to the left and those who don't want to accept this either participate, acquiesce quitety, or leave.

Little of this is in the interest of our young people unless you are happy with our young people becoming increasingly forced into the EPC (extreme politically correct) mode in which we are totally hamstrung by laws/Human Rights Commissions, etc, etc.

Why wouldn't it be like this after 35 years of Liberal/Central Gov't control. The federal legislation that has been generated since 1969 and followed in Provincial law has ensured it. The mindset in AB has made a jog to mitigate against this heavy left wing/multiculti EPC world but it remains to be seen if this will actually take hold.

The way to succeed vertically/educationally in education is to tow the philosophical line of the time, avoid publicly divisive issues at all cost, and take very nuanced stands on whatever is left. It will be the parents that decide when enough is enough.

Posted by: calgary clipper | 2007-01-15 9:09:56 AM



And I pay hundreds of dollars a year in direct school taxes to support Jew haters?

And Scott or zeb or whoever you are ... what's so great about brown people?

It is white people who have given so much to the modern world and it looks a lot to me like it's the brown people who come here by the plane load to mooch. And I wrong?

Sure, many of them fine folks, but you seem to forget that there are actually some fine white folk too ... even in Ontario. My mother for one.

What's your beef with white people anyway? Most of my friends and family are white ... not all, but most. I see nothing wrong with them ... some of them live in Ontario.

You are big hater yourself Zeb ... your particular color doesn't matter but that you hate white people does.

Posted by: Duke | 2007-01-15 9:42:03 AM


Trade unions have been misusing their compulsory memberships time and money for years. I published a newsletter for 11 years exposing this. Below are some of the organizations who have benefited from trade unions. Stephen Gray.

Groups, organizations and causes that have received union time and/or money
Some of them also receive government grants

POLITICAL CAUSES

*Bloc Que'be'cois
*NDP (millions of dollars)
*Federal Liberals (The party that appointed Judge Rand, the architect of compulsory union dues)
*Municipal elections
*Socialist International
*The Nisga'a Treaty


CAUSES & ORGANIZATIONS

*National Action Committee on Status of Women (NAC)
*National Association of Women and the Law (NAWL)
*Women's Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF)
*Vancouver Status of Women (VSW)
*Conventions for Women Only
*Beijing Conference (assisted radical feminists to go)
*Greenpeace
*B.C. Environmental Network (BCEN)
*End The Arms Race (EAR)
*Canadian Peace Alliance (CPA)
*Coalition Opposed to Arms Trade (COAT)
*Canadian Healthcare Coalition
*Ontario Coalition for Social Justice
*Days of Action of Ontario
*Action Canada Network
*Cultural Research
*Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA)
*CHOICES!
*National Anti-Poverty Organization (NAPO)
*Council of Canadians (COC)
*Ecumenical Coalition for Economic Justice (ECEJ)
*End Legislated Poverty (ELP)
*Charlottetown Accord (the "yes" side supported by CLC and B.C. Federation of Labour)
*Peace Caravan
*Coalition of Progressive Electors (COPE)
*Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society (NCHS)
*MATCH
*Bolivian Urban Workers' Association
*Cuba Solidarity Committee


MAGAZINES & NEWSPAPERS

*Angles (gay and lesbian newspaper)
*Briarpatch (socialist magazine)
*Canadian Dimension (socialist magazine)
*Canadian Forum (left-wing magazine)
*Herizons (feminist publication)
*Our Schools, Ourselves
*Our Times
*This Magazine
*Dossier (Action Canada Network newsletter)
*Action Now (NAC's newsletter)
*Kinesis (Vancouver Status of Women newspaper)
*Peoples' Voice (communist newspaper)
*Pacific Tribune (communist newspaper, now defunct)
*Pacific Current (socialist magazine funded by union money, now defunct)
*New Directions (now defunct)
*The Democrat (NDP newspaper)
*The Columbia Journal (left-wing newspaper)

ABORTION & HOMOSEXUAL ISSUES

*Abortion clinics
*Everywoman's Abortion Clinic
*Abortionist Morgentaler's defence fund
*B.C. Coalition for Abortion Clinics (BCCAC)
*Ontario Coalition for Abortion Clinics (OCAC)
*B.C. Federation of Labour's Reproductive Choice Fund
*Buses for pro-abortion rally paid for by B.C. Federation of Labour
*The Vriend Case, the Canadian Labour Congress was an intervenor
*Court challenges on behalf of same sex couples
*Gay and lesbian kits
*Pink Triangle Committee
*Gay and lesbian support group
*B.C. Teachers' Federation contributed $40,000 to court case on behalf of gay activists.

NOTE: There are many more groups, coalitions and causes that unions are involved with.

Posted by: Stephen Gray | 2007-01-15 10:25:16 AM


This motion by itself is not the fundamental problem, rather it is a symptom of a fundamental problem. I saw the seeds of the problem when I was in University years ago and realized as a young man that my colleagues in Education would be instructing my children when the time came. Although single at the time, I did have aspirations to be a family man and even at that young age had been already thinking forward to the responsibilities of fatherhood.

The problem as I saw it even back then went beyond the simple left/right differences that we see today. I thought then [and still think today] that I was able to discern a fundamental flaw in the way that the extreme left thinks about things that causes it to arrive at its conclusions. It would be a mistake to suggest that **every** leftist person believes such and such or that **every** rightist person believes such and such. Yet, the left/right divide on a University campus can often be described (in simplistic yet accurate terms) as the difference between the Liberal Arts and the more analytical sciences, or to put it another way: the left can be summarily and generally described as those who deal in a professional world of ideas that do not **need** to be tested against an objective reality and the right can be summarily and generally described as those who deal in a professioanl world of ideas that **must always** be tested against an objective reality.

It used to be that Liberal Arts encouraged critical thinking in the true sense of the phrase. A student was encouraged to question established ideas but they needed to be questioned within established rules and they needed to be challenged in a manner not unlike what is still practiced in many scientific disciplines today. It seemed to me while I attended University that students in the Liberal Arts were confusing the simple idea of rejecting established ideas of the past with critical thinking. It was as though they somehow believed that if a person followed a thought process and arrived at the same conclusion that previous generations had, that thought process could not be called "critical thinking". They also seemed to think that the simple rejection of established ideas was proof of "critical thinking".

I do not mean to drive the thread too far off-topic but I witnessed the same type of thinking (or lack thereof) in the recent trial of Saddam Hussein. It seemed to me that there were a least a few on the left who were implying that Saddam could not get an unbiased trail and that a guilty verdict would **prove** the process was indicative of an unfair trial. The unstated implication was that only a not-guilty verdict would **prove** that the process was fair. To repeat: I did not want to with this mention of Saddam drive the thread OT; I simply provide it as another example of the type of thinking I witnessed much more frequently while at University.

There was something else. I could not state why at the time but I felt that things were going to get worse in my lifetime but that the left would realize the damage being done to society and would change course. I think the evidence is in on the first point and I (perhaps naively) am still somewhat optimistic on the second but of course make preparations for the case in which I am proven incorrect.

When the time came, my wife and I chose home-schooling. We are quite pleased with the results. Recently two of our children were recognized by the Pennsylvania State Senate. I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I am like any parent, pleased with the accomplishments of my children and like to see them excel. On the other hand, I am disturbed, that what I think are otherwise somewhat average children have, in a small way, been recognized by public elected officials as exemplary. You see, their "excellence" is really only relative to their peers in the overall society. Had the society not been damaged so much by "progressive" education, the overall average expectations of youth would be higher.

Their introduction to the Senate is on Page 3 on the lower right hand column:

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:y4DJmNwFPbcJ:www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/SJ/2005/0/Sj20061003.pdf&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=8

Posted by: Brent Weston | 2007-01-15 10:53:37 AM


An impressive and troublesome list Stephen, but I must point out that you should not have included the late Justice Ivan Rand as a paragon of the socialist left. Justice Rand from Moncton NB was focused exclusively and objectively on trade and craft unions employed by the CNR which had its operational HQ and largest maintenance facilities in Moncton NB
at the time. Rand is considered a real hero in the Labor Movement and rightfully so, but Ivan Rand was certainly no socialist, and neither was the Liberal Party of the period, the old Liberal Party that I remember was in fact ultra conservative,
partularly in NS where it was unquestionably racist. But times have changed. MacLeod

Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2007-01-15 11:02:43 AM


Duke:

I find it very ironic, and somewhat sad, that you object to anti-Semitism but not to "brown people."

Like I said, whiteness matters in Ontario.

You people - Ontarians - set yourselves up as this tolerant, multicultural society, yet the reality is racism not only exists but is quite overt. I learned that from living there and being disgusted by the way white Ontarians treat non-whites. It's apartheid.

I hate only one ethnic group on this planet: white Ontarians, because they deserve nothing less.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-01-15 11:11:13 AM


To Jack Macleod:
I agree Jack that "times have changed." Judge Rand was appointed by the Liberals. Paul Martin Senior, wrote in his Memoirs "A Very Public Life" Volume 1, Pages 395-396: "Although I knew that Rand's views on the rights of labour were encompassed within a progressive social outlook, I wondered whether I could convince the cabinet to appoint him..." Of course Rand was appointed and his 'progressive social outlook' resulted in compulsory union dues. And his decision on making union dues compulsory is responsible, I believe, for the huge abuse of misuse union time and money.Union members are prisoners of a labour politburo "thanks" to Judge Rand.
Stephen Gray

Posted by: Stephen Gray | 2007-01-15 11:36:21 AM


Mark Logan is right on this one and this is not the first or only example of unions abusing their raison-être. Their role must be limited to negotiating wages and working conditions and the totalitarian situation of forcing all members to pay union dues must go. It is not limited to the Ontario Teachers' Union either, for across the country every one of them continue to jump on just about every Leftist/Communist cause. In BC they are just as bad and I know some excellent teachers who suffer from seeing their union dues going to causes that they cannot morally support. Any attempt to disagree has serious consequences for them, so they are seeking a career change.

Posted by: Alain | 2007-01-15 11:40:38 AM


More info on trade unions:
Trade unions were originally formed to negotiate fair wages and working conditions for their members. In 1946, a Supreme Court judge, Ivan C. Rand, made union dues compulsory. This decision by Judge Rand was eventually enacted into labour legislation across Canada. Judge Rand’s decision of compulsion opened the door to the corruption of the trade union mandate. A mandate which was supposed to be for collective bargaining, evolved into collective coercion, and now union members are compelled into financing and supporting abortion clinics, socialism, communist ideology, numerous special interest groups, so called same-sex marriage and a host of other issues that has nothing to do with working conditions.

The conditions of the trade union member is best described by union boss Buzz Hargrove who stated: “A union member is like an indentured servant.” ( Buzz Hargrove, president Canadian Auto Workers Union (CAW), in his book “Labor of Love” page 201.)

Brother Buzz is bang on the money with that statement. The “indentured servants” through there compulsory union dues are forced participants in the biggest scam ever to be perpetrated in Canada. This union scam, which is called “free collective bargaining,” is a distortion of language and words. How can anyone be “free” when they are compelled to support a union organization funded by compulsion, which takes some of their money and diverts it into numerous groups and causes outside the workplace.
Stephen Gray.

Posted by: Stephen Gray | 2007-01-15 11:55:48 AM


Mark is right this time.

And we have seen the continued errosion of the unions, such as the teacher's unions, student associations, workers unions, with individuals who get themselves elected, and then use their positions, and union money, not on what is their mandate, but on their personal political opinion.

Once upon a time, Unions formed to advocate for worker rights.

then they accomplished their end game, and got bored.

After which time, they searched for a new raison d'etre. And, voila, along came a bunch of ISM lobbiests who managed to make them weep for their cause. They became delussioned, and decided to take their Union, and hold it up to stop-gap their lack of raison d'etre. They took on a new cause, without doing what they should have done, which was:

a) Their homework.
b) Sticking to the facts
c) Checking to ensure it fits with their mandate
d) Checking out the credibility of the people they got the information from.
e) Asking whether or not the information they received was true.
f) sticking to what they know about.

And of course, by sticking their necks out, as they have done, they are now seen by your average terrorist loathing individual as biased and incompetent. How could people, who have said they would teach our children, and be expected to be professionals, stand up their and advocate harm against another nation?

And, we do not have to support all nations, just because they are democratic. We did not support germany in WWII. It was democratic. being democratic does not mean a nation is beyond reproach. And clearly these so-called teachers seem to think that by merely electing or holding elections, that the game is done, and over. If they read anything about politics, they would know that holding elections is just the beginning.

Take Iran for example. They are also elected. But look at what they advocate. They advocate genocide. They have also purchased missiles from North Korea, whose sole purpose is to fire nuclear weapons into other nations.

If they were looking for a raison d'etre, why don't they take that cause on?

And why would they think that a nation would not have the right to defend itself against terrorists?

How could they be so blind as to not know that Israel was attacking terrorists?

If these people are a representation of our future, then we have more than enough reason to want to get away from them!

Posted by: Lady | 2007-01-15 12:04:56 PM


Justice Ivan Rand was in fact appointed by Prime Minister Louis St Laurent. Minister Paul Martin Senior was aware that the Liberal Party of the period was focused on undermining the political portfolio of the CCF which led to the implementation
of many of the social programs without which many Canadians could not survive. Support for labor uinions by the Liberal Party was generated to secure political support which continues to this day. NB Native Basil Hargrove knows this. The reason that the Liberal Party has been so succesful in winning elections is that they are
primarily a focused marketing orgnaization, who
grab the lead in motivating public awareness and support. Lucky for Harper, this time the rank and file ignored the motivaters and action generators and choose a French Citizen with limited appeal and political smarts, whom many many Liberals will
soon dispose of. so called come lately "Conservatives" who preach against "big labor" do no favours for Harper and his merry band, because Harper needs them to win a majority mandate. Because of the lack of educationaql resources available to young students, none are aware that the real driving force of the modern Liberal Party was in fact a Labor Lawyer with impeccable international crdentials W.L. MacKenzie King, a friend by the way of Labor Lawyer and later Justice Ivan Rand. I doubt that Martin Senior knew or even met Justice Rand. MacLeod

Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2007-01-15 12:22:07 PM


Does it really matter? Most of them care only about their benefits. So, some Hezbollah supporters and ultra-Left in the teacher union imposed their “death to Israel” agenda. They fail to teach math and English. Thanks to their mediocre performance (Ontario teachers) most of the students are not capable to find ME on the map. So what make you think that they will be better as the terrorist cheerleaders?

Posted by: Sceptical Observer | 2007-01-15 12:35:27 PM


Sceptical Observer I think you are right. It appears that the "Union" has been hi-jacked, but that the rank and file could care less. A sad commentary on
the state of our expensive and publically funded
educational process, which needs more than a tune up
I would think. MacLeod

Posted by: Jack Macleod | 2007-01-15 12:55:27 PM


More of a fence than a wall?

http://www.econ.ucla.edu/doepke/pictures/israel/fence.jpg

Why the reticence in calling a wall a wall? Walls are good as both the Chinese and Romans (Hadrian's) discovered.

Why not, like Effie Eitam has suggested, "expel the great majority of the Arabs” from the West Bank and “sweep the Israeli Arabs from the political system.” As white South Africans discovered apartheid only benefits the few and is really designed to provide a source of cheap labour. Interestingly, liberal Jews were at the forefront of the dismantling of South African apartheid and then once the deed was done began emigrating in significant numbers because of the burgeoning rate of crime disproportionately targeting whites. Also of interest, after years of benefit from the cheap black labour that apartheid created, is the recent Oppenheimer sale of a good chunk of Anglo American (DeBeers) to Larry Yung chair of China Vision and backed by the Chinese Communist conglomerate CITIC who also have made deals with Boeing and General Motors.

Where's D.J. McGuire when you need him? :)

Posted by: DJ | 2007-01-15 3:04:20 PM


There is a small problem with the wall in the above linked picture: it is not in Israel but in Jerusalem. This wall is like the Berlin wall, for separating people of a city, except that the Berlin wall was meant to *keep in* the people, the Jerusalem wall is for *keeping the Palestiniens out*.

There is nothing wrong with a wall *in Israel proper*.

Posted by: Cato | 2007-01-15 3:50:14 PM


DJ,

Hate to tell you this, but Liberal Jews were not the only people at the forefront of the dismantling of Apartheid.

And, although Jews have returned to Israel, there is still a large Jewish population in S. Africa.

Still, no one has said anything about the reasons why many of the blacks migrated to South Africa.

Anser that question without your typical racial bias, and maybe you might have a better undertstanding of the state of affairs in Africa itself.

Just maybe.

But I will not hold my breath on that notion.

Posted by: Lady | 2007-01-15 3:53:35 PM


Mr Cato eventually Berlin is a capital of the German state because German people were those that founded it, and Jerusalem is a capital for Israel because Israelites/Jews (or I guess dirty Zionists/Kikes for you) founded it. Regardless what the Ontario teacher union, Nasrallah, UN, and people like you want.

Posted by: Sceptical Observer | 2007-01-15 4:06:14 PM


Sceptical Observer,

Although I agree with your aim, may I remind you that for hundreds of years, Jews were also considered to be Germans.

The main difference between a Teutonic Germans and Jewish Germans, besides what they were legally permitted to do over time, was clearly that Teutonic Germans never considered Jews to be truely Germans, and acknowledged without error that the real homeland of the Jews was in fact the lands of Israel.

People like Cato, deny the Jews are from the lands of Israel, and are entitled to their homeland, while ignoring the rights of Jews around the world, to the very same human rights as anyone else, under International laws.

As we ladies say, once you've seen one of those, you have indeed, seen them all.

And, I am referring to schmucks, if you know what I mean?

Shalom,

Lady

Posted by: Lady | 2007-01-15 4:27:30 PM


DJ,

I have some food for thought, for you.

The following was forwarded to me, from a dear friend, and I have copied it for your edification, if you are interested in some of that schtuff, as in the following:

13th of January, 2007


Jimmy Carter was born and raised in Georgia, one of the American States where apartheid was legally enforced until the Supreme Court of America ruled it unconstitutional. They called it "segregation", but the meaning is the same. The outward signs of apartheid were everywhere evident and Carter could not have avoided seeing them: “Whites only" and “Negroes* Only" signs on all public facilities, including water fountains and toilets. White-only restaurants, hotels and even barber shops would not serve African-Americans.

While touring the French quarters of New Orleans about 40 years ago, a black man stopped me in front of a diner, put some money in my hand and ask me to buy him two hamburgers. To my question, "Why don't you go in yourself", his answer was, "They won’t let me in there”. It was for whites only.

The back seats on municipal buses were for “Negroes Only" while the front seats were for "Whites Only".

African-Americans could not buy or rent accommodation in a white section of any city in the deep South, and had to attend segregated schools – invariably inferior. African-Americans were allowed to enter a white home only by the back door.

Black Americans were unable to vote. Although legally able to vote in a Federal election, in reality, few Black Americans could afford to pay the Poll Tax demanded by the apartheid states. And those who could pay and actually tried to vote were beaten up, often by the white police.

Jimmy Carter knows the face of apartheid. He visited Israel many times and never claimed to have seen any "Jews Only" or "Arabs Only" signs. In his book, "Palestine – Peace or Apartheid", he mentions apartheid only on the last pages. Few readers manage to reach the end of this boring book, but many were influenced by the "A" word in the title. He has admitted in interviews that there is no apartheid in Israel and that he had only used this word to stimulate debate. Yet he refuses to debate the matter himself with any expert on Israel/Arab affairs, and has continued to offer lame and pitiful excuses for his chosen title.


For example, he maintains that apartheid does exist on the "occupied" West Bank. Occupied by whom? The last recognised authority in this area was Great Britain when it received a League of Nations Mandate after the Turkish Caliphate was defeated in World War I. Jordan occupied this territory in 1949, after a war of aggression against Israel, a state founded by the United Nation. The Jordanian 19-year occupation was recognised by only two states, Pakistan and Great Britain, and therefore illegal. Israel gained the West Bank after repelling an attack by Egypt, Syria, and Jordan in the Six-day War of 1967 but never annexed it. The present status in International law is “Disputed Territory" and it remains subject to British law. The West Bank is currently a part of the world where different groups live in self-imposed ghettos. This applies equally to neighbouring countries, such as, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq, where Shia, Sunni, Coptic, Druse, Bedouin, and other communities exist in their many solitudes.

What led Jimmy Carter to this hypocrisy and falsification of obvious fact? He was a failure as a president, arguably the worst in American history and one of the few serving presidents who failed in their bid for re-election. The only "achievement" he has dared to claim is the Egypt/Israel peace treaty.

And that is mere wishful thinking! Here is what Michael Oren, well known journalist and author, had to say about this in the Boston Globe:
"Nearly six decades of American mediation have registered only one lasting success: the 1979 treaty between Egypt and Israel. But that agreement was only made possible by the courage of Anwar Sadat, who became the first Arab leader to visit Israel, and Menachem Begin, who agreed to restore Sinai to Egypt. Yet even this breakthrough failed to bring about a comprehensive settlement. Israel refused to give up the West Bank and Gaza, Syria boycotted the talks, and PLO chairman Yasser Arafat urged Sadat's assassination"
No mention of Carter. He just happened to be in the White House at the time.

Jimmy was concerned about his legacy. To that end he organised the Carter Center** at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. But the costs were no peanuts! Oil-rich Saudis showered millions on the center. Among the donors: King Fahd of Saudi Arabia contributed many millions. In 1993 alone he gave $7.6 million and his nephew, Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal, donated no less than $5 million in total to the Carter Center. Donations, yes, but one way or another, Jimmy Carter owes them and now it's pay-back time.


Poor Jimmy, sold his soul for his legacy and lost both!


* Negroes: the Politically Correct word for African-American at that time.


** A number of Professors associated with the Carter Center have resigned after his latest book came out. One of them wrote: "[it] is not based on unvarnished analyses; it is replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments."


--30--

I have brought this to your attention, because you remind me of Carter.

Since Carter was born in the lands and time where racism was rampant, I have no doubt in my mind, that you would most likely agree with his position.

Posted by: Lady | 2007-01-15 4:31:16 PM


Lady,

Apartheid, as a policy will fail Israel, like it did whites in South Africa and the American South. In the long run, Eitam is right, transfer of the Arab population out of the West Bank is the only lasting solution. If South African whites had pushed for a separate white state, they would not be emigrating and subjected to the brutality they must now endure. The ironic thing is that the liberal Jews who were in the forefront of dismantling apartheid in South Africa, were some of the first to emigrate when the liberated started to turn on their liberators.

Posted by: DJ | 2007-01-15 5:15:39 PM


Berlin is the capitol city of Germany, because it is part of Germany and the Germans decided so. Some other cities, which have been founded by Germans do not belong to Germany any more.

(Do you think, that Rom was founded by Italiens?)

Jerusalem is not part of Israel. When the UN declared the partition of Palestine, thereby giving two-third of it to the future Israel, the same UN declared Jerusalem an "international city".

It is not by chance, that Jerusalem is called the "tri-city". Its history includes wars between the three religions. It is noteworthy, that not Jews but Christians took back Jerusalem from Muslims (and then lost it again); heard of the Crusades already?

As such, followers of all these religions can justifiedly claim some right over the city; this fact is expressed in the status of "international city".

Btw, I wonder if those, who measure so much importance to Jerusalem being timewise controlled by Jews, are of the opinion, that North America belongs to the Natives exclusively.

Caution, Europa will be very crowded, because almost all inhabitants of South America too have to go "back" to Europa, if this principle applies everywhere.

Posted by: Cato | 2007-01-15 6:42:04 PM


It is noteworthy, that not Jews but Christians took back Jerusalem from Muslims (and then lost it again); heard of the Crusades already? Cato wrote.>>> Here is my piece of breaking news for you. Israelis took back Jerusalim from Muslims and their UN servants. And the good Christians are welcome to visit the Holy Land including the eternal Capital of Israel. Though, I guess you and DJ are not welcome. Visit the PA you deserve it.

Posted by: Sceptical Observer | 2007-01-15 7:41:14 PM


As a resident of latitude 26 N (about), I have a vicarious interest in the topic at hand and the ensuing discussion.

First, I will congratulate the participants for engaging in a fairly civil discourse at a higher level than the same subject would engender in this part of the map. Top awards go to Brett Weston for his perceptive insights and to "Lady" for wrapping her club in erudition and lace before smacking her targets.

Secondly, I will agree with the original position that the union officials are inspired by anti-Semitism, the new anti-Semitism that is being seeded the world over by Muslim groups. If they are finding fertile ground in Ontario soil, then there is a sorrowful shortage of righteous men and women in the state.

Here, at 26 North, the union officers would be tossed out of office within a week, an action reflecting the strength of our broad diversity and resulting tolerance - acceptance. This is the U.N. South!

(Here, the writer resorts to common vernacular.)
In short, the union officials have their heads stuck up their asses. That's a bad place to have your head when there's a chance it could be cut off at the neck. Stick to education, ladies and gentlemen, think class size, wages, benefits, curriculum, tenure, and the like. Don't go where you are not wanted, where you don't belong.

Posted by: Larry1Kenobi | 2007-01-15 8:42:58 PM


Cato,

Listen to yourself.

"Jerusalem is not a part of Israel"?

Since when?

Since some immigrants from the Arab Peninsula decided they wanted it to be theirs over the rightful owners?

Yes, of course!

Posted by: Lady | 2007-01-16 2:17:03 PM


Sceptical Observer,

You are correct.

And had Jews been able to concentrate in large enough communities to form Armies, Israel would have been taken back long before now.

Further to this, it is important to note that while islam keeps Christians off the temple mount, and Jews away from the holiest place for Jews on earth, also the temple mount, that Jews do not discriminate against Christians and keep them out of Jewish holy places, in the holy land.

And now that the Jewish people have in fact declared an independent Jewish state, there are so many people who are doing their damndest to once again, take away from the Jewish people, that whcih rightfully, lawfully, and properly, belongs to the children of Israel.

People who have a sincere interest in right and wrong, on many levels, and who have followed the historic narrative of jews, for the past two thousand years, and whose aim it is to stop the terrorists from gaining ground, are in fact (no doubt in my mind) supporters of the indigenous rights of Jews to their homelands; aka the lands of Israel.

The rest, those who support the destruction of the State of israel, also support terror on all levels, and are not only favourable to the killing of all Jewish people, as well as destroying the rights of Jews to their own narrative, are also anti-West. They utilize distortion of facts, and maintain a state of ignorance at the same time. It is no wonder that where that attitude prevails, poverty also prevails, as that kind of society has been built on principles that are counter productive. No one wants to invest in a people who would first do violence, second do violence, third do violence, and then pretend that no matter how nil their advances and benefits were, that if they just continued forever, that they would indeed benefit from their actions.

Perhaps there is a new proverb in this?

There are none so stupid as those who embrace darkness, ignorance and futile actions with perseverance.

Posted by: Lady | 2007-01-16 2:31:21 PM


It's beyond humanity to understand the hatred of a people, in this case the Jewish people.They are hated for trying to maintain their tiny Democracy surrounded by enemy tyrants/terrorists.

The Middle East is a tinderbox, to the point where one risks their life to visit the area, including Jerusalem, the holy place of Christianity as well. The Jewish people welcome Christians, but there is always a risk to visit anywhere in the area.

It is amazing the tenacity of the people of Israel can be maintained through all the strife they have and are enduring.
If they decide they've had enough, the West had better be prepared to support them.

Posted by: Liz J | 2007-01-16 2:59:12 PM


"Jerusalem is not part of Israel.

Since when?"

Since about 70 CE, when the Romans have kicked out the Jews from there.

Posted by: Cato | 2007-01-16 3:50:30 PM


Israel has a right to Jerusalem by conquest. The right of conquest ceded the land from the Ottoman to the British who then transfered title to the Jewish people. Canada, the US and most countries are founded on right of conquest.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=1245

It's not beyond humanity to understand the Darwinian position of tribal competition in the larger scheme of evolution.

"When two tribes of primeval man, living in the same country, came into competition, if (other circumstances being equal) the one tribe included a great number of courageous, sympathetic and faithful members, who were always ready to warn each other of danger, to aid and defend each other, this tribe would succeed better and conquer the other."

It is humanity.

The fate of the Israeli Jews are in their own hands. It begets the question though, when the white gentiles are overrun by the yellows and browns in their homelands, will they be welcome in Israel?

Posted by: DJ | 2007-01-16 4:12:23 PM


"Israel has a right to Jerusalem by conquest. The right of conquest ceded the land from the Ottoman to the British who then transferred title to the Jewish people"

The above contains so much nonsense, that perhaps I am expected to laugh about it.

1. There is no "right by conquest". Wars are not any more acceptable form of land "acquisition" (only one example: if they were, Iraq could have said they had a right on Kuwait).

Terrorism is even less acceptable form of gaining land; Israel's "conquest" (as far as it was a conquest) was based on terrorism.

2. Israel "received" part of Palestine from the United Nations (mostly due to the Holocaust); it *was not conquest*, even though some Jewish terrorists made honorable efforts. That decision did not give Jerusalem to the Jews; it was designated as an international city.

Note this:

*The Jews (i.e. the leading terrorists of the day) ACCEPTED the UN resolution.* (for a while).

Btw, do you mind listing those countries/states, which have their embasses in Jerusalem, not in Tel Aviv?

Posted by: Cato | 2007-01-16 5:24:00 PM


"There is no "right by conquest"."

If you plan to present a cogent argument then your position should follow logically from one post to the next. If right of conquest is not founded in law then the Roman conquest of Jerusalem in 63 BC was illegitimate and the title still remains with the Jews. You can't have it both ways. So which is it? Is the Roman victory legitimate because of right of conquest or is it not?

Posted by: DJ | 2007-01-16 6:29:46 PM


"If right of conquest is not founded in law then the Roman conquest of Jerusalem in 63 BC was illegitimate and the title still remains with the Jews"

Even cursory reading should have revealed the meaning of my

*Wars are not ANY MORE acceptable form of land "acquisition*

The rules and expectations today are very different from earlier times. There was no international law, no United Nations, no global treaties, etc.

Following your reasoning, the Israelite would not have any rights in Palestine, because they "took" it - conquered - from the Canaanites.

Furthermore, if Israel got the land through conquest, then it is only natural and legitim, that Palestiniens are trying to reverse it or at least stop its expansion through any measures they have available.

Even more: if one regards conquest as a legitimate way of land aquisition, then one can't complain about Iran's President wanting to "drive the Jews into the sea"; that too would be only a legitimate way of aquiring land.

So, do you want to have it both ways?

(It's not easy to defend theft and robbery, is it?)

Anyway, you should take it up with those, who claim Israel's right to Palestina based on their "residence" there for over 3000 years ago, not on "conquest and transfer", which happened only in your mind.

Btw, the partitioning of Palestine by the United Nations did not have any legitimicy either, but the Palestiniens did not have much say in that decision.

Posted by: Cato | 2007-01-16 8:00:58 PM


Answer the question.

Is the Roman victory legitimate because of right of conquest or is it not?

"Following your reasoning, the Israelite would not have any rights in Palestine, because they "took" it - conquered - from the Canaanites."

No thanks your logic. Title goes to the conqueror.

"Furthermore, if Israel got the land through conquest, then it is only natural and legitim,[sic] that Palestiniens are trying to reverse it or at least stop its expansion through any measures they have available."

Agreed, however, until such is the case their claim is illegitimate.

"Even more: if one regards conquest as a legitimate way of land aquisition, then one can't complain about Iran's President wanting to "drive the Jews into the sea"; that too would be only a legitimate way of aquiring land."

Talk is cheap. It is not talk "which decided on the field of Zama that the Latin, not the Semite, should rule the ancient and mould the modern world." You confuse the principle. Right of conquest does not advocate acquiring land by war, it just recognises the transfer of title as de facto.

The defense is not of theft or robbery, it is of the legitimate transfer of title upon conquest. Again your logic is weak. If it is theft or robbery then the Roman victory is theft, thus illegitimate and title again returns to the last occupiers of the land, the Jews.

Posted by: DJ | 2007-01-16 8:46:25 PM


"No thanks your logic." s/r No that's your logic.

Posted by: DJ | 2007-01-16 8:48:26 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.