Why the SSMU Motion re: The Defense of Human Rights, Social Justice, and Environmental Protection is disgraceful.

Besides the unsavory motives of the group that is tabling this motion, the declaration itself is filled with factual errors. If passed it would be a joke.
Dissecting some problems in depth:
1) Say what you want about Israel, but to single it out for condemnation above every other country in the world is a hilarity. I really hate breaking out the Antisemitism card, but the EU definition of Antisemitism states: ``Examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel taking into account the overall context could include: Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.``
How about singling out a country like Saudi Arabia, where women can`t drive, or get lashed if they`re raped. Or for that matter, most other countries in the Middle East or other parts of the world where basic freedoms are not protected. You may not like what Israel is doing in Gaza and the West Bank, but it`s still a democracy which respects the basic human rights of all its citizens. So basically problem one is that this is political motion by a group that loves to single out Israel above all other countries.

2) I will quote one of the paragraphs from the motion which is, to put it bluntly, full of s**t:

``WHEREAS the occupation of The Occupied Palestinian Territories has also been declared illegal by the following UN Resolutions: Resolution 181, Resolution 242, Resolution 446, Resolution 452, Resolution 465, Resolution 471, and Resolution 476, as well as Article 1 of the UN Charter, and the following Covenants: The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, both of which have been signed and ratified by Canada``

Wow, what an impressive list:
a) Resolution 181 is about the partition plan. Ya.... that really does not declare anything illegal.
b) Resolution 242 is recognized by most moderates to mean, when there will be a peace deal, the land for peace issue will be worked out. Once again, says nothing about legality.
c) Resolution 446 does say that there is no legal basis for settlements in the occupied territories. However, this motion portrays the Israeli side as land grabbing power, which does not ever seek peace. The Disengagement from Gaza would speak otherwise.
d) 452 was passed two months after 446, and says the same thing. What the UN was doing in 1979 is beyond me. Maybe they should have stopped that whole Ayatollah Khomeini thing.
e) 465 passed in 1980 said, hey Israel do something.
f) 471 passed a few months after 465...says the same thing.
g) 476 passed in the same month... says the same thing, excepts mentions Jerusalem.

In summation, a) and b) don`t say what the motion claims they say. Resolution 242 is basically accepted as the starting point for peace negotiations. The last 5 mentioned were all basically passed in the same year, and all say the same thing. Of course the UN said Zionism is Racism in 1975, so I really don`t think anything they says is representative of justice. Keep in mind that these decisions were passed by arbiters of moral judgment such as : Bangladesh, Gabon, Kuwait, Nigeria, Tunisia. Don`t you love it when these countries judge democratic ones.
As another aside, not listening to a UN resolution is hardly something that Israel alone does. Didn`t the UN pass some sort of motion telling Iran to stop trying to acquire nuclear materials? Or tell Sudan to you know stop the genocide in Darfur. Oh ya, but who cares if they don't follow what the UN says, they're not Israel.

And Article 1 of the UN charter says: ``The Purposes of the United Nations are: To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;``

Once again, nothing about Israel.
So... I don`t really know how they can pass a motion when half the sources don`t even relate to the topic at hand, and were just trotted out to make an impressive list.

If there`s anything I forgot, let me know....

Today`s News.

1) The Lancet says that a study of their purporting to show a link between vaccines and autism is bunk. It`s terrible that many died from not getting vaccinated in the name of junk science.

2) Oscar nominees came out. Best picture nominations are: Avatar,The Blind Side,District 9,An Education,The Hurt Locker,Inglourious Basterds,Precious,A Serious Man,Up,Up in the Air. Still haven`t seen: An Education, Precious, and A Serious Man, but I would say so far The Hurt Locker is the best movie of the year.

3)The Sundance film festival ended. Here`s a recap of some of the movies they played there.

4) Old people sext. That is just wrong. I thought anybody over 40 had problems with normal texts anyways....

5) Admiral Mullen says don`t ask, don`t tell should be repealed. Have to agree with him on this one. The whole ruining the morale of the army seems like a bogus argument.

6) Obama will let tax cuts expire that are helping the middle class. What a terrible Messiah. More articles about the budget from WSJ and NYT

7) A 9 year old Chinese girl gives birth. They`re beating us in everything...

8) Kosher meat is not necessarily better for the environment. Looks like there`s no reason to keep kosher anymore.

9) Article stating Obama needs to rise above the pettiness of Congress. I can dig it.

10) Rabble, rabble, rabble. How can Democrats say that Bush administration were wrong when he was President, yet like them now? I hate Glenn Greenwald.

Enjoy.

Random sampling of news

1)Michael Ignatieff will find imaginary money to pay for his social programs.

2) John Ivison writes an excellent article talking about the shenanigans going on with Elections Canada. It seems that they have become horribly biased against the sittin g Prime Minister. Maybe the Liberals should be focusing some indignation on them...

3) Harper seems to be following a prudent climate change course. He proposes to act in two step with the United States, knowing political inertia will probably stop Obama from doing anything about climate change. Considering the embarassing revelations coming out of certain climate change institutions, this seems like a good move.

4) Funny video about the cliched state of news reporting.

Enjoy. Lots of Canadian content....