Our anti-Israeli “bias”

Well, we’re in trouble again. According to Carleton’s student newspaper, the Charlatan, some U of T students are planning to start up a newspaper called Counterpoint to take a stand against the Varsity’s “anti-Israeli bias.”

From the Charlatan’s report, you’d think we were Izzy Asper. Only instead of putting the kibosh on all articles with pro-Palestine sentiments, we are censoring any pro-Israeli view. In fact, we are, as we always have, serving as a forum by allowing any student to submit 400-700 word opinion pieces. The content of those articles is the result of the writers, not the newspaper.

While we certainly don’t have any problem with the creation of this new newspaper where “a more pro-Israeli voice can be heard,” we also wonder about its utility. Namely, given the tit-for-tat nature of mid-East politics, how long before we get a pro-Palestine newspaper to counter the Counterpoint? And with each side firing salvos at each other from closed communities ensconced in newsprint, what hope of real debate is there?

While the open forum we provide to students certainly is not as productive as face-to-face discussion, it is important because it is a form of common ground for common folk—not just “leaders,” who, incidentally, have succeeded in making a rather nice mess of the mid-East.

We only hope this debate and discussion continues, because when it stops—when people stop interacting and retreat to enclaves—all hope of a solution will die. Debate and discussion remind us that those affected by the mid-East situation are not just part of a group or a side—they are real, living, breathing, conflicted and opinionated individuals no different from any of us. They just happen to be caught in a really messed-up situation.

Our stance is not pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian. Our stance is simply pro-whatever the hell will stop innocent people from being killed and allow both sides to live with at least some dignity.

To that end, we have no solutions, but we do have—as we have since the start of the year—our pages for discussion. Because it will be average people—not leaders—who will have to keep a peace if it is ever achieved, and the more they know about one another, and where the other comes from, the better chance they have of working toward that lasting understanding.

Tax cars to save Toronto

If Toronto doesn’t start getting more money very, very soon, we will become one of the most dysfunctional big cities in North America. But as pointed out at a recent Innis College forum, Toronto can legally only collect revenue through property tax. That means even though we contribute about $4 billion to the province and country in income taxes, our city only gets to work with a tiny amount of funds.

For students, that means graduating into a city where TTC fares rise and service is cut back, where the homeless have no place to live, where the air is like smoking a pack a week and where you can’t swim in a pool, let alone Lake Ontario. Not a pleasant place to spend what are to be the prime years of your life.

But short of re-jigging the constitution or getting a massive amount of aid from Queen’s Park (neither of them too likely) the city will only have static property taxes to fund increasing demands on service.

Instead of lobbying for a percentage of gas tax as the city is now (and as the feds have already said no to), the city should use its existing power to tax property, and start to tax cars. $100 per year if you want to own a car in this city would raise more than enough—$300 million or more—to cover our most pressing needs. And it makes perfect sense because a) if you can afford a car you can afford the tax and b) if you afford a car you are destroying the air we all breathe, which has already hit a crisis level (really, do any of us want another summer like the last one?).

A car tax would either supply the money necessary to have a functional city, or would force the government (if they didn’t like the idea) to come up with a better solution to meet the city’s needs.

And hopefully we can do it without having the feds and province delay for a decade (which, let’s be honest, is probably what they want to do). The ability to cut the problem off now is perhaps the key selling point, because the longer we wait, the more we can count on having a city in permanent decline.