Contributing to confusion and contradictions
(Re: “The anti-abortion terror campaign,” 11 February 2002).
I found it ironic that in the same issue which ran a piece distinguishing true Islam from its terrorist distortions so as to counter confusion, another article was contributing to confusion by failing to distinguish the pro-life movement from its terrorist distortions.
While it is true that the killings reported were tragic and inexcusable, I’m afraid the article as a whole reinforced the stereotype of the pro-lifer as a violent disturber of the peace—and this is irresponsible journalism. After all, when September 11 hit, sensible journalists began noting in their articles that terrorist activity does not reflect Islam as a whole, and those who did so were rightly applauded. Why, then, a lack of similar objectivity when it comes to distinguishing the “anti-abortion terror” from true pro-life ideology?
The failure to do so is irresponsible and leads to misrepresentation. To clarify, I would like to correct Shauna Nast’s use of the term “anti-abortionist.” A pro-lifer is no more an “anti-abortionist” than a pro-choicer is an “anti-lifer.” Both are libellous terms used by partisans who have not done their homework on what the other side actually believes.
A pro-lifer is biologically and philosophically convinced of the sanctity and inviolability of all human life from conception to natural death. From this follows the belief that all human beings have the inalienable right to life no matter what their race, gender, religion, state of development, or opinion about abortion!
A true pro-lifer is thus as dedicated to protecting the lives of abortionists (while vehemently rejecting their practices) as he or she is to protecting the lives of the unborn. A deviant who kills an abortionist can no more be called a pro-lifer than somebody who eats beefsteaks can be called a vegetarian or a zealot who bombs buildings can be called a pacifist. All are contradictions in terms.
David Elliot
Criticize Israel, but not Israelis
(Re: “Our anti-Israeli ‘bias,’” editorial, 25 February 2002)
Thank you for your recent editorial on the alleged movement within the university to create a more “pro-Israeli” newspaper. I think the notion is absolutely absurd, and, as you point out, will only create further divisiveness within the university community.
In addition, I believe the Charlatan—perhaps living up to its name—has failed to make a crucial semantic distinction between bias against Israel, and bias against Israelis. While bias of any sort is obviously a no-no, it is one thing to criticize Israel as a country, and another to criticize its people, the Israelis.
Surely, a good chunk of fault for the ongoing troubles in the Middle East can be attributed to the hawkish politics of Ariel Sharon and his administration.
And while there is no doubt in my mind that a portion of Israelis do condone violence as retribution for past and present Palestinian insurgence, I believe this minority belies the true nature of the population.
As a pertinent fact, I would like to point out that the standing army of Israel is no Hamas, no fundamentalist militia.
Israeli youths, upon graduating secondary school, are required to serve in the armed forces for several years, and thus are required to abide by whatever policy [in the form of orders] is handed down to them.
Do they like it? I would hazard to say that they don’t. But they are not the ones calling for retaliatory strikes and the demolition of Palestinian houses. They, unlike the “martyred” suicide bombers, are just following orders: to protect themselves and their country.
Go ahead and criticize Israel, but please leave the Israelis alone.
Edward Weiss
The importance of student elections
With student elections fast approaching, it’s essential to remember the importance of voting for who you want to represent you.
University elections have a pathetically low turnout. Did you know many of the student representative seats for the Governing Council, especially in the part-time constituency, are often acclaimed and no election is therefore required?
Social activists are often the group most involved in the politics of the university, but having been involved in the governance of the university as an acclaimed part-time student representative on the Governing Council, I am not convinced that the activists are speaking for the majority of students. They argue for a free and fair democratic process open to all, yet at the same time it seems to me that they try to dictate their views to others.
We are going to be asked to vote in a referendum regarding the student levy for the proposed new Varsity Centre. I am delighted it has gone to referendum.
The student body is so divided on the issue that I know I would not have been able to represent my constituents in good faith, as I really can’t tell how they feel about the issue.
How much more democratic can you get than asking for a referendum to hear the voice of all students? Get out and vote in the elections and in the upcoming referendum. Your vote does make a difference.
Wendy Swinton
Governing Council rep
We had beer but we didn’t open it…
(Re: “Engineers’ reputation tarnished by their representatives,” letter, 25 February 2002)
I would like to express my dismay towards several groups regarding the Students’ Administrative Council (SAC) Annual General Meeting (AGM) debacle. First, to the Varsity, for repeatedly getting my name wrong (it’s Matt, not Mark), and Mona Ahmad, for not bothering to do any research before writing her vitriol-filled letter. If even the most cursory attempt at fact checking had been made, the Varsity would have discovered not only that they had my name wrong, but that Ms. Ahmad’s letter was rife with factual errors.
The suggestion that the consumption of alcohol by others is offensive to one’s religious beliefs is absurd. I have no issue with the Muslim faith, but when your interpretation of your faith dictates the way I should live my life, I draw the line. When one objects to the mere presence of alcohol, even when nobody is consuming it, or encouraging them to consume it (as happened at the SAC AGM), I wonder how that person gets through life without attending any social functions where alcohol may be present.
Contrary to Ms. Ahmad’s assertion, the possession of an unopened bottle or case of alcohol at any given location (even the oh-so-holy SAC AGM) is not illegal. Nobody at the meeting consumed any alcohol, and as such no laws were broken. In my opinion, the real problem many at SAC have with engineering students is that we come out in record numbers to voice our opinions. We inject some life into their otherwise boring meetings, and do not hesitate to point out and challenge hypocrisy and political correctness run amok when we see it.
Matt “Mark” Parker
The case of beer was a political statement
(Re: “Engineers’ reputation tarnished by their representatives,” letter, 25 February 2002)
I cannot claim to speak for all engineers, but the actions of the engineering delegates at the Student Adminstrative Council (SAC) Annual General Meeting (AGM) require some clarification. The hotly debated case of beer that showed up with “Mark”[Matt] Parker at the AGM was only meant to be a physical manifestation of the farce that [the Annual General Meeting] was. [The] intent was not to show disrespect for any religion, faith or belief. The only group it was meant to snub was the dictatorial SAC executive. We would have brought in elephants and trained acrobatic dogs, but beer was more accessible.
Don McAuslan
Toike Oike Editor
