As a McGill student, I took time tonight to read and digest the - TopicsExpress



          

As a McGill student, I took time tonight to read and digest the motions for the Fall General Assembly/Assemblée Générale d’automne. Speaking as a student, I do believe that the stance of the Solidarity with Palestine motion poses an answerable question: do you, as a member of the student body, condemn the situation in Gaza and the Palestinian territories? When we vote tomorrow, we should vote based on our answer to the motions question. Yes means that I agree with the terms of the motion (precise wording quoted below) and No means that I disagree. Here are the terms of the motion (last three clauses): Whereas, condemning Israel’s aforementioned violations does not negate Israel’s right to exist as a state. Be it resolved, that SSMU publicly condemns a) the recent destruction of schools, universities, and hospitals, and all violence against civilians in Gaza and other Palestinian occupied territories; b) the siege on Gaza; and c) the continued illegal expansion of settlements by issuing a public statement on the SSMU website and listserv; Be it resolved, that the SSMU executives endorse and sponsor events and efforts conducted by student groups working to combat oppression and misrepresentation of marginalized groups including but not limited to Palestinians, and to provide a safe platform for students to voice their views and experiences accessibly. ssmu.mcgill.ca/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/General-Assembly-Motion-Calling-on-SSMU-to-Stand-in-Solidarity-with-the-People-of-the-Occupied-Palestinian-Territories-2014-10-22.pdf The reason why I am writing a statement (somewhat unusual for me on my Facebook page) is mainly because I want to lay out the terms of the vote which I think have been misrepresented (Ive also posted a statement on the No Committee page) -- also, considering the following terms: 1. This motion was not brought by the student executives to the general population. It was brought by a student petition from the general public to the GA. This means that a number of students have gone through the bottom-up channels to bring it to our attention and want us to consider its terms. 2. A lot of people are saying that this motion is merely symbolic and therefore cannot accomplish anything (so then what is the point of offending people?). However, there are clear precedents that statements from university campuses do affect governmental positions. Universities are precisely sites of political discourse. Since we are considering the motions terms, we should view the Yes vote as a vote against the status quo, and a No vote as being for the status quo. Lastly, I want to make the disclaimer that this is entirely my own opinion and does not represent any other body. I merely wanted to lay out my take on the structure of the vote and what was at stake. If you are a constituent who feels alienated by the contents of the motion (which is a fair position to take), then you should vote No, but you shouldnt vote No on the basis that you feel others will be alienated. I encourage you to consider what is at stake in the motion on its own terms: read it and make your decision.
Posted on: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 03:32:49 +0000

Trending Topics



Recently Viewed Topics




© 2015