From February 1-7, the McGill chapter of Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights staged Gaza Remembrance Week to mark the one-year anniversary of the bloody conflict between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Earlier in January, SPHR organized a “Public Commemoration of the Gaza Massacre” in downtown Montreal. And the ever-controversial Israeli Apartheid Week is just around the corner. However, rather than empower McGill students to effect change in a troubled region of the globe, these events serve to stifle dialogue and promote a simple analysis of a nuanced conflict.

To understand the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is no easy task. The conflict encompasses thousands of years of history and the dreams of millions. Journeying through the turbulent past of the Holy Land, one sees the clash of religious aspirations, political ideologies, and competing desires for a national homeland. In the last century, the region has seen large-scale warfare, massive migration, constantly shifting borders, and a rapidly changing political climate. Such a complex and inconstant situation obviously does not lend itself to easy, convenient analysis.

SPHR, through its displays and speakers, attempts to boil down the entire conflict to the simplest possible point. SPHR’s display in the Redpath Library highlights the findings of the Goldstone Report, commissioned by the UN to ascertain responsibility for human rights abuses during Operation Cast Lead – Israel’s three-week conflict in the Gaza Strip. The Goldstone Report, faulted by many for an anti-Israel bias, accuses both Israel and Hamas of war crimes; Judge Goldstone himself was displeased when the UN Human Rights Committee took only Israel to task for its role in the conflict. SPHR’s display quotes selectively from the Goldstone Report, failing to acknowledge any of its findings against Hamas. It uses the Report as a starting point from which to demonize Israel and undermine its legitimacy as a state.

No intellectually honest person would dispute that thousands of innocent civilians have perished in Gaza, or that Gaza’s population continues to suffer. The essential question that the speakers and displays organized by SPHR fail to ask is, “Why?” Why might Israel have chosen to attack Gaza? Could Hamas bear some responsibility? One is not encouraged to place the Gaza tragedy in a wider historical and political context, but rather to blame Israel – the easy target – and move on. SPHR frequently uses this strategy – the most recent example being a motion that will be presented tomorrow at SSMU’s Winter General Assembly entitled “The Defence of Human Rights, Social Justice and Environmental Protection,” which isolates Israel as a violator of human rights deserving of our condemnation. SPHR misappropriates the cause of human rights in order to further its political agenda. These tactics represent a serious affront to the critical thinking abilities of McGill students. When all the answers are cut and dried, when everyone is divided neatly into “pro” this or “anti” that, where is there place for dialogue on campus? How can those who are emotionally invested in this conflict, or at least concerned as global citizens, move forward towards a more positive solution?

My endeavour here is not to defend one side or the other. I’m simply saying that SPHR’s methodology of tackling big problems with snappy slogans and narrow positions is not healthy. By no means should you, a globally conscious university student, ignore the plight of those in Gaza. Its residents have suffered terribly. But before you arrive at any conclusions as to who is to blame, and what is to be done, do your homework. Purporting to be an expert on Middle East politics because you know one side’s take on one issue is like calling yourself an expert in Shakespearean literature after reading one monologue from Hamlet. It’s intellectually dishonest. Instead, seek out numerous perspectives. Do your research and put issues like this in appropriate context. Help foster a campus atmosphere where dialogue and discussion are the rule, and polarizing polemic the exception.

Adam Winer is a U0 Arts Legacy student.

There are few parts of the legislative process as controversial as the “rider.”

Riders are unrelated provisos typically attached to bills that are politically impossible to veto or postpone, usually in order to pass unpopular legislation that would not get approval by itself. The idea is that politicians would rather pass the bulk of the bill than defeat the rider. This is how, for instance, a 2003 anti-drug proliferation law was tacked onto the US bill that created the AMBER Alert system for missing children. Effectively, riders help eager legislators bypass democratic checks and balances.

This week at the Winter General Assembly, SSMU has some legislation coming through, and one of the motions is loaded with a rider: the one entitled, “Resolution for the Defence of Human Rights, Social Justice, and Environmental Protection.”

The “be it resolved” clauses of this motion are probably commendable, while not groundbreaking: they reaffirm SSMU’s commitment to “human rights, social justice, and environmental protection,” and call for an expansion in the role of SSMU’s ethical investment oversight body so that they can also act in an advisory capacity to the McGill administration (supposing the administration is interested).

Then there’s the preamble. The preamble is composed of “whereas” clauses that are supposed to provide justification for the resolution, and accepting the resolution means affirming the preamble too. However, the whereas clauses cannot be debated or amended at a GA. And this preamble, in listing examples of potentially unethical investments, contains a brief mention of Burma – followed by two extensive paragraphs on the Palestinian Territories. No other zones of human tragedy are listed.

The problem, then, is that in its non-debatable, un-amendable clauses that have nothing to do with the actual action in the resolution, this motion accomplishes something far beyond the defence of human rights, social justice, and environmental protection.

First, the motion unfairly singles out Israel. (Full disclosure: I am the President of Hillel McGill.) Like all suffering, that of the Palestinians is deplorable. But demonizing Israel with no allowance for nuance, such as legitimate security concerns, or as if it is the worst or only global offender, is unfair. An equitable use of examples would list exhaustively or not at all.

Second, it attempts to link singling out Israel with supporting human rights and to create a stigma around defending the state.

Third, it asks McGill students to vote negatively about Israel in an indirect, roundabout, and non-debatable way.

And fourth, it associates Israel with divestment. Campaigns to direct boycotts, divestment, and sanctions against Israel have appeared on campuses across North America. This could potentially sow seeds for such a movement to fester at McGill later down the road.

I am willing to accept that the intentions behind this resolution are benign. The result, though, is that in the guise of moral imperative comes a convoluted excuse to bring up one group’s political agenda at the GA. Moreover, it effectively gets SSMU to accept a political position, but – by doing so through palatable “be it resolved” clauses and un-amendable “whereas” clauses – avoids actually asking students at McGill for their permission. And I understand that the preamble merely outlines “facts,” but a fact is never simply objective – it is shrouded in context and narrative.

When you vote on this motion tomorrow at 5 p.m. in the Shatner Cafeteria, think about whether you want GAs to be used as forums for political groups on campus to air their worldly grievances, or as opportunities to make important policy decisions for SSMU. And even if it’s the former, think about whether you want 600 students, speaking for thousands more, to adopt a position because of a resolution that slyly brings a narrow political agenda to the floor, or whether you want honest and inclusive motions that ask the students of McGill to make policy directly affecting the conduct of the Students’ Society.

Mookie Kideckel is a U2 History student, the President of Hillel McGill, and a Tribune columnist. You can reach him at [email protected].

Although I’ve played team sports since I was old enough to don a pinny, I’m usually quite awkward in locker rooms.

Part of it has to do with my upbringing. My family was never a particularly naked one – we didn’t do a lot of topless sunbathing in the backyard or play nude family Monopoly – so nakedness has always startled me. No matter what the context, nakedness, for me, is always a surprise because it makes the familiar seem so alien. Part of that comes from the way I look at peoples’ faces; I usually divide and analyze them when we talk. I notice earlobe size, unshaven under-chin spots, and eyebrow shape. I think things like “Hey, your nose looks like a whale’s tail.” You can imagine how invasive this is when people drop trou.

Luckily, locker rooms are not an excessively naked locale (contrary to what every cheerleader movie ever made would have you believe). Preteen and teen girls have an elaborate system of tricks to stay clothed for as long as possible – we’ve seen enough Frontline episodes to know that perverts with cameras lurk around every corner. Until a few days ago, I couldn’t recall the last time I saw a fully naked woman in a locker room. And I rather enjoyed that state of existence.

Unfortunately, I was recently forced to bone up on my naketiquette, after an unfortunate encounter at the gym. I have a really light course load this semester, so I go to the gym a lot. I’ve never rented a locker but I have my own lock, which I put in my bag with my gym clothes. It’s not incredibly convenient, but I’m not willing to pay for a locker. Unfortunately, there is a group of gym rats that keep their locks on the day-use lockers for weeks on end. (No one works out that long, notwithstanding the blonde girl seemingly always on the Elliptical of Life.) I went last week and the only open locker was at the far end of a bay, nestled in a crook between the row and the wall mirror. Luckily, it was late morning and there was a lull in activity when I locked away my clothing.

The gym usually gets busy at lunchtime, so I was happy to find the locker room relatively quiet when I returned from my workout. Turns out, the place wasn’t totally empty, though – at the locker next to mine was a sole sentry blocking any claim I had on my clothes: a sexagenarian standing butt-naked on a towel. Having never encountered this situation, I had three instincts: a) to pretend I was really interested in something else until she left on her own, b) to ask her nicely if she wouldn’t mind moving so I could get my bag, or c) to reflect on the distribution of her freckles. I chose a coward’s combination of the first two options and stood at the end of the row staring meaningfully at the region a foot above her shoulders and fake coughing futilely for attention.

Eventually, I left to inspect the water fountain. When I came back, she was wearing tights and a bra. Then I did another lap around the toilets. Pants. Progress. Thinking that she was close to dressed, I made eye contact, but only accidentally. I moved closer, trying to reestablish contact without breaking the personal-space bubble that her nakedness had increased tenfold. She glared at me as if she had caught me stealing.

Finally, as she was knotting her scarf, I caught her glance in the mirror. Without a word she moved aside. I was able to do the bra-double-up-and-switch and be on my way quickly, but by then I was late for class. Obviously, this wasn’t the worst locker room interaction ever, but what bugs me is that it was a completely preventable one. I entreat you, if you’re one of the girls who bogarts the changing room lockers for weeks on end, take your fucking gym clothes home with you once in a while. I want to know what it’s like to have the luxury of a locker that is non-nude-adjacent and doesn’t make me feel awkward.

Irony’s a funny thing. And whether it’s a minority-elected government preaching democracy to the global south or an American-educated, torture-supporting opposition leader speaking about returning Canada to its place of soft-power prominence in the world, Canadian politics is ripe with irony.

But sometimes irony is too tragic and enraging to be amusing – as it was when I watched our Haitian-born governor general address the tragic calamity that has befallen Haiti. Her words, as always, were touching and beautiful. But the irony of her speaking about rebuilding Haiti for its people was just too much for me to handle.

For you see, the governor general – in addition to being the representative of our government’s colonial roots – is the Head of State, and therefore of the head of the Canadian Armed Forces. The same Armed Forces that have now twice invaded Haiti, aided in the removal of its democratically elected leaders from power, helped install an unpopular puppet ruler, and opened Haiti’s fragile populist economy to pillaging by massive corporations, whether in sweatshops or sugar fields.

Of course, such invasions were couched in humanitarian terms. We, the Canadian public, were told that Aristide – the repeatedly elected populist leader of the country – was becoming a “thug.” Moreover, due to both its origins as a country of freed slaves and its recent decision to pursue a path of development in the interest of its own people rather than foreign corporations, Haiti, we are told, should be considered a “failed state” in need of Western salvation. Never mind the economic growth experienced under Aristide and never mind the billions of dollars in reparations still outstanding to the Haitian population from its former slave-driving colonial overlords.

In other words, without saying so, the message to the public was clear: a country of black people cannot be trusted to choose their own leaders, choose their own priorities, and decide their own futures. And the Canadian media’s response to the horrific earthquake has echoed this mentality. Just like in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the media coverage on the ground has followed a racist dichotomy: black thuggery and white heroism – be it aid workers or soldiers. Never mind that aid workers have been involved in profiteering off Haiti’s poverty for decades, nor that international armed forces have been accused of massacres. And never mind the countless (black) Haitian grassroots organizations that have been systematically excluded from Western financing. If our media are to be believed – which is never a great idea – we are left with the notion that the “White Man’s Burden” is alive and calling our names.

Of course, there’s a great profit to be made in tragedy, particularly when the interests of multinational corporate giants align with skewed, racialized liberal concern for “those poor people.” In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the city of New Orleans underwent a radical privatization of most of its services, from security forces to formerly-public social housing. Following the Southeast Asian tsunami, massive expanses of traditional fishing coast were handed over to large hotel chains as a part of the “rebuilding” and aid effort. This is what author Naomi Klein has called the “Shock Doctrine” – the newest phase of corporate capitalism, where disaster and calamity are milked for profit to their fullest extent.

So far, privatization, wage freezes, and a return to a submissive and dependent economy have been the precondition for Western aid in the wake of the Haitian earthquake. Before any doctor was sent from the United States to the impoverished and devastated country, 8,000 U.S. Marines were deployed to secure American strategic interests. These Marines have already been accused of prioritizing corporate plunderers over aid organization such as Doctors Without Borders in their control of the country’s airport. Just like Canada’s repeated military interventions in Haiti, right-wing economic policy has been conflated with democracy and aid in the aftermath of the earthquake.

Haiti was the first black nation in the world to free itself from the crippling shackles of colonialism. It is a nation with a history of strength in the face of adversity and independence in the face of calls for submission. In the wake of the devastating earthquake, people on the ground need our support and solidarity. They do not, however, need our neo-colonial yoke strapped over them under the guise of humanitarianism.