Letters to the editor

Re: “Galloway incites protest,” News, Nov. 17, 2010
I found it very ironic to read about the anti-Semitic graffiti just a page after the Galloway article.
Anti-Semitism on campus is not a new issue; both the Galloway event and the swastika graffiti would attest to that, but at the end of the second article “Swastika graffiti found inside Scott Library book,” there’s a quote from Yusuf Mohamed, vice-president of equity of the York Fed- eration of Students (YFS), expressing disappointment and disgust with the graffiti.
“This incident comes under the realm of racism and discrimination,” he says. Well, Mohamed, you and the YFS have contributed to this discrimination by bringing George Galloway to campus.
The    YFS    brought    Galloway, a “human rights” activist who lends support to groups defined as terrorist organizations by the Canadian government, to our campus which further divides the student body and could encourage hate crimes such as this graffiti.
Galloway openly supports Hamas, and donated money to them. Hamas is the biggest barrier to peace [in the Middle East], an extreme terrorist organization responsible for countless innocent lives lost, icluding Palestinian lives.
A supporter of Hamas, like Galloway, is a supporter of terrorism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, racism, and sexism; yet the YFS brought him to campus, and in the same breath criticised “discrimination.” Oh, the irony.
Congratulations, YFS: you have officially and successfully made me, as an Israeli and Jewish student, fear coming to school, feel frightened to walk on campus, and feel ashamed to belong to a university that makes me feel this way.
Liya Shalmiev


Re: “Galloway incites protest,” News, Nov. 17, 2010
I was deeply offended and taken aback by Yuni Kim’s coverage of George Galloway’s visit to York University. As someone who personally attended the event, I would like to draw attention to what should have been the highlight of the evening.
The night of Nov. 16, I saw Galloway nobly attempt to spread awareness about the plight of the oppressed peoples of Palestine and Afghanistan.
His practical message for the preservation of a people’s self-determination against oppressive occupation was reiterated by Holocaust survivor Suzanne Weiss and other members of the York community, who made it clear criticism of the Israeli government and anti-Semitism must not be confused.
As Kim’s article failed to address, George Galloway did not “financially support” Hamas. He donated money to the health minister of Gaza (who happens to be a member of Hamas) to buy medical supplies and wheelchairs for Palestinian civilians.
The speeches were followed by an opportunity for audience members to engage in discussion. The floor was opened to anyone who wanted to provide their own insight and ask Galloway any questions they may have regarding his views.
If the pro-Israeli protestors had actually participated in this interactive discussion rather than engage in aggressive, intimidating chanting outside the cinema as part of an immature attempt to suppress free speech, they may have more effectively been able to give voice to their opinions. Of course, baseless accusations of anti-Semitism and terrorist support would not have held strong in a space for intellectual discussion.
All in all, the event spoke for itself. It was a huge success, as almost 700 attendees took part in a broader struggle for freedom and sovereignty.
Hibah Sidat


Re: “Galloway incites protest,” News, Nov. 17, 2010
Much of the media coverage and dialogue swirling around George Galloway’s controversial and provocative speech on campus misses the point.
Many were angered, frustrated and disappointed the York administration allowed a blatantly hurtful and divisive personality to be permitted to speak under the guise of freedom of speech.
A clear attempt to incite hateful feelings and demonize a minority group on campus is by no means welcome and should not be allowed; however, while I wholeheartedly disagree with Galloway’s ideology, his opinion is his prerogative, and not my primary concern at the moment. I take issue with the fact the York Federation of Students (YFS) brought him in and arranged the event.
Why would the YFS – the student leadership of the university – target Jewish and pro- Israel students by bringing in such a provocative and offensive individual? I guarantee you those making the decision to host Galloway wanted to stir the pot. They knew this would infuriate Jewish groups, Jewish students and pro-Israel supporters.
They knew this would cause a throbbing pain, a fearful environment and a helpless feeling amongst many students. They knew it would create a wedge between Jews and Muslims.
George Galloway donated money to Hamas and supports Hezbollah, which are both considered terrorist organizations by the Canadian government.
It is appalling the YFS would instigate such division. There are plenty of student clubs who represent minority viewpoints, some of them controversial. It is unacceptable and deplorable the YFS would involve themselves in the fray.
Alas, this is not a surprise. The YFS will apparently stop at nothing to pursue their own partisan political agenda. Bringing in Galloway was the latest example, an instance where they sacrificed unity in favour of animosity and their own political desires. They do not represent students on campus.
The evening Galloway spoke was an interesting day for this institution. Let’s just hope it was also an eye-opener for those scrutinizing the YFS.
David Elmaleh


Re: “When the pot no longer needs stirring,” Editorial, Nov. 17, 2010
When I picked up the Excalibur today to review the coverage of the George Galloway event, I was shocked to see the amount of misrepresentation slanted against the YFS and Galloway.
The YFS campaign Xpressions Against Oppression is for a universal cause. You can’t argue freedom of speech and right of assembly are not constitutional rights, and so I would’ve thought this something no one on campus could disagree with. Apparently I am wrong.
Contrary to the editorial’s view, the YFS has no personal political agenda in inviting Galloway to speak, just as they have invited a wide array of speakers before this. Galloway’s speech was empowering, truthful and catered to every single individual’s right to freedom of speech and being critical of any government and its policies.
After all, isn’t that what democracy is all about? If that is considered having a “political agenda,” then aren’t we all guilty of it?
In response to the editor’s spiteful question about “what exactly those who support Galloway got out of the speech,” I’d like to say I learned about the importance of standing up for justice and that continuing to resist against war is more than just holding a peace poster.
To make peace, we have to do more than just speak of peace. We have to get out into the world and show that we are not afraid: not afraid of the struggle and pain; not afraid of standing for peace and equality; and certainly not afraid of the lies that we will most definitely be fighting.
Ginan Meerwali
Re: “When the pot no longer needs stir- ring,” Editorial, Nov. 17, 2010
John Nyman’s editorial tells me he was either not present at Galloway’s speech or he was not paying attention.
He makes it seem as if human rights abuse, oppression and the unjust wars that are happening with Canadian complicity are not “concerns common to all students.”
Galloway’s talk was about Canada’s military involvement in Afghanistan, Canada’s increasingly hostile environment to political dissent and Canada’s continued support of Israel. The disturbing request for objectivity in Nyman’s piece where he argues for a “neutral forum” is misleading because human rights are not debatable.
It would be absurd to bring in a white supremacist speaker to balance out the viewpoints of Angela Davis who was with us last year or, better yet, a homophobic speaker to balance out Judy Shepard. I am not sure that I would like a pro-war speaker on campus to balance out the anti-war views of Galloway.
George Galloway may incite different feelings in different people and not everyone is obliged to agree with him. Nonetheless, he was unjustly banned from entering Canada because of his political beliefs. The event gave Galloway a voice in one of Canada’s best universities.
This forum brought together those who agree and disagree with his work, and students were given the opportunity to speak with and challenge Galloway’s politics. We need more events like this one.
Canova Kutuk
Re: “When the pot no longer needs stir- ring,” Editorial, Nov. 17, 2010
I am extremely impressed with the quality of thoughtful, intelligent and insightful pieces in the Nov. 17 issue of Excalibur.
I would like to praise Arts Editor John Nyman in particular for his editorial; Nyman brings up critical questions regarding politics, both on campus and within the York Federation of Students (YFS). There is no doubt the choice to host George Galloway was extremely provocative and, I would argue, directly political.
Moreover, the purpose of a student federation on campus should be to provide a safe community environment where students can engage in intelligent discourse. It is absolutely wrong for an elected student federation to push a political agenda within a democratic campus atmosphere.
I invite the YFS to make a public statement on what plans they have to build bridges be- tween students on campus so as to ensure that every student, regardless of where they stand politically, feels represented.
Sasha Harris