Canada's Debate

By now everyone and their mother has heard that Sid Ryan has convinced the University-working members to lead a general boycott of Israel. I’ve recently tried to avoid commenting on Israel because I always end up offending someone that I care about, but in this case there seems to be a clear delineation between right and wrong, and since they are clearly in the wrong I see no danger in calling them out for it. Now before I explain just how wrong they are, let me start with a definition, in this case for the word “hypocrisy.”

a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.

Note how the definition makes mention of “moral” or “principle” beliefs? These are beliefs which are absolute; they are convictions which are universal and central to one’s thinking. Lets now consider Mr. Ryan’s position, and that of the sheep that followed him.

Israel is supposedly a colonial power which has supposedly committed War Crimes against a supposedly oppressed minority group, creating an Apartheid environment that echoes South Africa. Now I’m not going to argue the first two points here and now; the truth is I think that there are genuine grounds for debate on the subject of Israeli colonialism, and Israeli War Crimes. However, if Mr. Ryan’s position is that the underlying nature of the State of Israel can be so easily descried, and that those actions reveal a nature which is abhorrent enough to warrant a boycott like the one discussed, then it is the height of hypocrisy that he has not proposed a similar boycott against Sudan, China, Russia, Pakistan, Iraq, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, and half of Sub-Saharan Africa… And that’s ignoring the fact that Hamas, as the legitimate political leadership in Gaza, has engaged in countless War Crimes themselves… I’ve seen no indication of a CUPE boycott of them.

What does all of this prove? Well, I won’t accuse Sid of anti-semitism just yet, but it is pretty clear that his outrage is motivated by something other than any sort of deep-felt moral or principled conviction. That makes him a hypocrit, and puts him quite clearly “in the wrong.”

Of course none of this explains what any of this has to do with the Union’s mandated purpose, which is to further the opportunities for its employees, and work to create a better working environment. Local, provincial and even Federal political involvement by the Union can at least partially be justified by saying “in the end, it helps our workers.” What does leading them down the road of selective political indignation accomplish, except the dimishment of a major union at a time when labour has serious concerns?