The first deadline to submit a project application to the Sustainability Projects Fund is almost upon us. April 2 will be the first of many landmarks after students and the administration formed an unprecedented partnership to create this fund last semester.
Letters to the Editor
Re: “National Insecurity” by Brendan Steven (16.03.10) In his article “National Insecurity,” Brendan Steven irresponsibly conflates two serious issues: counter-terrorism practices and the lengthening of prison sentences in Canada. After a lament about the difficulties of conducting counter-terrorism operations in Canada, Steven cited Stephen Harper’s attempts to increase prison sentences for crime among “actions that make Canada safer.
Students of Dr. Norman Cornett have obviously made quite a splash in the McGill/Montreal community over the last couple of years. This professor has given us an opportunity to use methodology that breaks through the limitations of our expectations and prejudices.
Re: “Presidential endorsement: Sarah Woolf” (9.3.10) The Tribune sounds downright patronizing when they tell a female political candidate to control her emotions. It is as stupid and condescending to tell a woman so accomplished as Sarah to “control her emotions” as it is to assume that emotionality might hinder anyone as “forceful and rational” as she.
Re: “Supressing debate: Ontario’s language politics” by Max Silverman (2.3.10) In his article, Max Silverman relies on two ad hominem arguments instead of critically analyzing the relevant issues. To me, and clearly the Ontario legislature, Peter Shurman’s judgment of the event “Israeli Apartheid Week” was accurate.
Re: “Dr. Cornett’s favorite play? Monty Python’s Spamalot.” by Anait Keuchguerian (9.2.10) Under the banner of academic transparency, a recent student letter advocated the screening of Alanis Obomsawin’s documentary about the remarkable teaching style of Norman Cornett, a professor whom McGill let go three years ago.
Re: “Why Gaza Remembrance Week misses the point” by Adam Winer (26.1.10) Although Adam Winer’s commentary concludes on a somewhat optimistic note – calling on us to have open dialogue and broaden our knowledge about the Arab-Israeli conflict – the manner in which he wrote his op-ed makes clear that he has yet to follow this important piece of advice.
Re: “Right Minded: An offensive motion” by Brendan Steven (09.02.10) Columnist Brendan Steven makes an argument that the upcoming (as of this letter) General Assembly motion on discriminatory groups constitutes a vote on freedom of speech. However, his analysis is significantly misguided.
Re: “Why Gaza Remembrance Week misses the point” by Adam Winer (09.02.10) Mr. Winer seems to have entirely missed the point in believing that SPHR should be neutral in its display and presentation of speakers for the Gaza Remembrance event. When an entire population becomes the target of Israeli amunition and unjustified sanctions, then logically people have to stand up in defence of human rights and to lobby governments and intellectuals to stop the suffering of the Palestinian people.
I think the Financial Ethics Review Committee cares a lot about human rights, social justice, and environmental protection. I also think that the Israeli army and the Israeli government sometimes do things that are morally questionable, if not repugnant. However, I think that Wednesday’s motion is not primarily a function of anybody’s commitment to human rights, social justice, and environmental protection, but of condemning the State of Israel.