Columbia faculty members walk out after pro-Palestinian protesters arrested - Page 101 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15325751
The laws that would target Brown are not for antisemitism.

The laws that would target Brown are anrt-divestment laws.

The exact mention would be found in the letter to Brown by all the Attorney Generals planning on taking legal action against Brown should the vote support divestment.

There is also a handy Wikipedia article:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BD ... ted_States
#15325757
Pants-of-dog wrote:At this point, we have laws that say that you cannot make the statement that Israel is an Apartheid state.

That would be illegal.

Thus, a protestor making the verified claim that Israel has been found responsible for Apartheid in Palestine by the world court would be illegal.

How does following this law help things?


Those laws are stupid and seem unconstitutional. So challenge the law in the courts, it will probably get overturned.
#15325758
Unthinking Majority wrote:Those laws are stupid and seem unconstitutional. So challenge the law in the courts, it will probably get overturned.


They're not. There is an actual federal ban on joining boycotts started by foreign governments without authorization from the federal government (BDS doesn't really fall into this category since it's a civil society initiative), with criminal penalties.
#15325779
Unthinking Majority wrote:How do you create a 1-state democracy with 2 main factions (Jews & Arabs) and then decide on any policy with any kind of consensus without starting endless disagreements? Majority vote won't solve anything, and 50/50 power-sharing will result in endless stalemates. Their ability to work together is terrible and their religions and cultures are vastly different. If the Palestinians wanted to live under Sharia Law and the Jews didn't there's already friction. How do you police 2 different legal system within the same polity?


Yasser Arafat was part of the general Arab pan-nationalist movement, so I think there remains a massive amount of Palestinians who would support secular law.

The Palestinian diaspora also has extensive experience with secular democratic societies, and I think that they would be incredibly useful in the promotion of secular law & order.

And, just as @wat0n said, a lot of Palestinians are enlightened and ready to have a peaceful state like the Jews. Of course, there are very bad actors, and that is why I am open to the idea of one of my coworkers that Hamas & Likkud form a sort of antagonistic symbiosis.

I think what would surprise people the most is that if the single state was formed today you would probably see by the year 2050 distinct cooperation blocks between conservative Jewish & Muslim parties and secular, liberal Jewish & Muslim parties.

As it stands, I assume you can go to cafes where young Arab & Jewish descent Israelis of different backgrounds sit and chat about philosophy and political and religious issues in jeans & tee shirts with very liberal, progressive perspectives. They also listen to indie rock or EDM from Europe & the Americas (and of course produced at home and throughout Asia, too!)... And, on Day One of the new single state, they would be showing people how it's done.

... And eventually you would literally have a center right party emerge of both Muslims & Jews who do not want to intermarry with each other and who have very different sources of their morality, but are both intent on having a secular state where abortion and gay marriage are illegal, and they are in each other's X feeds bitching about the liberal party and sharing subtitled Jordan Peterson videos.

Extreme ethnocentric Jewish & Muslim groups that want prolonged conflict and total separation would be politically ineffective before too long, and they would be kept to their own little self-made ghettos... But we'd have a combination of Jewish & Arab cops inside these ghettos insuring that they aren't forcing barbaric practices on youths that violate their basic rights, and we'd ensure they are receiving an education that does not make it impossible for them to integrate into the society if they so choose to one day.

I know it can work, and that the path toward this conclusion would be easier than continued conflict.
#15325791
Verv wrote:Yasser Arafat was part of the general Arab pan-nationalist movement, so I think there remains a massive amount of Palestinians who would support secular law.

The Palestinian diaspora also has extensive experience with secular democratic societies, and I think that they would be incredibly useful in the promotion of secular law & order.

Well on the other hand, Israel gave Gaza a chance for democracy and Gazans immediately elected a terrorist jihadist group in Hamas who immediately vanquished opposing parties and established a dictatorship and started launching rockets for the next 20 years to terrorize Israeli civilians. And good luck being gay in Gaza or the middle-east in general.

And, just as @wat0n said, a lot of Palestinians are enlightened and ready to have a peaceful state like the Jews. Of course, there are very bad actors, and that is why I am open to the idea of one of my coworkers that Hamas & Likkud form a sort of antagonistic symbiosis.

I think what would surprise people the most is that if the single state was formed today you would probably see by the year 2050 distinct cooperation blocks between conservative Jewish & Muslim parties and secular, liberal Jewish & Muslim parties.

As it stands, I assume you can go to cafes where young Arab & Jewish descent Israelis of different backgrounds sit and chat about philosophy and political and religious issues in jeans & tee shirts with very liberal, progressive perspectives. They also listen to indie rock or EDM from Europe & the Americas (and of course produced at home and throughout Asia, too!)... And, on Day One of the new single state, they would be showing people how it's done.

... And eventually you would literally have a center right party emerge of both Muslims & Jews who do not want to intermarry with each other and who have very different sources of their morality, but are both intent on having a secular state where abortion and gay marriage are illegal, and they are in each other's X feeds bitching about the liberal party and sharing subtitled Jordan Peterson videos.

Extreme ethnocentric Jewish & Muslim groups that want prolonged conflict and total separation would be politically ineffective before too long, and they would be kept to their own little self-made ghettos... But we'd have a combination of Jewish & Arab cops inside these ghettos insuring that they aren't forcing barbaric practices on youths that violate their basic rights, and we'd ensure they are receiving an education that does not make it impossible for them to integrate into the society if they so choose to one day.

I know it can work, and that the path toward this conclusion would be easier than continued conflict.

And what if you're wrong? If it all goes to hell again, which it almost certainly will, Israel has then given Palestinians including terrorists a ton of concessions and gained what exactly? The risks for Israel are significant and the gains what? If Palestinians want peace then they need to earn some trust. Trust isn't given, it's earned. I think you're being too idealistic and naive.

Having a typical democratic system of majority rule would be a terrible, terrible idea. It will very likely form into 2 main power camps of Jews vs Muslims.

I live in Canada. We have dealt with majority unity problems with the French in Quebec vs the rest of anglo Canada. And this is just over language and anglo/British vs French antagonisms, nothing religious or even remotely as divisive as Jews vs Muslims. Over the last 40 years Canada has had 2 different referendums for Quebec separating from Canada and forming their own country that have only narrowly failed . We have had a Quebec separatist party in our Parliament since that time who are fairly popular in Quebec. Most Quebec schools don't sing the Canadian national anthem or fly the Canadian flag.

If you want any kind of 1-state democratic system to work you need to give 50/50 power-sharing between Jews and Muslims. Democracy can decide representatives for each group. I don't know how or if that would work. Overall majority-rule won't work. Democrats and Republicans can't even broker any compromises FFS. It turns into a pure numbers game.

When India became independent from the British, Pakistan and Bangledesh (Muslim-majority regions) immediately broke away from India and became independent countries. They wanted self-determination. National groups want self-determination. That's the purpose of the "nation-state", which is how most of the world is organized. Multi-national countries are rife with conflict.
#15325796
Unthinking Majority wrote:Well on the other hand, Israel gave Gaza a chance for democracy and Gazans immediately elected a terrorist jihadist group in Hamas who immediately vanquished opposing parties and established a dictatorship and started launching rockets for the next 20 years to terrorize Israeli civilians. And good luck being gay in Gaza or the middle-east in general.


They live in undeveloped countries that haven't been stable since the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Of course things suck there - the average people can barely get on with life, of course they have weak democratic institutions.

I do not know much about the election that was held twenty years ago. I won't comment on it. However, going from a rather secular Pan-Arab nationalist to a jihadist party is odd - I assume the Mossad was involved in fabricating the results that they wanted to have.

And what if you're wrong? If it all goes to hell again, which it almost certainly will, Israel has then given Palestinians including terrorists a ton of concessions and gained what exactly? The risks for Israel are significant and the gains what? If Palestinians want peace then they need to earn some trust. Trust isn't given, it's earned. I think you're being too idealistic and naive.


Israel is an illegitimate state, and it has been a failed state that depends on the racialized partition of stolen land.

Israel cannot gain anything in any circumstance, since it is not a state with a future. It will be fought against as an illegitimate colony of the West until it is gone.

"Israel" is a non-entity in this since they do not even have a clear path towards legitimization.

The Jews who have moved there and have been born there are what we should consider as part of the future Palestinian state.

Having a typical democratic system of majority rule would be a terrible, terrible idea. It will very likely form into 2 main power camps of Jews vs Muslims.

I live in Canada. We have dealt with majority unity problems with the French in Quebec vs the rest of anglo Canada. And this is just over language and anglo/British vs French antagonisms, nothing religious or even remotely as divisive as Jews vs Muslims. Over the last 40 years Canada has had 2 different referendums for Quebec separating from Canada and forming their own country that have only narrowly failed . We have had a Quebec separatist party in our Parliament since that time who are fairly popular in Quebec. Most Quebec schools don't sing the Canadian national anthem or fly the Canadian flag.

If you want any kind of 1-state democratic system to work you need to give 50/50 power-sharing between Jews and Muslims. Democracy can decide representatives for each group. I don't know how or if that would work. Overall majority-rule won't work. Democrats and Republicans can't even broker any compromises FFS. It turns into a pure numbers game.

When India became independent from the British, Pakistan and Bangledesh (Muslim-majority regions) immediately broke away from India and became independent countries. They wanted self-determination. National groups want self-determination. That's the purpose of the "nation-state", which is how most of the world is organized. Multi-national countries are rife with conflict.


At least you have the benefit of these problems coming about through a rather understandable series of events with both parties have legitimate claims over what they have.

There's also the fact that more people die in a single afternoon in Gaza on average over the last year than have died in the last century of Quebecois unease, right? Or am I missing some numbers?
#15325814
Verv wrote:Yasser Arafat was part of the general Arab pan-nationalist movement, so I think there remains a massive amount of Palestinians who would support secular law.

The Palestinian diaspora also has extensive experience with secular democratic societies, and I think that they would be incredibly useful in the promotion of secular law & order.

And, just as @wat0n said, a lot of Palestinians are enlightened and ready to have a peaceful state like the Jews. Of course, there are very bad actors, and that is why I am open to the idea of one of my coworkers that Hamas & Likkud form a sort of antagonistic symbiosis.

I think what would surprise people the most is that if the single state was formed today you would probably see by the year 2050 distinct cooperation blocks between conservative Jewish & Muslim parties and secular, liberal Jewish & Muslim parties.

As it stands, I assume you can go to cafes where young Arab & Jewish descent Israelis of different backgrounds sit and chat about philosophy and political and religious issues in jeans & tee shirts with very liberal, progressive perspectives. They also listen to indie rock or EDM from Europe & the Americas (and of course produced at home and throughout Asia, too!)... And, on Day One of the new single state, they would be showing people how it's done.

... And eventually you would literally have a center right party emerge of both Muslims & Jews who do not want to intermarry with each other and who have very different sources of their morality, but are both intent on having a secular state where abortion and gay marriage are illegal, and they are in each other's X feeds bitching about the liberal party and sharing subtitled Jordan Peterson videos.

Extreme ethnocentric Jewish & Muslim groups that want prolonged conflict and total separation would be politically ineffective before too long, and they would be kept to their own little self-made ghettos... But we'd have a combination of Jewish & Arab cops inside these ghettos insuring that they aren't forcing barbaric practices on youths that violate their basic rights, and we'd ensure they are receiving an education that does not make it impossible for them to integrate into the society if they so choose to one day.

I know it can work, and that the path toward this conclusion would be easier than continued conflict.



This 100% . I can definitely see on the religious right the Arab Ra'am eventually coming to form a coalition with the Jewish Shas . And on the secular left the Israeli Hadash joining together with the Palestinian Democratic Alliance List .

Already , in regards to the before mentioned Hadash , Jews and Arabs have been coming together to discuss things and work out policy . And this is merely , within the context of party politics . There have also been non-partisan organizations who've been setting out to bring together Arabs and Jews in the land of Israel .










#15325938
Unthinking Majority wrote:Those laws are stupid and seem unconstitutional. So challenge the law in the courts, it will probably get overturned.


So you are now changing your argument and no longer support the claim that everything would be just fine if everyone just followed the laws.

And there is no reason to think they would be overturned.

They are laws in the USA and therefore are ultimately under the purview of the SCOTUS. This is the same Trump packed court that openly lied in their judgement that took away abortion rights.
#15325997
A major organizing body for university faculty is pressuring Muhlenberg College to explain its firing of a tenured Jewish anti-Zionist professor for “bias-related conduct” over an Instagram post that encouraged “shaming Zionists.”

The Pennsylvania liberal arts college’s decision to fire Maura Finkelstein, which it has not acknowledged publicly, came after months of scrutiny surrounding her anti-Zionist activism, and complaints from Jewish students and faculty on campus. The complaints resulted in the opening of a federal Title VI investigation against the school.

The Association for American University Professors told the college in a letter dated Tuesday that it was pressing Finkelstein’s case. It posted the letter on its website on Thursday, the same day that The Intercept, a news site that is heavily critical of Israel, published a story alleging that Finkelstein had become the first tenured professor to be fired over anti-Israel activism.

“The dismissal raises serious concerns about academic freedom at Muhlenberg,” the AAUP said in the letter. The organization further accused the college of not following due process in firing a tenured professor.

According to the AAUP’s letter, an investigation at Muhlenberg recommended in early May that Finkelstein be fired “for just cause.” The school told her that her employment would end May 31 and her appeal was recently rejected, according to the letter.

Representatives for Muhlenberg did not respond to a JTA request for comment, nor did Finkelstein. Finkelstein was removed from the school’s website sometime in the last month, according to records preserved by the Internet Archive.

“If I can be fired for criticizing a foreign government, calling attention to a genocide and using my academic expertise as an anthropologist to draw attention to how power operates, then no one is safe,” Finkelstein told the news site Inside Higher Ed in an emailed statement on Friday. “I wasn’t fired for anything I said in the classroom. I was fired because of a charge brought by a student I had never met, let alone taught, who had been surveying my social media account for months.

She added, “This isn’t about student safety, this is about silencing dissent. We are witnessing a new McCarthyism and we should all be terrified of its implications.”

According to Inside Higher Ed, Finkelstein is pursuing an additional appeal and is still drawing a salary from Muhlenberg.

Finkelstein first drew public attention in late October, shortly after the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas war, when pro-Israel Muhlenberg graduates launched an online petition calling for her to be fired. The petition, which now has more than 8,000 signatures, cited her social media posts from shortly after Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack that criticized student fundraising for Israel. “Students raising money for genocide,” she posted at the time.

She was suspended from the school in January, according to reports in the student newspaper and elsewhere. January was also when the U.S. Department of Education opened its Title VI investigation into Muhlenberg for discrimination related to ethnicity or shared ancestry, which remains active.

The investigation centered solely around Finkelstein, according to the letter that triggered it, which linked to the Change.org petition calling for her firing.

An anthropology professor at Muhlenberg with a PhD from Stanford University who earned tenure in 2021, Finkelstein does not study the Middle East but has been a vocal pro-Palestinian activist since shortly after Oct. 7. Her research focuses on urban and medical anthropology, according to her now-deleted faculty page..... Muhlenberg’s decision to terminate Finkelstein rested on her social media activity, specifically a post she shared that called for “shaming Zionists, not welcoming them into your spaces, making them feel uncomfortable, not normalizing Zionists, calling them racists, and not allowing Zionists to take up space.” In the online petition, Muhlenberg alumni also alleged that Finkelstein has harassed pro-Israel students and alums online.

According to the AAUP letter, a Muhlenberg panel determined in May that her posts had violated the school’s code of conduct and recommended that she be fired.

The decision to terminate her raised concerns with the AAUP, which recently relaxed its longstanding stance against academic boycotts as calls for universities to boycott Israel have proliferated.

“In addition to extramural speech, Professor Finkelstein’s case presents additional issues of potential interest to our members and to the academic community at large,” Anita Levy, the group’s senior program director, wrote in the Tuesday letter to Muhlenberg President Kathleen Herring. She added that AAUP would be convening its own group to investigate Finkelstein’s case in more detail.

Levy continued, “These include whether expressions of opposition to Zionism or the government of Israel can be tantamount to antisemitism, discrimination, and harassment of students; how compliance with equal opportunity requirements on a campus intersects with institutional policies governing academic freedom, due process, and faculty governance; and the extent to which controversy stemming from the war in Gaza can affect campus conditions for academic freedom and due process.”

On the social network X, where Finkelstein shared photos Thursday from a New York pro-Palestinian protest at which Lebanese flags could also be seen and chants of “From the river to the sea” could be heard, the professor praised The Intercept for its article about her.

“You either stand with oppressed people and fight for justice and liberation or you align yourself with power & fight in the service of white supremacy and fascism,” Finkelstein wrote.

Also on Thursday, the editor of American Anthropologist, the journal for the American Anthropological Association, announced that Finkelstein had joined the staff as an associate editor. The masthead lists her as an independent scholar — the only one among more than a dozen to lack an institutional affiliation. Jewish Telegraphic Agency
#15326019
[quote]If the system worked fairly, the rate of Black men shot by police would be as low as the number of white college kids shot by police.[/quote]
If the (Cultural Marxist) system worked fairly then these so called Black men (I mean who on the forum is even qualified to know what a man is) would be murdering, raping, thieving, mugging and engaging in violence at the same low rates as so called White college kids. On average Jews are more intelligent, have higher IQs, do better academically and earn more than Gentiles. But when we look at Chess Grand Masters and Nobel prize winners the proportion of Jews became insane. Anyone who knows anything about statistics knows this is the effect of the tails of Normal and Normal like probability distributions. Small changes to the mean of a distribution can produce large differences in the tails.

Black male violence works similarly to Jewish IQ. So the average Black man is some what more criminal, violent and likely to commit murder than the average White college kid. However when we look at the extreme of the distribution, we must expect the most violent, psychotic and psychopathic individuals to be massively, massively over represented amongst Black men. The consequences of policing these men has inevitable consequences for them but also for the communities in which they live.
#15326066
Pants-of-dog wrote:So you are now changing your argument and no longer support the claim that everything would be just fine if everyone just followed the laws.

And there is no reason to think they would be overturned.

They are laws in the USA and therefore are ultimately under the purview of the SCOTUS. This is the same Trump packed court that openly lied in their judgement that took away abortion rights.

I think that antisemitism law is illegal and I think most legal scholars would agree. Hopefully the SCOTUS will too. Lawmakers in individual states should also follow the law and are capable of breaking it.

If Hezbollah didn't keep illegally attacking Israel in solidarity with Hamas' illegal terrorist attacks there would be no need for Israel to defend itself and launch strikes into Lebanon at Hezbollah targets, also unfortunately killing some civilians I assume. All this could have been avoided if everyone just followed the law post-WWII.
#15326090
Unthinking Majority wrote:I think that antisemitism law is illegal and I think most legal scholars would agree. Hopefully the SCOTUS will too. Lawmakers in individual states should also follow the law and are capable of breaking it.


It does not matter what a majority of legal scholars think if a majority of SCOTUS judges agree differently. And these judges may decide to uphold the antisemitism law for political reasons, like they did with abortion and affirmative action.

If Hezbollah didn't keep illegally attacking Israel in solidarity with Hamas' illegal terrorist attacks there would be no need for Israel to defend itself and launch strikes into Lebanon at Hezbollah targets, also unfortunately killing some civilians I assume. All this could have been avoided if everyone just followed the law post-WWII.


Apartheid was legal right after WWII, and was not considered a crime against humanity until 1966. In that respect, the Israeli government did follow post WWII laws.

And yet people in Gaza (including Hamas) did not feel this was perfectly acceptable.
#15326101
Pants-of-dog wrote:It does not matter what a majority of legal scholars think if a majority of SCOTUS judges agree differently. And these judges may decide to uphold the antisemitism law for political reasons, like they did with abortion and affirmative action.

The SCOTUS hasn't ruled on the antisemitism laws so your speculations are unfounded.

Affirmative action is racially and sexually discriminatory and should be made illegal for those reasons. Unless you believe organizations should be able to discriminate against women and racial minorities based on their gender and skin colour.

Your personal feelings on abortion laws aren't relevant to their constitutionality.

Apartheid was legal right after WWII, and was not considered a crime against humanity until 1966. In that respect, the Israeli government did follow post WWII laws.

And yet people in Gaza (including Hamas) did not feel this was perfectly acceptable.

Yes apartheid was perfectly acceptable in Muslim countries and still is, as well as in Gaza. For some reason I've never heard you complain about that. Many indigenous groups in Canada also have apartheid policies on their reserves and racist policies in regards to marriage etc and yet never a peep from you.

Different Muslim groups are also committing genocide against Israeli Jews and I haven't heard you complain about that either, in fact you specifically claimed indifference about the Oct 7 genocide. Amazing that many pro-Palestinian protestors in general do the same.

The only logical conclusion here is that don't actually care about apartheid or genocide as a matter of principle, you only care when it happens to people from the races you care about. In fact so many of your political opinions typically seem to be determined by which race is being negatively affected or not and makes for very boring discussions. I'm fairly certain I can predict all of your political positions based on the races involved.
#15326103
The Apartheid nonsense has already been debunked, although leftists do want to bring segregation and numerus clausus back, to keep the Jews out of universities. I mean, this is evident by their active attempts to bar Jewish from campus during the encampments unless they, and only them, were subject to specific litmus tests that no other students were subject to.

This is just in line with the killing of Jews by protesters out of campus, something people like @Pants-of-dog have absolutely no problem with.
#15326389
Unthinking Majority wrote:The SCOTUS hasn't ruled on the antisemitism laws so your speculations are unfounded.


Since my speculations do not depend on the SCOTUS ruling on antisemitism laws, it is still logical and still shows that even anti-democratic laws can be allowed by judges for political reasons.

Yes apartheid was perfectly acceptable in Muslim countries and still is, as well as in Gaza. For some reason I've never heard you complain about that. Many indigenous groups in Canada also have apartheid policies on their reserves and racist policies in regards to marriage etc and yet never a peep from you.

Different Muslim groups are also committing genocide against Israeli Jews and I haven't heard you complain about that either, in fact you specifically claimed indifference about the Oct 7 genocide. Amazing that many pro-Palestinian protestors in general do the same.

The only logical conclusion here is that don't actually care about apartheid or genocide as a matter of principle, you only care when it happens to people from the races you care about. In fact so many of your political opinions typically seem to be determined by which race is being negatively affected or not and makes for very boring discussions. I'm fairly certain I can predict all of your political positions based on the races involved.


If your only argument is that you think I am a Big Bad Mean Hypocritical Meanypoops, who cares?

https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/07/19/wor ... -apartheid

    World Court Finds Israel Responsible for Apartheid

    The International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued an advisory opinion on July 19, 2024, with significant consequences for human rights protections in Palestine under Israel’s 57-year occupation. The opinion stems from a December 2022 request by the United Nations General Assembly to the court to consider the legal consequences of Israel’s policies and practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

    The following quote can be attributed to Tirana Hassan, Human Rights Watch Executive Director:

    "In a historic ruling the International Court of Justice has found multiple and serious international law violations by Israel towards Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including, for the first time, finding Israel responsible for apartheid. The court has placed responsibility with all states and the United Nations to end these violations of international law. The ruling should be yet another wake up call for the United States to end its egregious policy of defending Israel’s oppression of Palestinians and prompt a thorough reassessment in other countries as well."


So we see that Israel has been deemed as implementing Apartheid by the World Court.

Now, you previously argued that Apartheid was a clear case of injustice and thus warranted divestment even when there was a diversity of people in whatever group was doing the divestment.

Logically, this finding of Israeli Apartheid should then warrant divestment as the protesters claim.
#15326586
Pants-of-dog wrote:Since my speculations do not depend on the SCOTUS ruling on antisemitism laws, it is still logical and still shows that even anti-democratic laws can be allowed by judges for political reasons.

Which court or judges have ruled to uphold these laws as constitutional? More bad faith arguing from you as always.

If your only argument is that you think I am a Big Bad Mean Hypocritical Meanypoops, who cares?

No it's not my only argument, it's just one of many. You have many racist double-standards.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/07/19/wor ... -apartheid

So we see that Israel has been deemed as implementing Apartheid by the World Court.

Now, you previously argued that Apartheid was a clear case of injustice and thus warranted divestment even when there was a diversity of people in whatever group was doing the divestment.

Logically, this finding of Israeli Apartheid should then warrant divestment as the protesters claim.

If this is true then indigenous reserves in Canada also constitute racial segregation and apartheid by their definition and should be deemed illegal, and those policies of racial segregation should be dismantled and the people allowed to live on reserve land should not be restricted or discriminated against based on their race. Therefore caucasians or people of any other race should be able to live on reserves. I assume you agree with this?
#15326677
Unthinking Majority wrote:Which court or judges have ruled to uphold these laws as constitutional?


That is not how it works.

First the laws need to be passed before they can be challenged.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/07/19/wor ... -apartheid

If this is true then indigenous reserves in Canada also constitute racial segregation and apartheid by their definition and should be deemed illegal, and those policies of racial segregation should be dismantled and the people allowed to live on reserve land should not be restricted or discriminated against based on their race. Therefore caucasians or people of any other race should be able to live on reserves. I assume you agree with this?


If you are talking about blood quanta as a means of belonging to an Indigenous community, that was imposed on Indigenous communities by the federal government. Your whataboutism is blaming the wrong people.

Now, back to the topic:

Since Israel is engaged in Apartheid, divestment should be morally justified, even for diverse campuses. That is your argument, correct?
  • 1
  • 99
  • 100
  • 101
  • 102
  • 103
  • 104

I will add another point. Be considerate of WHERE[…]

New poll: 87% of Harris voters believe it will be[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Not much of worth in terms of analysis here, but […]

What I've come to realize is that wages are not l[…]