The National Post vs the Globe and Mail
Every once in a while you encounter a story that lets you compare, side by side, the coverage Canadians get from these two major dailies.
In this case, it was the decision by the Canadian Union of Public Employees to support an international campaign "of boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel" is response to the security wall.
The Globe and Mail and the National Post both carried the story. The Globe and Mail carried the Canadian Press newswire story, while the National Post had their own reporter, Melissa Leong, research and write the piece.
I'm going to colour code the analysis -- red for each paragraph neutral or generally supportive of the move, blue for each paragraph containing criticism.
Here is the Globe piece, broken down:
Ontario's largest public sector union has voted to support an international campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel.
Delegates to the Canadian Union of Public Employees convention in voted overwhelmingly Saturday to support the campaign until Israel recognizes the Palestinian right to self-determination.
The global campaign started last July and has been supported by many North American churches, 20 Quebec organizations, and others.
The Israeli “apartheid wall” has been condemned and determined illegal under international law, CUPE said in a release.
Under the resolution approved by delegates, CUPE Ontario will develop an education campaign about the issue, including Canada's political and economic support for Israeli policies, similar to the campaign developed by CUPE British Columbia.
Canada has a free trade agreement with Israel, the only such agreement this country has outside of the western hemisphere, the union noted.
In Ontario, the liquor control board carried more than 30 Israeli wines, many produced in the occupied Golan Heights, CUPE said.
“Boycott, divestment and sanction worked to end apartheid in South Africa,” said Katherine Nastovski, chairwoman of the CUPE Ontario international solidarity committee. “We believe the same strategy will work to enforce the rights of Palestinian people, including the right of refugees to return to their homes and properties.”
Not a single word in opposition of the move. No inkling of criticism, from any quarter, of the decision.
Now the National Post:
The Ontario wing of Canada's largest union has voted to join an international boycott campaign against Israel "until that state recognizes the Palestinian right to self-determination."
Sid Ryan, the Canadian Union of Public Employees Ontario president, said 896 members voted unanimously at its convention in Ottawa on Saturday to support the campaign.
"This is not an attack on Jewish people. It's [an objection to] the state of Israel's policies on Palestinians," Mr. Ryan said yesterday. "They say they are creating an independent state but they're not giving them the tools to do that."
Steven Schulman, Ontario regional director of the Canadian Jewish Congress, called the vote "outrageous."
"For a respected labour union to engage in such a vote, which is completely one-sided and based on mistruths, is shocking," he said.
He charged that CUPE Ontario's press release about the vote "reads like a piece of propaganda." He said Israel has recognized the Palestinian right to self-govern and has been engaged in a peace process.
Under the resolution approved by delegates, the union -- which represents more than 200,000 workers -- will also develop an education campaign about the issue, according to a press release. The statement condemned the West Bank barrier erected by Israel.
"The Israeli 'apartheid wall' has been condemned and determined illegal under international law," the release reads.
In a reference to boycotts, it also notes, "Canada has a free trade agreement with Israel, the only such agreement this country has outside of the Western hemisphere."
"In Ontario, the Liquor Control Board carried more than 30 Israeli wines, many produced in the occupied Golan Heights."
Katherine Nastovski, chair of the CUPE Ontario international solidarity committee, is quoted in the release as saying, "Boycott, divestment and sanction worked to end apartheid in South Africa.
"We believe the same strategy will work to enforce the rights of Palestinian people, including the right of refugees to return to their homes and properties."
Mr. Ryan said the global campaign started last July and has been supported by 170 organizations around the world. "It's a human rights issue," he said.
He said the union has also come out in the past against attacks by Palestinian extremists and suicide bombers.
CUPE Ontario's next step, he said, is to try to get other unions such as the Ontario Federation of Labour and the Canadian Labour Congress to join the campaign of "boycott, divestment and sanctions."
In recent years, CUPE Ontario has called for the end of Israeli military action and a withdrawal from the occupied territories. The executive of the Canadian Labour Congress crafted a resolution in 2002 comparing Palestinians in the occupied territories to blacks living under apartheid in South Africa.
Ed Morgan, national president of the CJC, said the organization will continue to engage in discussions with unions and added he does not think the vote was representative of CUPE and CUPE Ontario. The vote occurred on the Jewish Sabbath and there was no organized Jewish presence at the convention, he said.
"Boycotts are not the answer to political disputes. Dialogue is the answer to political disputes," Mr. Morgan said.
You'll notice I coloured one paragraph purple in the National Post piece. That's because when you feel the need to have to explicitly say that you are against suicide bombers, you already have a public relations problem on your hands. So even though the text is of the quote says something positive about the union's stand with regards to the Middle East, the fact that it even appears tends to reinforce the notion that the union is being led by meddling radicals.
In any case, the story is interesting in the way it shows how Canadians are getting the news. The National Post is often criticized for being some sort of right-wing propaganda rag. In Canadian terms, that may very well be true. We're so used to one-sided liberal reporting that anything approaching balance must seem like a neck-wrenching shift to the right.
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
"Delegates...voted overwhelmingly Saturday to support the campaign until Israel recognizes the Palestinian right to self-determination."
That must be a fact,isn't it? That's why it's so dangerous to have outlets, even as seemingly bland as the Post, offering opinions that differ from the mainstream. Let's hope the Human Rights Commissions are monitoring the situation.
Canada, as the Star noted today in an editorial, is a LIBERAL democracy, with everything that connotes.
Posted by: Drained Brain at May 29, 2006 09:36 PM
I can't say that I agree with your politics (Janke), but you do make your point. Some more critical journalism would be nice to see in general. Thanks.
Posted by: CdnTarHeel at May 29, 2006 09:38 PM
Democracy union style. On such an important issue why wasn't the whole 200,00 members balloted.
Stupid qustion it would not have passed.
Posted by: Pissedoff at May 29, 2006 10:13 PM
What the hell is a union doing voting on this issue anyway? Don't they have anything better to stick their nose in?
Posted by: confused at May 29, 2006 10:37 PM
You'll notice I coloured one paragraph purple in the National Post piece. That's because when you feel the need to have to explicitly say that you are against suicide bombers, you already have a public relations problem on your hands.
Or you feel it necessary to preemptively counter the inevitable charge of anti-semitism, because CW equates criticism of the Jewish state's policies as criticism of Judaism and/or its adherents. That a representative of a religious/ethnic interest group is asked to respond to criticism of political policy builds on this. Take the Israeli/Palestinian angle out of this piece and you have a straight piece on a human rights statement.
Is Ryan's statement flawed for being reflexively defensive? Morgan implies the vote was held on Saturday to supress Jewish opinion, as if the union's reps decided to get up one morning and hold a spur of the moment vote without preamble or discussion, despite CUPE Ontario having been on this track for at least a couple of years (as Leong notes).
The job of journalists should be to report, not to criticize. That falls to pundits and spinsters. The 'fair and balanced'(tm) line conveniently obscures that journalistic media aren't supposed to be 'neutral', they're supposed to be objective. Just the facts, ma'am.
Maybe, to a point, the Post piece reports the facts more completely (CUPE statement + CJC response), but why not commentary from Jewish CUPE members? Or in the interest of balance, a Canadian Jewish group or congregation critical of Israeli policy?
Posted by: Don at May 29, 2006 11:00 PM
Yes those poor Palestinians they elected these terrorists. fFrom Yahoo news
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060530/ts_nm/mideast_dc
Top Hamas leader rejects Abbas referendum plan By Jalil Hamid
Mon May 29, 9:55 PM ET
PUTRAJAYA, Malaysia (Reuters) - Palestinian Foreign Minister Mahmoud al-Zahar on Monday rejected as a waste of time and money a referendum President Mahmoud Abbas has threatened to call unless Hamas changes its policy toward Israel.
Zahar is a senior Hamas leader and his remarks were the Islamic militant group's clearest rejection yet of a referendum, underlining the widening rift between Abbas's Fatah faction and Hamas, the governing party since it won elections in January.
"Nobody will recognize Israel. There is no need for a referendum," Zahar, reiterating Hamas's long-held policy toward the Jewish state, told Reuters during a visit to Malaysia for a meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement.
"We are not afraid of a referendum but it's a waste of time and money," he said.
In violence in the Gaza Strip, four Palestinian militants were killed in a gunbattle with Israeli troops which was followed by a helicopter missile strike, as they attempted to launch makeshift rockets into Israel, witnesses said.
The militants were all members of Islamic Jihad, witnesses said. Six other civilians were also wounded in the incident.
The Israeli army confirmed details of the incident and said it was the first time troops had clashed with Palestinian militants while inside the Gaza Strip since withdrawing from the territory last August after 28 years of occupation.
The troops returned to their base in Israel after the clash ended, the army said.
NO CASH
The Hamas-led Palestinian Authority is cash-strapped because the United States and its allies have cut off aid to the body to pressure Hamas to renounce violence and recognize Israel. Hamas's charter calls for the destruction of the Jewish state.
On Thursday, Abbas set a 10-day deadline for Hamas to accept his proposal that the Palestinians agree to a peace settlement if Israel withdraws from all of the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem, occupied since the 1967 Middle East war.
Abbas said if Hamas refused to back the proposal he would call a referendum on it in July.
He opened talks in the West Bank city of Ramallah on Sunday with Hamas militants and other factions, trying to persuade them to accept the proposal.
But Hamas's official representative did not attend Monday's session, saying he was blocked by Israeli checkpoints. More meetings are expected throughout the week.
Hamas has scorned Abbas's peace proposal, which was drawn up by Palestinian leaders held in Israeli jails.
Abbas, a moderate, was elected by a landslide in early 2005 in a presidential ballot that Hamas did not contest.
The prisoners' plan, based on previous Arab peace initiatives, calls for a Palestinian state alongside Israel and for Israel to withdraw from all occupied territory.
A Fatah spokesman, Tawfiq Abu Khoussa, questioned why Hamas was so concerned about putting the proposal to a popular vote.
"They claim they have a majority in the streets behind their political agenda so why is there fear and panic about facing the referendum," Abu Khoussa said.
The peace proposal carries weight because the prisoners who drew it up, jailed for violence against Israelis, are regarded as heroes by many Palestinians.
Israel has not responded to the plan and has vowed to set its borders with Palestinian territory unilaterally unless peace talks can be resumed within months.
To solve the Palestinian Authority's financial problems resulting from the halt in aid and Israel's freezing of customs and tax revenues, Zahar proposed every Muslim in the world donate $1 "so we can raise $1.3 billion per year."
He said donations should be deposited in the Cairo-based Arab League's accounts and "we will find a way to bring the money to our people."
Many banks have so far refused to transfer funds to the Palestinian Authority because of intense U.S. pressure.
Posted by: Pissedoff at May 30, 2006 01:31 AM
You'll notice I coloured one paragraph purple in the National Post piece. That's because when you feel the need to have to explicitly say that you are against suicide bombers, you already have a public relations problem on your hands.
Well, well. If this hadn't been mentioned, you and others, Steve, would be shouting, "Hey, Sid, what about the suicide bombers? How one-sided can you get?" When he does include it, you make frankly asinine comments such as the one above.
Either way, Ryan and CUPE get it in the neck. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Posted by: Dr.Dawg at May 30, 2006 09:49 AM
The Post's coverage on the middle east is vigoously pro-Israeli. The difference in reporting between the Post and the Gripe & Wail is not surprising.
Posted by: H K at May 30, 2006 11:00 AM
Hey Dawg as the one above you, I will repeat what I have said about you on other blogs, you are a left wing lunatic lying wanker
Posted by: Pissedoff at May 30, 2006 11:38 AM
"Democracy union style. On such an important issue why wasn't the whole 200,00 members balloted.
Stupid qustion it would not have passed."
Just like the government oh supreme one.
You vote for them and they in turn pass policies (vote ,you know in the House of Commons) that effect you. Democracy government style. Get it?
I'm rooting for the underdogs in this whole mess..... the Palestinians.
Signed
Happy Canadian.
Posted by: at May 30, 2006 05:58 PM
Happy Canadian, I'm rooting for the real underdogs... the ones that don't lob rockets into towns and bomb markets.
I'm in a union, but I'll be damned if I let my local or national tell me to boycott a democratic country. Last I looked, my union was there to protect my rights as an employee and to bargain on my behalf.
Posted by: Yukon Gold at May 30, 2006 06:38 PM
I'm in a union - and have absolutely no idea what leads them to 'positions' they've taken on my behalf. Rarely do their positions seem directly related to our professional issues. They seem to think that we union-members cannot participate in democracy without their help. If they really wanted to represent 'our views' on every issue under the sun, they'd make sure to inform us and get us to vote on each particular issue, not just the 300 leftist hacks who show up to the policy setting gatherings. Better yet, stick to issues related to our profession, and trust us to get involved democratically for the others.
Posted by: Shane O. at May 30, 2006 11:12 PM
Hey Dawg as the one above you, I will repeat what I have said about you on other blogs, you are a left wing lunatic lying wanker
I'm continually overwhelmed by the quality of Cons*rvative discourse. And this, folks, is about as typical as it gets. Watch this literate fellow--he'll have his own blog some day.
(Apparently the word "cons*rvative, minus the asterisk, is now banned at Angry's. Now that's richly ironic, isn't it?)
Posted by: Dr.Dawg at May 30, 2006 11:17 PM
Let's be clear here : Calling for the 'right of return' of Palestinians ONLY is an anti-semitic statement. CUPE called for it - CUPE is anti-semitic - i.e. racist.
726,000 Palestinians lost their homes after their Arab rulers lost several consecutive wars of aggression against Israel. At the same time 800,000 Jews lost their homes throughout the Arab Middle East - not because they were displaced by a shifting battlefront - but because they were a different religion, because they were dhimmi, and because they could be pushed around without consequence - because they were Jews.
It doesn't seem to bother CUPE that the German aggressors lost their homes throughout east Europe and Russia, it doesn't bother CUPE that Italian aggressors lost their homes in the Balkans, it doesn't bother CUPE that French colonizers lost their homes in Algeria. It only bothers them that the pro-Nazi Palestinian aggressors lost their homes. And the only difference between all of these is that the Palestinians lost their homes to Jews.
And supporting the 'Right of Return'?! Sending 4 million Palestinians into Israel would destroy it's Jewish character - it would end Israel, the only place on earth where Jews can defend themselves. Palestine was never a country, it was a region of a province of an empire - no more than Muskoka or the Okanagan.
For God's sake, my province of British Columbia was cut in half by the British and the lower half was given away to foreigners. my Great Great Grandfather lived near Tacoma at the time - does he and every member of my family since then have the 'Right of Return' to Washington state? It's absurd and it's endless. Can the Russians go back to Poland? The Iraqis to Kuwait? The Spanish to Morocco? The Turks to Greece? The Greeks to Turkey? The Greek Cypriots to the north? the Turkish Cypriots to the South? The Japanese to Korea? The British to everywhere? Of all of the people in the world - why only the Palestinians? Why only Jewish land?
Let's sum up:
1. In similar situations were aggressors have lost their homes - CUPE says nothing.
2. Where home are lost to Jews - CUPE complains.
3. CUPE does not call for the return of Jews to their homes in Libya, Iran etc...
4. CUPE calls for the return of Palestinians to Israel and the end of Israel as a Jewish state.
In what way is that not anti-semitic?
PS -
The following is the translation of the item in the PA daily:
"The Ta'awon [co-operation] Youth Forum, in co-operation with the "Badil" Center for Refugee Rights, held a discussion in Hebron under the heading "The role of civilian institutions in protecting the Right of Return".
"The convention took place in the framework of the youth inner discussion project, funded by CIDA the Canadian International Development Agency." [Al-Ayam, May 15, 2006]
http://www.pmw.org.il/LatestBulletins.htm (nice pics of those poor helpless Palestinians with some German fellow with a funny mustache)
Posted by: Robert at May 30, 2006 11:31 PM
Happy Canadian, I'm rooting for the real underdogs... the ones that don't lob rockets into towns and bomb markets.
Just to clarify: are those the ones that don't use IED's and $10000 RPG-7s or the one's that don't fire said rockets from Apaches and tanks?
Neither side walks with the angels. Throwing imflammatory accusations around does nicely obscure the fact that non-combatants on either side are being killed by militants (or their proxies) on the other.
Let's be clear here :
Sure...
Calling for the 'right of return' of Palestinians ONLY is an anti-semitic statement. CUPE called for it - CUPE is anti-semitic - i.e. racist.
Umm... where did it say CUPE supported right of return only for Palestinians? Hey, you're not trying to cloud the discussion with inflammatory rhetoric, are you?
Nice use of numbers, by the way. So exactly where, in your opinion, is the threshold set before a 'people' can claim a home free from oppression? Not a state, a home. Palestine was never a state but neither was Israel pre-1948, so let's not start with that.
The use of Israeli occupations and annexations of Arab territory as an example? Also very neat, conveniently ignoring that people were living there before the declaration of statehood.
es, Israel as a state has a right to exist, free of oppression and persecution. Why not Palestine?
Neither side wants to acknowlege the other's rights. Neither side has any moral high-ground. Bomb calling and name throwing are only getting more people killed on both sides.
Posted by: Don at May 31, 2006 01:28 AM
How does this effort spent on single-minded, blatantly left-wing posturing support the Sid/CUPE mandate of ensuring their membership receive the highest gold-plated wages, benefits & pensions conceivable whist providing far less usable work output compared to any of their private sector counterparts?
I reckon when you can't extort any more from the Canadian public, you must have time for other left-wing diversions.
mhb23re
(email is above username at google webmail service)
Posted by: MHB at May 31, 2006 11:57 AM
Perhaps some of you would be good enough to stop telling union members what they should or should not support, endorse or spend their money on. They elect the delegates who attend Convention on their behalf, and the latter are accountable, as is the union leadership. But not to you guys, who don't exactly carry a torch for the labour movement anyway.
Posted by: Dr.Dawg at May 31, 2006 12:46 PM
Sure, Dawg:
Perhaps when the unions quit spending their members' annual dues on funding political parties, aims and agendas that aren't universally supported by said membership.
Or do you think every card-carrying CUPE or CAW or other union member votes exclusively NDP, holds a grudge against Israel, embraces Kyoto and despises the US?
mhb23re
(email is above username at google webmail service)
Posted by: MHB at May 31, 2006 01:53 PM
Unions, like corporations, can't donate to political parties--as you know.
I don't believe union members are unanimous on anything. But it's pretty safe to say that, by and large, delegates elected to go to Convention reflect the wider membership. It's a democratic process, and it's really up to the members to make the decisions, whether through a delegate system or otherwise--not up to a lot of anti-union Conservative partisans. Get me?
Posted by: Dr.Dawg at May 31, 2006 02:35 PM
Unions, like corporations, can't donate to political parties--as you know.
Utterly and completely wrong.
The CAW has provided donations to the NDP for years, up until the Buzzard & Co. decided to pull the plug during the last federal election.
As for the union electoral process, I have about as much interest in whom they elect to represent them as a goat has in nuclear physics.
However, once the unions step out of the collective bargaining agreement and into the political arena, using mandated union dues to fund political choices having nothing to do with their local business mandate, then I - and many of the other folks on this blog & elsewhere (the "Conservative partisans" you've so neatly labelled) tend to have issues. And I imagine there's plenty of union members who have the same issues.
Get me?
mhb23re
Posted by: MHB at May 31, 2006 04:22 PM
So let's hear from the union members, then. Not you.
Meanwhile, look up BBill C-24 and get back to me.
Posted by: Dr.Dawg at May 31, 2006 05:06 PM
Oh Dear. Sorry to fluster you by pointing out the obvious, Dawg.
Pre-2004, it was open season for unions to finance the party of the leadership's choice, and that was - is - wrong. Unless it becomes optional to withold union dues as a form of personal political protest, or the unions refund that portion used for political donations. Perhaps you'd understand things better if your union leadership decided to fund the Tories, rather than the socialists.
Post C24 - Chretien's abortion election "reform" designed to fill more money in Liberal coffers - is an even larger travesty of democracy. Now all taxpayers - not just union members - must finance all political parties of any ilk or stripe, and I for one find it mystifying why I'm required to fund Moustache Jack or the Bloc, where, given the choice, I'd chew off an arm rather than mark a ballot for either of the above.
Posted by: MHB at May 31, 2006 07:42 PM
MHB:
Come on, do a little homework. Allocations to the political parties is proportionate to the votes they get. If 10% supports the Green Party, those taxpayers/voters could be seen as "Paying" the allocation to the Greens.
In any case, nice little two-step over C-24. You were wrong--come now, admit it.
Posted by: Dr.Dawg at June 1, 2006 08:23 AM
A different conservative opinion
http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_06_05/buchanan.html
Posted by: Don at June 3, 2006 10:10 AM
 
|
|
