Article content continued

Israeli bulldozers do uproot Palestinian olive trees; Palestinians do throw rocks at Israeli targets

The online debate has focused largely on whether the mural is anti-Semitic or an incitement to violence, and whether the implied message would be tolerated were the metaphorical rocks and bulldozer of a different nationality or ethnicity. The answer should be clear: the mural doesn’t even approach any reasonable standard where a university (or in this case its students’ centre) should act as a censor.

Israeli bulldozers do uproot Palestinian olive trees; Palestinians do throw rocks at Israeli targets. People’s sympathies differ widely. The artist is clear enough in his description of the work: “(the) defenceless, the antagonist and the other.” Others certainly see it differently, and it may well be that Jewish students feel angered or intimidated by the mural — especially given the campus’s fractious history and how easily university students these days seem to become angered or intimidated, or feel “unsafe.”

The short answer is: too bad. It’s university.

York and its students’ union did absolutely the right thing here — welcomed Bronfman’s opinion, lamented his decision and defended the work — and it was easy. The expression in question must be defended on principle, never mind under threat, and if there is a double standard at play, it cannot be remedied by censoring what is currently not.

[np_storybar title=”Read & Debate” link=””] Find Full Comment on Facebook

[/np_storybar]

But Bronfman and Benlolo are certainly not wrong about inconsistent support for free speech on campus. Student groups hosting events likely to draw protesters are told they must hire their own security; Toronto universities’ communications departments recently went out of their way to tell us how appalled they were by “White Students’ Union” posters; universities proactively clarify that professors’ unpopular views are not those of the institution; pro-life groups face a myriad of hurdles trying to advance their cause.

The people supporting those restraints on free speech are no different than Paul Bronfman. They are well within their rights to argue for silence, and they should lose every time. The sooner they stop winning the better.

National Post

cselley@nationalpost.com

Twitter.com/cselley