University defends council member accused of posting potentially offensive photograph
The University of York has defended a University Council member who has been accused of anti-semitism by national and local Jewish groups.
Andrew Collingwood, who also acts as a harassment advisor to students, posted a ‘fundamentally racist’ photo of a depiction of anti-semitic stereotypes on the networking site Facebook and has been defended by the University, which has stated that it “adheres strongly to the principle of freedom of speech”.
The University is currently not taking any action against Collingwood, who volunteers with the Equal Opportunities Office alongside his non-academic position in the Biology department.
The Union of Jewish students has called the University’s response ‘deporable’, while the Jewish Society on campus has labelled it ‘shocking‘ and ‘inexplicable’. A local Rabbi has stated that the position is ‘disgusting’.
In response to the allegations, the University stated: “We respect absolutely the right of individuals to be free from harassment. The University does not take a position on political issues.”
A UJS spokesperson said: “Anti-semitism isn’t political, it’s race hate. The University should be responding much more strongly than it is, and we would urge the University to conduct a full investigation and to take appropriate action.”
Rabbi Garber, who holds chaplaincy for Jewish Students at Yorkshire Universities, echoed the UJS, and claimed that the recent conflict in Gaza was being used as a justification for anti-semitism.
“Unfortunately, people are using the situation in Israel to hide anti-semitism. Underlying themes of anti-semitism are being brought out through this conflict,” he said.
The row was sparked after Collingwood, a prominent member of the York Palestinian Solidarity Campaign, posted a photograph on his Facebook page depicting “all ethnic stereotypes against Jews,” according to Simon Winkler, Jewish Society Chairman.
The photograph, taken during a protest in York against the war in Gaza shows what appears to be a Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni wearing a witches hat and holding a wand topped with the star of David. The witch is drawn to be saying ‘Anti-Semitic! Anti-Semitic! Anti-Semitic!’, while thinking ‘Oh, ****!! They No Longer Fear The Magic Word’.
Winkler described the depiction as “Fundamentally racist and definitely perpetrating race hate. It makes a huge statement about anti-semitism almost being a myth.”
“It’s unacceptable. I’m surprised the University employs someone like that. I don’t know how he can promote equality, when he himself does not believe in it. How can he preach at University about how to create equal opportunities yet his private life holds up placards depicting racist stereotypes?,” Winkler continued.
Winkler has called on the University to “re-evaluate his position”, claiming that “Jewish students couldn’t approach him if they were being harassed. How can you consult someone who doesn’t acknowledge that this is anti-semitic?”
Collingwood’s role as a harassment advisor involves providing ‘confidential assistance to anybody concerned about harassment.’
“For someone who’s role is to help students with harassment, to endorse that picture is deplorable,” said the UJS.
YUSU have stated that it is “extremely disappointed” about the publication of the ‘clearly objectionable’ cartoon, adding that ‘The Students’ Union recognises and respects the tenets of free speech, but believes that it is entirely inappropriate for a staff member in a position of responsibility to publish images that may intimidate their students or harm their departmental relationship.’
“Staff must also be mindful of what they publish for other members of this multi-cultural campus to see, especially considering their elevated position within the community,” the statement continued.
In response, Collingwood has stated “It was never my intention to cause any distress or incite race hatred. I do not personally share the views expressed in the picture.” He confirmed that he had been alerted by the University that the photograph “might be causing offence” before removing it immediately.
Collingwood, who has worked in the Biology department since 1991, has served on the Standing Committee on Harassment for several years.
The University added: “The University investigates allegations of harassment when and if complaints are made,” continued the statement.
University’s racial harassment guidelines specifically outline ‘Offensive graffiti or insignia’ as a form of victimisation.
The guidelines describe racial harassment as ‘any behaviour, deliberate or otherwise, pertaining to race, colour, ethnic or national origin, which is unwanted by the recipient and creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading or offensive environment for employment, study or social life.’
The Guidelines continue to state that ‘racial harassment may include abusive comments about racial origins and skin colour, racist insults, jokes and comments about capability, based on assumptions relating to race.’
Users of Facebook agree not to post content that is ‘threatening, hateful, racially or ethnically offensive, or that depicts nudity, pornography or graphic or gratuitous violence, or anything else that we may consider offensive.’
Andrew Collingwood has provided Nouse with a response to this article.
61 responses below. Comments are closed.
Related Posts
Popular This Week
Polls
Loading ...
Is it not the case (he submits tentatively!) that the picture is a political reference to Livni’s (and, more generally, Israel’s) controversial denial of what some term the humanitarian crisis in Gaza? The accompanying text seems to be satirizing one of Zionism’s favourite rhetorical weapons: the labelling of its detractors as anti-Semitic.
In which particulars does the picture allude to ’stereotypes’?
How many times – abhorring what people do is not the same as abhorring the people themselves.
For the record, I’m Jewish and I’m ashamed of what the state of Israel does in Palestine. Does that make me anti-Semitic?
I thought the cartoon was well-observed and made a valid point.
There might have been a valid point, but, if so, it’s counteracted by the total excess of the witch image; the specifics of the political context become less relevant. If stereotypically racist, homophobic, or misogynistic imagery (and imagery still in use by racist, homophobic and misogynistic groups) was used to portray a political figure in a political cartoon, regardless of what the context was in which the figure was bemoaning racism, homophobia or misogynism, the replication of such imagery nonetheless perpetuates a racist, homophobic or misogynistic reality.
In this case, the point is that images equating Judaism with evil are still in use, the propaganda still exists; if I saw this picture, I would have assumed that it was the propaganda of an anti-semitic group. How many people in this country, or at this university, actually know who Tzipi Livni is? How many of those people would have been able to identify that it was her in the picture? If I’d seen the picture before reading this article, I’m not sure I would have been able to do so.
By no means does this make the person who made the picture actually anti-semitic (I know only what the article says about their identity) – it probably means that they’re a crap artist, and, knowingly or unknowingly, one who may have taken part in antisemitism.
But perhaps more importantly, what would the harassment advisor say if a student, unaware of who he is or what he has done, was to ask to meet them concerning an image that they’d seen online, posted by a group of students or staff members of the the University of York?
“The photograph, taken during a protest in York against the war in Gaza shows what appears to be a Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni wearing a witches hat and holding a wand topped with the star of David. The witch is drawn to be saying ‘Anti-Semitic! Anti-Semitic! Anti-Semitic!’, while thinking ‘Oh, ****!! They No Longer Fear The Magic Word’”
Do people actually realise how incredibly ironic it is to call that ‘antisemitism’?
Do you realise that you are now doing EXACTLY what the photograph is describing? i.e. accusing every critic of Israel’s politics as being a racist?
Nouse had an article in its last edition about “killing a debate” by using the R-word.
Is this is what some people are trying to achieve now? To stifle dialogue and censor perfectly legitimate political comments by putting the label of “antisemitism”?
Don’t you all think that political correctness has gone too far? Freedom of speech applies to offensive/politically incorrect speeches as well.
In addition, the person said he does not endorse the opinions expressed in the cartoon. When will people understand the difference between racism/hatred and a joke?
What comes next? Banning South Park, or calling its fans racists, because Cartman keeps being offensive to all minorities?
Enough with this – please, try not to find offense when there is not meant to be any.
Best,
A.
Anonymous Massive! demands an apology from the cheap-copy fraudster exploiting Anonymous Massive!’s reputation and good name!
Anonymous Über apologises to the beau ideal of caustic sarcasm, Anonymous Massive!, and asks the Holy Father of Internet Anonymity to comment on this issue.
Is every critic of Israel’s political actions a racist? Why is this picture anything more than a political comment and why is it supposed to incite racial hatred or invoke racial stereotypes?
And above all, isn’t the artist vindicated by such paroxysmal reactions?
I do not think this is only a case of ‘political correctness’ here. Some people are clearly trying to prevent dialogue, ironically enough by behaving exactly as the artist described.
I think Livni is portrayed as a witch simply because witches use “magic words”. Had this been a male politician the artist could have dressed him as Tommy Cooper and the point would have been the same.
I also think the view that the witch image is “evil” is a bit of a stretch – but then I’m not exactly Orthodox so realise this is not the case for everyone. I’m not convinced that as the intention though, and think that’s important.
On the evil front: I don’t think that “magic” argument holds much weight – would you say that was a good witch or an evil witch? The unflattering fatness of her face is a problem; as is the wand with the star of David. It’s not something a lot of people know (and this could indeed include the artist) but whilst the star of David symbol is at the centre of the Israeli flag, it’s more centrally a Jewish symbol. Many wear necklaces with the star of david on it just as many wear a cross around their neck: the offense can go beyond commentary concerning Israel or Israeli policy, towards Jews in general, regardless of those Jews’ opinions concerning Israel or Israeli policy.
The parallel I’d draw (though clearly the case is very different) is that at rallies protesting the incursion, people held up Israeli flags with a Nazi swastika instead of a star of David in the middle: its an alienation of Jews who might have agreed with that particular protest and for whom the star of David does not mean the same thing as Israel.
As for intention, therefore, my point is that whilst I understand the argument concerning Livni/Israeli policy being used, I don’t know what the intention in using the witch image is. As a symbol, its not clear enough, and the protest is ineffective and treads on or towards an antisemitic platform.
“Do you realise that you are now doing EXACTLY what the photograph is describing? i.e. accusing every critic of Israel’s politics as being a racist?”
No – among other things, I AM a critic of Israel’s politics!
I’m also not using a censorship argument here – the point of free speech is that such a poster can be made. But there are consequences for saying things and making posters. To be offended: yes, that’s life, it happens. To offend deeply when what you’re saying is a contradiction of an office you hold (I would not now go and see Andrew Collingwood if I was being ‘harassed’) and then suffer the consequences: that’s also life. However, Collingwood has stated he disagrees with the opinions of the picture: the decision concerning his role in the Equal Oppurtunities Office is down to the University.
I am ashamed that a man posting this on a public forum is the alleged ‘Harassment Officer’ for my university. Jews are one of the most targetted groups in this country – 250 anti-Semitic attacks were reported last month alone in the UK. Not anti-Israel – ANTI-SEMITIC. This is a real problem. If something racist were to happen to me on campus, I honestly feel there would be no one I could go to.
Criticising Israel is one thing – I would say all of my Jewish friends including me do at some point – but using Jewish imagery and words relating to Judaism to demonise a country is not critical of government policy – it is stereotyping an entire people, and is increibly offensive.
For anyone to claim that anti-Semitism is a myth, or promote this view, is appalling regardless of political stance. It totally undermines the suffering of innocent Jews worldwide who have absolutely nothing to do with the situation in the Middle East.
I will repeat this again, even though it is becoming rather tiring… it is about high time people stop being offended with cartoons or comics that are obviously not meant to be offensive!
These comics clearly target Israel, not Jews in general. The star of David is used to point to Israel.
In addition, such a comic does not constitute discrimination. Discrimination refers to unequal treatment because of one’s religious beliefs or ethnicity. This cartoon was not meant to imply that Jews are in any way inferior.
And I am not being anti-semetic, I equally challenge Christians who are being offended by anything that contradicts the faith, or muslims who get offended with cartoons of the Prophet.
I just believe that every religion should afford criticism, just like every other ideology.
A.
“I just believe that every religion should afford criticism, just like every other ideology.”
I agree 100%, though in this case it’s not even criticism against a religion or against a people. It’s criticism against a government’s political decisions.
The problem is that people do get offended, and anti-Semitism is still a touchy subject. It’s all well to say we shouldn’t get offended by cartoons, and I fully agree with you that we shouldn’t, but people do. The problem, I believe, is not that someone’s put a photo on Facebook, but rather that someone in a particular position has done it which may undermine confidence and trust in his position.
This is valid argument, however people didn’t follow that line of thinking when the counselor to Muslim students called (a much more hardcore) Murray a ‘racist’.
That was only a few days ago, and he counselor was lambasted as a conversation killer and as completely intolerant of legitimate criticism.
How come everybody changed their minds within a few days? Is Islamophobia more permissible? Are people not allowed to criticise foreign governments (which is the case here), but they are allowed to promote blind religious intolerance (Murray)?
I am not sure if I am missing something, but that looks very hypocritical to me..
“Unflattering fatness” a “problem”? Excuse me?? I’m sure / hope you didn’t mean that the way it sounds!
It’s only my opinion, but I didn’t see this as either a “Good” or “Evil” witch – just a character that uses magic words.
As far as the Mogen Dovid goes, most dress-up witch and fairy wands are shown with stars on the end – my daughter’s got one – so I just saw it as a different type of star.
I am fully aware of the symbolic importance of the Mogen Dovid – which is why I haven’t worn mine for the last 20 years, and won’t until the state of Israel turns away from violence as foreign policy. Ironically it was reputed to have magical powers as the Seal of Solomon, so may show some good research on the part of the artist!
Collingwood was being stupid, not anti-semitic.
The witches outfit is perhaps a bit distasteful, and so Collingwood should have seen this coming, but as others have said, i dont think there was racist intent here and it’s very very very ironic to shout anti-semitism here.
Also, just to say, these are my personal views and nothing to do with Labour Club /disclaimer
Anonyomous Uber
Your deference to my superior anonymity aside, you are cheapening the value of Anonymous Massive!’s massiveness, by posting serious comment rather than high-quality satirical banter.
Please desist. I know who you are
Yours simultaneously anonymously and massively
Anonymous Massive!
This stream of comments is getting tiresome and is missing the point I think.
Apologies in advance for the length of this, but I think I get there in the end!
Henry James Foy, the UJS and particularly Simon Winkler, should be suspended by the University of York, pending an investigation of their article harassing Andrew Collingwood.
Andrew Collinwood in fact took A SERIES of photographs at the Rally against the war in Gaza and published them on Facebook. Perhaps the UJS should have attended this rally to show their support for a very good cause instead of shouting off their blinkered attitudes, which they appear to hold so dear, about one photograph in the whole series. I don’t remember seeing in the papers that anyone was charged with anti-Semitism for holding up the placard! But if Winkler and Co wants to pursue their harassment then it should be in this direction, not at Andrew Collingwood. As soon as he realised the photo was causing offence he removed it. What about the offence you are causing him by not listening to a word he says?
The other comments in the article are obviously from people who have not seen the site, but have been told about this one placard. In fact I don’t think I have ever read such a bias article.
As for Winkler’s comments about the University not employing Andrew, I think he’s either lost the plot or has a personal grudge, the way the article is written. It purports be fair by listing Andrew Collingwood’s details then ridiculing them. Well he seems to a better person than the writers of this article will ever be. You would have thought that Winkler would have the decency to at least talk to Andrew Collingwood about it first and not make stupid comments and hypothetical (and pathetic) innuendos. For Winkler read Wankler I suppose! Or perhaps Winkler and Co do not get it – people are against the deplorable actions of Israel in Gaza, but this has got nothing to do with being Jewish, but Israel is very fond of pushing this line as a way of stifling debate.
This whole episode detracts from the purpose of the rally, which was to protest against the terrorist state of Israel (well what else can you call a state that deliberately targets unarmed women and children).
You can show your support for the oppressed people of Gaza by boycotting Israeli goods in the shops. Currently there are a lot of Israeli tomatoes, peppers, radishes, new potatoes and herbs – so read the labels carefully for country of origin before you buy.
Wow. After that, I think Foy and Winkler should go see the University harassment advisor
As chair of Jsoc it is my duty to represent the opinion of my society, and the overwhelming amount of my members found this highly offensive. The basic fact is that my members would find it hard now to approach this member of staff after what has occurred.
I support the right to freedom of speech. The Local Resident who commented before calling Israel a terrorist state, is well within his/her right to do so. That is his/her opinion. I am not arguing against the concept of the rally. This is NOT about politics. My members found the cartoon to be racially charged, going beyond politics. That is where the problem lies.
P.S I would rather keep my comments short as I feel I have been quoted enough.
For my own personal take, I would look at some other areas of Andrews campaigning record; his unwavering commitment to fighting the BNP, a real anti-Semitic threat. Whilst the BNP might be exploiting latent anti-Muslim feelings right now, there’s no doubt that a BNP-run Britain would be immensely dangerous to Jews.
I might also add that I know of Jewish students who have felt harassed by members of their University’s J-Soc (including ex York students) for not taking a Zionist approach. Perhaps the J-Soc should do a reality check, and start supporting all members of its constituency and not just those it politically agrees with.
I wonder if this would have all been different had it been an Islamic stereotype he was depicting. Without doubt it would have been. Thank goodness JewSoc haven’t been burning biology books and threatening to wage ‘Jihad’ against the Biology department.
Dan I think you’re perfectly aware that no member of this university’s Islamic society would burn books or wage Jihad in such circumstances. If you think you know anything about the Islamic society and its members or have evidence to the contrary, let’s hear it. Your cowardly slur just belittles and degrades you. As for different standards towards anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, I suggest you read Anonymous Uber’s post above and think about your own attitudes.
Ironically, given the placard in question targets Tzipi Livni; following the recent Israeli elections which have placed the bigot Lieberman in a strong position, greater influence for Livni (at Lieberman’s expense) might be the best the region can hope for.
Dan: are you suggesting that the Islamic soc/Islamic students would have been burning books and threatening to wage jihad? Please do clarify because that’s a pretty serious allegation.
JSoc chair: I will take your point only if you can offer an adequate explanation as to why this cartoon was racially and not politically motivated. If it was politically motivated, as I believe it clearly was, then you simply have no case.
As far as we can see, this picture was NOT in any way directed against the Jewish people, but simply against the Israeli government. The number of Jewish students supporting what I just said is enough evidence to suggest that your ‘offended’ attitude is politically motivated too.
I also support what Graham said; many Jewish students that I know in the university refuse to take part in JSoc’s activities for the reasons Graham described..
Re: Jewish Student’s comment
Fair point if my fatness comment is read in the way you’re implying, and I apologise; my point is that the line between a stereotypical anti-semitic image and a grotesque/ridiculous caricature of a political figure is not clear enough in the cartoon.
As for the Mogen/Magen David, this isn’t about your political views and your view of the symbol; the point is that a Jew should be able to have that symbol at heart and still be able to be an anti-Zionist, a pacifist, or just a critic of the Israeli administration – if you choose not to then that’s your call, but what of others who feel differently?
This gives me a great idea for a line in a song I’m trying to rework, loads better than ‘it’s like ra-i-ain on your wedding day’ or’ten thousand spoons when all you need is a knife’. God, I really missed the point in the original.
Anybody know how I can make ‘it’s like somebody took a photograph of a satirical cartoon criticising the kneejerk tendency to label critics of Israeli defense policy towards Palestine as antisemitic in order to negate such criticism, and then that person was immediately labelled as antisemitic for doing so’ scan?
Honestly, and in all seriousness, how on earth do you think that this is responsible journalism, Henry J Foy? It’s an absolutely pathetic piece that doesn’t question any of the absurd claims it puts forward, and I can’t believe you seriously ended it with the accusation that he might not be living up to the exacting standards of the Facebook terms and conditions. This is somebody’s career, and it should have been dealt with a little more considerately.
To me the article seems to be clearly a case of reporting on the accusations made, rather than making the accusations itself. The criticism on Foy should be focussed on those making the accusations, not the person reporting on the accusations have been made – “don’t shoot the messenger” as the saying goes.
I personally think the accusations are a bit daft (from what I’ve heard), but I also thought “Gracegate” was also a pile of nonsense (it’s not like Grace actually hurt Dan), but Nouse should be reporting on these kind of things.
Nouse obviously can’t make such accusations themslelves because they would be censored because of potential legal action against them.
However, this one-sided and narrow minded article is further proof that Nouse are not a ‘broadsheet’ but in fact quite ‘tabloid’ influenced. To be fair on Vision, they are only tabloid-influenced when it comes to the look and layout of the paper, Nouse are increasingly showing that they are the ones writing over-hyped, one-sided things. They should just admit it.
“Thank goodness JewSoc haven’t been burning biology books and threatening to wage ‘Jihad’ against the Biology department”
IslamSoc would? I would suggest that the comments made there are a little stereotypical, quite divisive, maybe even a potential welfare issue and therefore something that could, legally, land you in a lot of trouble but I suspect I’d get moderated or told off so I won’t.
When did I state that Islam Soc. would? Re-reading my post, I don’t see it written. If you’re making assumptions again, Jason, it’s really not good form, is it?
Sadly, I should probably clarify myself; it’s been rather funny seeing the usual hysterical reaction from certain people to something perhaps slightly offensive and politically incorrect.
I was referring to the reaction from a large proportion of global Muslims to the Rushdie ‘Satanic Verses’ as well as the cartoons that depicted the ‘prophet’ Mohammed with a bomb in his turban where leading clerics took ‘Fatwah’s’ out on individuals, riots occurred, books they probably could not read were burnt and Christians killed in minority communities. It seems a pretty standard reaction mind you. Just look when the English teacher in Sudan named a bear ‘Mohammed’. All hell seemed to break loose.
Jason, get over yourself with your ‘welfare/legal issue’. Yet again, you really have no idea what you’re talking about and it’s almost pretty cringeworthy. I’m afraid that as long as I don’t start inciting violence, I have the right to say what I like, and yes, that’s even if I offend you. Pretty much 99% of your Yorker rants offend me (and others) but that’s all just part of being a grown-up.
Re: Alanis
Ms. Morisette, I’ve been a fan of yours for years, I especially like how the irony of the song is that none of the situations it describes are ironies but mostly just bad luck. But isn’t that ironic?
What is not agreed on here is whether this is a political cartoon criticising or satirising a political figure or a use of anti-semitic imagery. Regardless of how many people on this page say ‘It’s clearly attacking Israel, not Jews!’, the imagery has nonetheless clearly offended Jews. My own stance is that the focus of the cartoon is not clear enough making it potentially dangerous.
By saying that comments made are ironic, you are assuming that anyone who has criticised the picture as potentially anti-semitic is on the same political front as Livni, which is quite a generalisation, when this could offend someone who is both Jewish and wanted to attend the protest it was held up at!
Oh My God.
The article was bad enough. But you’ve seriously launched an opinion poll on this website asking if the member of staff could be sacked? That’s absolutely disgusting, and I really hope it isn’t taken into account in any serious discussion of Collingwood’s position. Grow up.
To the other Jewish student:
I will grant you perhaps that a conflation of the star of David with the pentacle is unfortunate (though there are many who would find the popular usage of the pentacle as an image of evil almost as distateful). Aside from that, there is, as far as I can see, no way that this cartoon could be seen as antisemitic.
Even IF it could be convincingly argued that this cartoon contained racist undertones, that clearly isn’t its primary purpose. It’s satire, directed at one individual, not at a race or creed. To argue then that someone who has taken a picture of it is antisemitic and then be happy enough to call for his resignation without any further consideration is a reaction that is ridiculous in the extreme.
The Josh and Russell Review, 4pm today on URY will have a full explanation from Andrew Collingwood. Do listen in.
Nouse should issue an immediate apology to Collingwood for its shameless attack against him.
Your nerve knows no limits. Not only are you trying to big-up stories to make you look like an important publication (that’s what you always do after all), but in this case you did not even hesitate to risk a person’s career! He may have a family for all we know, and you are trying to get him to lose his job because some people decided to play politically oriented games!
You should really be ashamed of yourselves.
Henry James Foy should immediately resign from editor of this rag and YUSU needs to grow a pair and stop being harassed into issuing such ridiculous statements.
“‘It is clearly attacking Israel, not Jews’, the imagery has nonetheless clearly offended Jews. My own stance is that the focus of the cartoon is not clear enough making it potentially dangerous.”
The only thing that is potentially dangerous is you. There are so many Jewish students (you can see that even in this thread) that have understood what you are trying to do here. You can’t tolerate criticism of Israel and Zionism and you try to portray it as ‘anti-semitism’ and yourself as ‘offended’. How incredibly incredibly ironic.
I suggest you cut the drama cause you’re really making a fool of yourself and you’re ACTUALLY offending a person’s dignity. If Mr. Collingwood is reading this, I would strongly advise him to take legal action against Nouse for this shameless libel. There’s simply no way he’d lose.
What utter rubbish. The cartoon is clearly anti-semitic. It satirises a train of thought (anti-semitism) that resulted in the systematic attempt to wipe world Jewry from the face of this earth.
As the article quite correctly articulates, many students use this type of ‘humour’ to attempt to satirise a deep-rooted anti-semitism that is rife and deep-rooted in the global left-wing and Islamist thought.
Above all of this though, is the underlying fact that the person in question is meant to be someone who advises students on ‘harassment’ issues. If I were a Jewish student, I would harbour second-thoughts about whether or not to consult this individual if I felt the need to. This is a serious flaw and reason why the individual should resign his position immediately, perhaps before he is pushed.
I ask all of you again, what would your reaction have been if he had satirised something about an Islamic individual and the victim mentality that Islam seems to have a monopoly on?
Derek
Isn’t it funny that you can shamelessly attack Nouse – with your own opinion – yet criticise Nouse for reporting someone elses opinion. Criticise Foy and the Nouse-clique all you like for their story choices, that’s why they have these comment threads, but remeber that nowhere on this website has Nouse criticised Andrew Collingwood.
Sure, the quotes used are rather harsh, and Foy has personally chosen which ones to use, and that’s his decision, but he didnt say them!! Why not DISAGREE with what those quoted in the story have said!?
When I voted on the poll, it stated that the overwhelming majority of voters thought he was fine to carry on in his job. Perhaps that’s what Nouse is trying to ascertain!
The intelligent commenters here have remarked that Nouse is heavily censored, and would not be able to print anything libellous. ‘YUSU should grow a pair’? Do you actually think that Nouse tells YUSU what to say? It’s completely the opposite last time I checked! I’m sure Collingwood (and Nouse) are very thankful for your legal advice too. Are you at the bar yourself? All this non-sensical libel chatter is just hyper-inflating the situation even more so than the article!
YUSU don’t “heavily” censor us, btw. It’s more like “you probably shouldn’t identify that person by name, but as ‘a student in Halifax’ instead” or “that choice of words is a bit contentious and might land us in hot water”. Generally incredibly minor things, and they’re few and far between. YUSU are well aware of this article, and if it was libel and likely to bring the Union into legal trouble, they would have issued a very quick request for us to retract it.
Dan, do you know what the verb ’satirise’ means? It’s just that, well, it seems like you don’t.
And would you mind stopping this ridiculous ‘Jews or Muslims – pick your fave ethnic minority’ thing that you seem to be so keen on?
Dan Taylor,
the real question here is, what would your reaction be if the cartoon was anti-Islamist?
Would you still consider it insensitive and racist? Or would you simply accuse muslims for taking offense in it?
Could someone please explain to me the difference between religion and any other ideology? Why is it such a huge issue if a religion is criticised? No-one in this thread has explained this at all.
A.
Dan: the train of thought that resulted in systematic attempts to wipe out certain ethnic groups from the face of the earth is the train of thought that people like you follow. That of blind intolerance and black/white ‘truths’. Back in the 30’s and 40’s the easy scapegoat was the Jews, today it’s the Muslims.
It is disgraceful to say that antisemitism is a product of the left. I don’t think that any sane person would ever think that Hitler or the BNP are anything remotely close to left wing liberal hippies! Do you perhaps forget that the Nazis targeted the Jews as pawns of the ’socialists’? Do you also forget the fact that left-wingers were systematically persecuted and effectively obliterated under Nazi rule? Do you not know how many millions of them died fighting the Nazis for you to be disrespecting them like that?
We all know that you are a strong supporter of Zionism, but do learn that anti-Zionism and antisemitism do not go together. There are many many many Jews who strongly disagree with Israel and the path it has followed, especially from 1967 and onwards. That doesn’t make them self-hating racists, but it does make you a bad debater.
And Ralph: nobody will suffer because of my opinion. But Nouse’s irresponsibility may cause someone to lose his job. I think it is only reasonable to expect a formal apology on the front cover of the next edition.
Derek, the whole definition of ‘Anti-Zionism’ is rejecting the right of Israel to have a homeland as granted to them by the UN and international community, and arguably a natural entitlement under historic. Take a look at the map of the Middle-East and North-Africa and then re-examine the claim that Israel ‘occupies’ Islamic land. You’d have to be terrible at Geography to make such an assertion. In short, I agree that anti-semitism does not quite equate to anti-zionism, but do feel that anti-zionism is a cover for more extreme ideas of anti-semitism.
My point about Islam is true and I shall try and answer your point, Aris. The point is, that it’s not like the Jewish community to get ‘up in arms’ over things they find offensive. On the contrary, Islam tends to find offence and over-react to many issues that can be construed as controversial (Danish cartoons, Salman Rushdie, bear named Mohammed [you really wouldn't credit it]).
On a broader point, I think all religions and people should be more tolerant of criticism, but I think the context of this is important. This is a member of staff who is responsible for the welfare of harassed students. If I were a Jewish student, I’d feel somewhat uncomfortable about seeing him was I harassed and this applies across ALL religions.
This is why he should resign.
Dan, you mention the over-reaction of the Islamic community, over the Danish cartoons. Is this not the exact same case? Don’t people over-react over a cartoon? Granted, not to the same level, but still.
After all, the Danish cartoon was more offensive to Muslims, than this cartoon is to the Jewish, as the mere depiction of Mohamed is a sin in the Islamic faith.
The point concerning a person’s position is invalid. He did not set a bad example in any way; on the contrary, he set a very good example, in my opinion.
I am also a welfare officer, in fact, I am the welfare officer for international students. Should I also resign, because my personal belief is that any religion should be criticised (including, of course, my own)?
A.
Here are the cartoons. I hope people apply the rules they are applying to the anti-semitic cartoon in the same manner they will these.
http://musing-minds.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/jyllands-posten-mohammed.jpg
Dan Taylor, why would you provide a link to those cartoons? It was surely not to win your point, because anybody who is prepared to stoop to that level is hardly a pleasant human being.
Mr Collingwood posted some pictures that maybe he should have thought a little more about, but he removed them as soon as he was informed that they may cause offense. You on the otherhand decided to provide a link to some cartoons that you KNOW will offend and upset people.
You make some good points (even if I don’t always agree) on here and the Yorker, but this is a bit cheap in my opinion and I think you should seriously consider whether you have gone too far.
Meh, I don’t think that either are a big deal. Most muslims didn’t join the outcry and remember that there was a massive outcry over Shilpa Shetty despite some people feeling it wasn’t serious. It’s perspective that counts and it’s not always Islam who outcry against issues that others don’t think are as serious.
Even though I completely agree with you Ari, I think that you are arguing for a different debate.
This is not a debate on religious criticism, as this picture does not constitute religious criticism; it is simply a political comment. One could perhaps call it distasteful or inaccurate, but nobody can argue that it was promoting religious intolerance or racism.
It was explicitly directed against Israeli politics, not against Judaism or the Jewish people. At no point does this picture imply that Judaism is an ‘evil’ or ‘fundamentally violent’ religion.
Yet, ironically enough, this was precisely what Dan was saying about Islam only a few days ago. So, according to Dan, accusing the majority of Muslims as followers of a “tyrannical and fascist” religion is perfectly reasonable commentary, but criticising Israeli politics is a taboo and anyone who does it is flirting dangerously with racism. I must say that something about this doesn’t really feel right.
“[The picture] makes a huge statement about anti-semitism almost being a myth.”
It makes a statement about how the label ‘anti-semitism’ has been used (and is clearly still used) to prevent thinking about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, stifle dialogue and preclude criticism of Israeli policies.
This is not a debate on whether some anti-semites masquerade as anti-Zionists, and it’s not a debate on whether Jews are more tolerant than Muslims or vice-versa; it’s a question of whether someone has the right to make political comments and to openly disagree with a government’s policies.
Keeping all that in mind, the analogy here would not be a picture criticizing Islam; it would be a picture criticizing Hamas. In my opinion both such pictures would be perfectly legitimate, but that’s hardly the main point here.
The real question here is whether a political comment is acceptable or not, and by extension whether a university official should be punished for publishing it online. A picture which he removed when he realised that it was causing offense, having stated that “it was never my intention to cause any distress or incite race hatred. I do not personally share the views expressed in the picture.”
I think it’s important that we clarify these things and not just play around with a person’s career, reputation and dignity.
As for my view as the other ISA welfare officer: the belief that Andrew Collingwood should be punished deeply offends and concerns me, like every other person who “adheres strongly to the principle of freedom of speech”.
Dan, but so WHAT if they offend? For once I find myself agreeing with Jason Rose. You seem to see offence as a reason for not saying/acting in a certain way. It isn’t. However, if I was inciting people to commit physical harm against another, as the demonstrations against these very cartoons did, then I would be breaking the law and obviously my action would be unlawful.
Offence is part of every-day life. We get offended all the time, some more than others; it is a very subjective idea. I get offended when I read parts of the Guardian, or turn on BBC news to see their coverage of the Israel-Gaza conflict (and indeed, Fox news). It doesn’t mean they don’t have a right to do it because quite simply, it’s the secondary effect of having different opinions to another. I happen to think it’s quite healthy for debate and fundamental freedoms.
I posted the cartoons because I think it’s important people have the opportunity of seeing what, in the circumstances I described in my previous wall-post, provoked such outrage and criticism from the Islamic global community. For these to be placed alongside the cartoon in question here is also important.
George, I appreciate your point about debate stifling, but in a similar vein, you have hardly been Mr. Excusable in debates when you have gone around calling people “foolish” for holding views that you don’t subscribe to. It does reek ever so slightly of hypocrisy. It’s like the whole multiculturalism/immigration/Islam debate. People who don’t like questioning these factors immediately bring up the term “racist” or “bigot” as a real debate-stopper. If you subscribe to this ‘idea’ then you must apply it across the board.
Dan (T), I don’t for one second believe that people should be over-thinking every sentence they utter, just in case it causes offence. I also think the author(?) of those cartoons had every right to create them. I just think it was a bit cheap linking this debate to them in a way that youknew would offend some people.
there is a huge difference between offending peopl by accident and posting something you know will offend some people.
I know this should not be a debate concerning religion, but some people do take the cartoons do offend the Hebrew religion, and it seems you cannot convince them otherwise.
So, my point is, fine, assume that the comics are offensive to religion. So what? No-one has yet explained why this is not to be tolerated. It is very easy to say “ooh, this is offensive to religion, therefore it’s a tabu”, but proper debating practice dictates analysing an argument in depth.
So, once again, to all of you who got offended: why? why do you feel your (or any) religion should be excluded from criticism?
A.
I would just like to clarify that in previous threads, Jewish society has been criticised for siding with political arguments. This has not been the case for two years while I have been involved. It is not a political society, it is a religious society, as the name suggests. If anyone feels this way, I would have to resign. As I would not be fufilling my job. I have never heard this sentiment, so i doubt I would. As my title suggests I am chair of a religious society, not a political one.
Furthermore, the sentiment that this cartoon is simply “political”, would not explain why members of my jsoc who disagree with Israel, felt equally insulted. This matter is not about poltics, it is just a garb for a deeper sentiment.
P.S I still want to keep my comments short.
It’s interesting to see how far this conversation has spread: everything from the old ‘is anti-zionism antisemitism’, to ‘is organised religion bad for your health’, via the more unusual ‘Jews or Muslims, who’s got a better sense of humour’ that Dan seems particularly keen on.
There’s plenty that could be interestingly discussed here. It might well be that this image unintentionally involves itself in a repressive discourse of race stereotypes – it certainly does so with gender (the image of a woman with power as a witch is not exactly new – and would we be so quick to make the association with ‘evil’ if this were Lieberman depicted as Dumbledore?)
What’s fairly clear, however, is that there’s no credible argument for calling for Collingwood’s resignation, though I spose these kind of calls were always going to be made since ‘untenable’ first appeared on Dan’s ‘word of the day’ toilet paper over a year ago..
Re: Derek’s post (which starts off quoting me)
““‘It is clearly attacking Israel, not Jews’, the imagery has nonetheless clearly offended Jews. My own stance is that the focus of the cartoon is not clear enough making it potentially dangerous.”
The only thing that is potentially dangerous is you. There are so many Jewish students (you can see that even in this thread) that have understood what you are trying to do here. You can’t tolerate criticism of Israel and Zionism and you try to portray it as ‘anti-semitism’ and yourself as ‘offended’. How incredibly incredibly ironic.
I suggest you cut the drama cause you’re really making a fool of yourself and you’re ACTUALLY offending a person’s dignity. If Mr. Collingwood is reading this, I would strongly advise him to take legal action against Nouse for this shameless libel. There’s simply no way he’d lose.”
———————
Irony? If indeed you are directly addressing me for the comments I made on this article, I suggest you read them again, and perhaps you’ll see that YOU’re essentially putting words in my mouth. Isn’t that something like libel? When have I made a political statement? When did I state what my feelings concerning Gaza were? When did I comment on any criticism of Israel on this page? When did I call myself a Zionist? When did I say I agreed with this article? When did I agree or align myself with any of the quoted figures? When did I say I think Collingwood should be sacked? Read again, my comments have been concerning the picture itself.
Dan Taylor, whilst I think it is wonderful that your widely controversial views stimulate debate on these forums, I would politely recommend basing your comments on widely accepted facts, with fewer snide remarks. They truly are a joy to read and get riled up about, but when you start to say things like “books they probably could not read were burnt” in reference to the Danish cartoon controversy, it gets a little tiresome. It is also worth noting that during those protests, there were fatalaties on both sides after Muslim and Christian rioting – it should not be remembered as “Christians killed in minority communities”. (Both Feb 16th, 9.55am)
Secondly, your comments on Israeli occupation are baffling. Whilst I would not have referred to Palestinian Territory as “Islamic land” as you have chosen to (needlessly polarizing the issue), there is little debate over the fact that the state of Israel does occupy territory exceeding the various treaty/armistice lines recognised by international law. If by using the term “Islamic land” you also intend to contest Israel’s occupation of Syrian territory in the Golan Heights, then I believe “You’d have to be terrible at Geography to make such an assertion”. Please try as best as possible to make your argument in a coherent and honest manner. (Quotes from Feb 16th, 8.15pm)
Regarding the article more generally, I have to agree with the critics; it does not represent equally the different arguments, or dare to critique outrageous quotes such as the claim that the posted picture depicts “all ethnic stereotypes against Jews” (Winkler). As the full image itself does not feature on the same page as the article, this quotation can mislead the reader. This piece could have been written with a much more objective approach, which would have presented the issue without appearing in a manner more suited to scare-mongering tabloids.
I definitely believe that the poll that the Nouse website is running currently should be withdrawn, as it only serves to add hype to an already exaggerated article.
This is just to go on the end of my last post but got cut off…
My comments have been concerning the picture itself; with that view, I am not in a position to say whether Collingwood should or shouldn’t hold the harassment position as he has stated his disagreement with the picture – as he put it up online, it simply puts his legitimacy into question, and thus prevents the role being fulfilled if Jewish students or anyone offended by the would wish to see the harassment officer. However, I haven’t heard the URY interview so perhaps there’s another side to this.
“I would politely recommend basing your comments on widely accepted facts, with fewer snide remarks.”
Sam, might I suggest the same to you. Did you read your own post back to yourself?
Regarding my comment about burning books they are unable to read: I was not saying this is reference to the Danish cartoons. It was in reference to the Salman Rushdie case where without doubt, there would have been many individuals burning his books (similar to the Nazis burning Jewish books in the 1930’s/40’s) who could not understand what the text actually meant, or the fact that it was a fictional work. They were fed their fire by Ayatollahs and the like telling them what was in the text, as well as how to interpret it. It might be “tiresome” for you, but it’s a case I shall continue to make because it is relevant, as well as for that matter, true.
As for the Golan Heights, I’m not getting into a discussion about what land belongs to who. I’m sure we will disagree. The point more relevant to this debate, is that those who tend to term themselves “Anti-Zionists” inadvertently deny Israel’s right to exist on not just post-1967 borders but also pre-1967 borders as well as the land they were given by the UN and international community in 1947. This, and anti-semitism are almost indeterminable.
Andrew Collingwood has provided Nouse with a response to this article http://www.nouse.co.uk/2009/02/17/response-from-andrew-collingwood/. The main article has been updated with a link to it.
“George, I appreciate your point about debate stifling, but in a similar vein, you have hardly been Mr. Excusable in debates when you have gone around calling people ‘foolish’ for holding views that you don’t subscribe to.”
I have not called anyone foolish for holding a different view than mine, but rather for interrupting me all the time, not letting me speak and generally being very annoying. I know it’s still bad debating practice and I’ve already apologised about it, but frankly there’s a fundamental difference between making a cheap remark at the heat of the moment and consciously trying to stifle dialogue.
In any case I don’t pretend I am perfect, but I am sure you know that I at least try to be balanced and consistent. Which is certainly not what you are doing here by being purposely inflammatory and controversial. And I am not saying that you don’t have the right to, I am just saying that it doesn’t lead us anywhere.
If we are to apply ideas across the board, then surely you can not at the same time lambaste the Arabic world by calling Islam a tyrannical and fascist religion, and then go on to complain about someone being critical of Israeli politics on the (false) grounds of religious and racial intolerance. If that’s not double standards then I don’t know what is.
Dan,
I did read my post back to myself, thanks for your concern. I don’t think I made any comments of a dubious factual basis, and kept my remarks relatively cordial.
I’m sorry that your post did not clearly separate the fallout from ‘Satanic Verses’ and the Danish cartoons in a manner that I could understand. Nevertheless, my same point still stands, as Rushdie’s book ‘Satanic Verses’ is available in Arabic, and in fact the translation of the title was one of the many aspects of controversy surrounding the publication.
My reasons for bringing up Israel’s occupations are twofold. Primarily due to the fact that you appear to accept and disregard international law in two lines, first referring to UN decisions then denying any occupation. I am not an anti-Zionist or anti-Semite, but can recognise the clear violations by the Israeli state of internationally legally recognised borders and the rulings of the international community. I feel your insistence to link these extreme positions with a belief in international law may undermine your argument somewhat.
Secondly, because I have an intense dislike for the bullish manner in which you claim to state fact, which more often than not tends towards your own opinion. Looking at a map of the Middle East and North Africa does little to lend itself to an understanding of the Israel/Palestine situation.
I don’t mean to offend you, but feel that it is unfortunate when a strong debater acts in a manner where aggressive off-the-cuff comments are allowed to pass without question.
On another note, I think Collingwood’s recent response is excellent, well-measured and should really lay this argument to rest. Another witch-hunt is the last thing that we need.
I’ve noticed this story with some concern.
From what I have seen of the cartoon, I do see why it might offend. Use of caricatures that carry offensive connotations, even when intended sarcastically, runs the risk of normalising what’s offensive. But I come to that conclusion through thought and interpretation.
What troubles me is the role Andrew Collingwood’s name plays in this story. As far as I can gather, he took part in a demonstration at which the cartoon was on display, photos were taken of the demonstration, this particular picture was amongst them and was uploaded (presumably among others) onto facebook. What was Andrew’s offence? To fail to recognise that the picture might be offensive; more than likely because he just hadn’t considered it that carefully. Surely we can agree, in a list of human failings that is a pretty minor one. When alerted to the offence he removed the picture and expressed regret for any offence caused.
What about this incident deserves the headline above (a headline, let’s not forget, now forever googlable)? It is one thing to state that the image is a cause of offence. But to label someone racist, simply for an initial to failure to recognise that, and to describe the university’s decision not to fire them in response as ‘deplorable’ and ‘inexplicable’, is to assume (and publicly ascribe) the deepest malevolence, without evidence and in the face of evidence to the contrary. The philosophical and political arguments above can be had anywhere. They do not require putting someone’s name on trial for a minor oversight. Having read Andrew Collongwood’s response, I fail to see why this debate has any reason to continue. Enough.
Ahh! It is a conspiracy. This story appeared in ‘The Press’ a few years ago and was found to have no substance then or now. The Press- now there’s a paper you can really get your teeth into – it’s so annoying.
This script reminds me of a television program I was watching last night about a vampire who was accused of being a paedophile (he wasn’t) but his protestations came to nothing and there were a lot of angry people out there. Luckily our hero won the day and the child involved became a vampire!
Yes I know it’s improbable but have you ever seen an image in the mirror of the Jsoc Chair? No? Well he must be one of the good guys then.
Seriously this subject has taken up more than enough space, so I give you another subject to discuss….
Deans Acre – the field up the hill past the church was given to the University by a previous Bishop of York, on condition they did not build on it, so that the view of the church from up Field Lane could be preserved. The University in it’s wisdom would now ‘like’ to build a road over it, complete with lights etc, about the size of the new James Street extension down to Morrisons, arguing that a road is not a building! Should this be allowed? Even if the road is not a building, does this go against the spirit of the condition placed on the transfer, or is it just morally wrong? Just to set the scene in the past The University has also sold a house that was given them for student housing!
Discuss please.
Building a proper road past Heslington East to Derwent College would ease congestion on Fishergate, Hull Road and in general. Having proper lighting on it will improve welfare and frankly having a view spoilt doesn’t affect morality. Whether it’s environmentally friendly, I don’t know, but I suspect that congestion really isn’t.
Either way, it’s a conversation for a different story so I would suggest that the local resident gets Nouse, the Yorker, Vision, URY, the Press or whomever to dig up further dirt on it and make it into news, if that is what it is.
Though I do agree with the resident that this debate is kind-of dead now… Or at least I don’t think I can see anyone in the recent past agreeing with Mr. Taylor on very much at all.