Last week, the B.C. Supreme Court rejected a petition to stop the University of British Columbia\u2019s Alma Mater Society from holding a referendum April 3-7. The question being posed in the referendum is the same one the AMS asked of students in 2015: \u201cDo you support your student union (AMS) in boycotting products and divesting from companies that support Israeli war crimes, illegal occupation and the oppression of Palestinians?\u201d<\/p>\n
The question was brought to the AMS by the UBC branch of the Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights (SPHR), which collected the required number of signatures to have a referendum that was initially scheduled to take place in March. It was postponed when UBC third-year commerce student Logan Presch filed a petition against it. He and his legal representation secured a court order that resulted in the referendum\u2019s delay.<\/p>\n
Presch\u2019s petition stated the proposed question \u201cis divisive, creates a toxic atmosphere for students supportive of the state of Israel, and is destructive of open and respectful debate on an important issue.\u201d It also raised safety concerns, he said, noting the 2015 referendum \u201cdrove a wedge between religious groups on campus who had previously enjoyed interfaith outreach and collaboration. Students outwardly opposed to the [referendum] encountered a hostile reaction and there were reported acts of antisemitism on campus.\u201d<\/p>\n
In an affidavit, Rabbi Philip Bregman, executive director of Hillel BC, recalled that, at that time, anti-BDS lawn signs at UBC were pulled down. He also cited a climate of \u201ca lack of personal security that many Jewish students experience on campus that is exacerbated by referenda such as the proposed question. There is an important line between robust political discourse and circumstances where I am compelled to deal with the personal security of students who study and live on campus who feel threatened by the consequences of this type of proposed question, which I believe foments the antisemitism and hostility I have described…. I believe that these students\u2019 concerns for their personal safety are justified, as acts of violence have often followed hostility to Jews.\u201d<\/p>\n
While not Jewish, Presch is a member of the Jewish Students Association and the historically Jewish Alpha Epsilon Pi fraternity. He declined requests to comment but, in an affidavit filed with his lawyer, Howard Mickelson, Presch recalled that the first referendum created a \u201ctoxic environment on campus.\u201d He said the question being posed by the AMS was contrary to its mission statement, which is to \u201ccultivate unity and goodwill among its members\u201d and to \u201cencourage free and open debate as well as respect for differing views.\u201d Presch also noted that the AMS code of procedure requires referendum questions to be capable of a \u201cyes\u201d or \u201cno\u201d answer, but that this question is \u201cso loaded with assumptions (which are themselves highly controversial), that it will not be clear what a yes or no vote by my student colleagues will actually mean.\u201d<\/p>\n
Mickelson said the court recognized that the question was loaded and that the intention of a \u201cyes\u201d vote could be unclear for the AMS to act on, but denied the petition because the court determined \u201cthe society\u2019s bylaws do not require that a question be fair as long as it can be answered yes or no. The standard for a qualifying question is a low one.\u201d<\/p>\n
Mickelson said the court recognized the \u201cconcerns for student safety\u201d and acknowledged \u201cthe responsibility of the AMS and UBC to ensure student safety and respectful debate by all means necessary.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cAlthough this case involves the political hot potato issue of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the role of BDS on campus, we argued that this was about the interpretation of this society\u2019s bylaws,\u201d said Mickelson, who represented Presch\u2019s petition pro bono. \u201cOne of the arguments made by proponents of the question was that, in the context of a referendum, one party that is \u2018funded\u2019 or has \u2018connections\u2019 may be able to shut down the question against those that may not have the same level of funding\u2026. I thought it was important for the court to understand that I was doing this pro bono.\u201d<\/p>\n
Though \u201cdisappointed\u201d about the ruling, Bregman said \u201cwe really won the battles because the judge didn\u2019t disagree with any of our arguments. We lost because the judge felt he was bound by a very poorly written bylaw by the AMS. So, we go forward fighting this nefarious referendum aimed at marginalizing and demonizing not only Israel but, by extension, those who support Israel.\u201d<\/p>\n
Bregman recalled that, in the spring 2015 referendum, UBC had the largest \u201cno\u201d vote ever seen in Canada at that time. \u201cWe\u2019re ready to fight the referendum,\u201d he said, adding, \u201cBut really, what we\u2019re all about is dialogue and this is something that the SPHR has never taken us up on. Whereas we have dialogue with all sorts of groups on campus, the SPHR has rebuffed all of our efforts.\u201d<\/p>\n
The referendum question was to be directed at students starting Monday, as the Jewish Independent<\/em> was preparing to go to press.<\/p>\n