BDS

The BDS contagion spreads to ULU


We hear from Daphne Anson’s blog that the BDS contagion has spread to Europe’s largest student union in London.   According to the BDS Movement’s announcement, the ULU (which represents students at the colleges which comprise the University of London in the UK) has voted, apparently overwhelmingly at 10 – 1, to adopt a resolution in favour of BDS.

This should not be surprising, given the pattern of entryist activity which seems to feed BDS and to follow it around like a bad smell through student bodies in the UK and particularly in London, coupled with the glaring lack of presence of UK-based Israel or Jewish student unions at such debates, but the “overwhelming” vote of confidence in the motion merits much closer examination before we accept it without question:

My source tells me that this majority is in fact the result of block voting. It seems that the university Senate operates in a similar way to the UK Parliament, where the population elects MPs who in turn, make decisions informed by debates at meetings unless they are otherwise instructed by their students

I would like to know whether this motion was fully debated in every institution and by what size majority the vote for BDS was carried and have asked my source to try to find out exactly how many individual students gave instructions to their representatives to vote for and how many against (so as to get a more accurate reading of whether there is indeed such overwhelming support for BDS) but am told that even the President elect of the ULU is in total ignorance of the statistics and has referred my source back to the ULU itself.

To suggest reasons for the ULU’s apparent BDS “success” we need only to refer to the history of the UK Labour party and its experience of the extreme Left’s use of block voting to carry its own agenda.  The following snippet from a paper about Labour’s electoral nadir may begin the process:

"…. The 1979 Conference approved a proposal to examine the issue of re-selection and suggest a Constitutional amendment which would be placed before the 1980 Conference. At that conference, the amendment was passed by 3,798,000 votes for to 3,341,000 against (RACLP, 1980: 297).7   Under the new rules therefore, all MPs faced a larger degree of constraint and uncertainty in their actions, since any Member whose opinions differed from their local constituency activists now faced the prospect of losing their jobs, even if they were preferred by the majority of the constituency’s electorate. …

(   7 At this time, the high figures were due to the trade union ‘block votes’, which reflected the size of the unions, rather than the individual members of the Labour Party itself. Under the block voting system, trade unions controlled ninety per cent of votes at the Party Conference.) “

My emphasis is at footnote 7.

Note that the author says that the high voting figures are as a result of the trade union block votes and reflected the size of the unions rather than individual Labour Party members.  The sentence following that may provide a clue as to why there seems to be apparently overwhelming support for BDS at ULU.  Note also the reference to the power of activists in the following:

“… Under the new rules therefore, all MPs faced a larger degree of constraint and uncertainty in their actions, since any Member whose opinions differed from their local constituency activists now faced the prospect of losing their jobs, even if they were preferred by the majority of the constituency’s electorate..”

Using the same analogy, I ask readers to consider whether representatives who disagreed with BDS would be “deselected” in favour of those who would carry forward the motion?  I am intrigued by the one brave soul who stood against it and the number of students he/she claimed to represent.  As I noted above, I asked my source to try to get those “for” and “against” figures, in terms of numbers of students who were consulted or who voted, from the ULU. 

Somehow I doubt that they will be forthcoming.   If I receive them I shall update this article accordingly. In the meantime, I would suggest that we take the BDS Movement’s allegedly overwhelming victory with a huge pinch of salt.

10 replies »

  1. Might it just be that members want to do something about the occupation rather than some silly conspiracy theory?

    The tide is changing people and you are caught on the wrong side.

    • Medusa, thank you. I note that you say that you will keep us updated if the ULU deign to get back to you with hard figures, but like you I doubt that they will.

      My guess is that the entryists in this case were pea-brained Islamist ranters and their fellow travellers, who put pressure on the representatives and of whom the university authorities in almost all the London Universities are sh*t scared. So bent out of shape are they about “political correctness” and so prone to the sort of manipulation that said ranters resort to as easily as breathing, that they long ago lost sight of the life affirming educational values they might once have espoused.

      But I take comfort from the experience of one local authority in the UK which decided to divest itself from and boycott Israeli goods. It cost millions of pounds of ratepayers money to source and find acceptable substitutes. I think the Green Party was behind this fiasco, but no doubt people will correct me if I am wrong.

      My point is that UK universities are in such dire financial straits that they will be no position at all to make those sort of changes, so they’ll just have to resort to not eating Israeli fruit or hummus or such like. It’d be funny if it weren’t so pitiable.

      Be fair TGIAI, you shouldn’t boycott only Scotland, although you could start there. The EU and most of the so-called civilised West have been hypnotised by Islamist lies (which means that they can’t have had much going for them in the first place, but they certainly don’t deserve to be used by Islamists and their useful idiots).

      At the same time, we can’t really afford to wait until they fall flat on their backsides, can we? I see sites like this as having the effect of drops of water on a stone, gradually wearing it away.

      The information here is always trustworthy and fact based unlike the ordure we find on sites like CiF. Even the occasional lunatics like moistly and sanity, who try to lower the tone here by posting links from avowedly anti-Israel sites and other crazy burblings as if they are objective and unbiased information serve only to make us stronger, because this gives our infinitely better informed and honest posters the right to reply with honest, fact based information.

    • “Might it just be that members want to do something about the occupation rather than some silly conspiracy theory?” mostly clueless

      Oh, really, how smart of you. Let´s see…ah, the famous “occupation”. Well,
      it cannot be of Gaza, because it´s in the hands of Hamasses since 2005.

      So, what occupation you are talking about? The spanish occupation of Ceuta?
      The occupation of Mexico by the US? Please, clarify.

      In fact, there are hundreds of diputed territories around the world, check:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_territorial_disputes

      So I wonder why you and your ilk decided to obsess about Israel? Try to explain this monomania to us. Could that possibly be due to the very effective palestinian victimological propaganda?

    • the wrong side –
      Yes,yes,of course.Parliamentary democracy,religious freedom,gay rights,womens rights,free press etc etc – the wrong side according to you.

    • There are far more pressing issues in the world than this local conflict. Might the boycotters turn their attention to those matters instead? Or are they too cowardly to pick on any other states than those they know are beholden to turn-the-other-cheek behavior and therefore will indulge them?

      “The tide is changing people and you are caught on the wrong side.”

      We’ll see how the side of Islam-supporting multiculturalism fares in the end.

  2. What exactly is the purpose of these student unions? ? I keep hearing about student unions, the one at my university (back in the stone age), was trying to get us better campus transportation, cheaper food at the student union, less mark up on textbooks, things directly relating to the quality of student life on campus…..international political concerns were no where in the bylaws.
    Are they as concerned about issues in their own community, or is that too close to home and they might actually be expected to do something tangible….invest their time and resouces….sound bites are so much easier …..

    • It’s another way of propagating jihad. Think University College London, famed for its contribution to the ranks of suicide bombers, Imperial College, ditto and/or other Islamist terror; the SOAS cesspit of Islamist support; and lesser enclaves in City University London; Goldsmiths and elsewhere; all of which have thriving Muslim societies, and I believe, actively spread the da’wah.

      The universities’ bodies in charge adopt the same attitude to them, of terrified acquiescence for fear of being thought not to be PC (and nowadays, fear of going bankrupt) as does the UK government to the blatant encroachment of Islamism here and the dangers represented by the hundreds of known Islamists in the wind.

    • “What exactly is the purpose of these student unions?” jane

      Their purpose is to indoctrinate a new generation of frustrated useful idiots, devoid of the minimal requirements of critical thinking, with an entrench contempt for the notions of truth and objectivity, hence unable to think for themselves, while quite apt at screaming slogans and following orders like perfect ventriloquist-dummies while at the same time ever-ready to switch to abject victimizing channel, robotically accusing everyone they dislike of “racist”, “esssentialist” or some such fashionable non-sense. We can see the end products of this factory of morons all around us.

  3. So basically, it’s not like the union one of my roomates was involved in all those years ago with bylaws and a mission statement acting as a mediator between administration and the student body—-primarily university issues. You paid your dues, got a card and 5% off at some local businesses as an inducement to join. Not that much was accomplished back then either, but at least the focus was on issues effecting student life.

    We have the same cr*p going on at some of the campuses in the US, mostly the more elite liberal arts colleges. It’s diluted by the sheer size and number of colleges/universities in the States and the overall cost of an education….