Talk:Barbara Kay controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Re: "French-speaking Université de Montréal welcomed them [i.e., Jews]"

The inaccuracies at Quebec bashing have been reproduced here. I am reproducing my comments at Talk:Quebec bashing herein and removing the aforementioned inaccuracies.--Lance ^talk 10:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

COUNTER EXAMPLE: Re: "French-speaking Université de Montréal welcomed them [i.e., Jews]"

“ONE OF THE MOST BIZARRE STRIKES IN CANADIAN HISTORY”

The French-speaking Université de Montréal (hereafter, U of M), had an official policy of restriction against Jews in this French-Catholic intitution.

There was not a total exclusion of Jewish people, however, but the small numbers of Jews that did attend U of M were subjected to harsh and intense harassment.

On March 13, 1929, for example, l’Association générale de l’Université de Montreal, (AGEUM), gave the rector of this university a petition demanding the expulsion of all Jews from the University. (See: Pierre Anctil, “Interlude of Hostility: Judeo-Christian Relations in Quebec in the Interwar Period, 1919-1939.” In: Antisemitism in Canada: History and Interpretation. Edited by Alan Davies, Wilfred Laurier University Press, 1992, p. 147, from an author who is an apologist for French Quebec antisemitism.).

In June 1934, there occurred what historian Irving Abella has called, “one of the most bizarre strikes in Canadian history.” (See: Irving Abella, A Coat of Many Colours: Two Centuries of Jewish Life in Canada. Toronto, Canada, Lester & Dennys ltd., 1990, p. 179.) Dr. Samuel Rabinovitch was both fluent in the French language and a recent graduate of the U of M Faculty of Medicine; with the highest grades in his graduating class. Dr. Rabinovitch was offered, in June 1934, an internship at Hôpital Notre-Dame, a French-Catholic hospital associated with U of M. When Dr. Rabinovitch, a Jew, began work at Hôpital Notre-Dame all of the other French-Catholic interns went on strike to protest having to work with a Jew. The French-Catholic interns picketed outside the hospital; refusing to even accept emergency cases. The anti-Jewish strike received favorable front page coverage by major French-language newspapers such as Le Devoir (Ibid.). When the French-Catholic interns began to lose some of their of their initial enthusiasm, and were considering whether or not to continue with the strike, “five other Catholic hospitals joined the strike.” (See: Lita-Rose Betcherman, The Swastika and the Maple Leaf: Fascist Movements in Canada in the Thirties, Fitzhenry & Whiteside, 1975, pp. 39-40.) Following this expanded walkout, the nursing staff of all of the hospitals involved also threatened to strike if a Jewish doctor would be allowed to work in a French hospital (Ibid., p.40). Within three days Dr. Rabinovitch was forced to resign (See: Pierre Anctil, op. cit., pp. 147-148.)--Lance ^talk 10:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Documents relating to what is identified as the "Interns Strike" can be found at:

http://faculty.marianopolis.edu/c.belanger/QuebecHistory/docs/jews/index.htm --Lance ^talk 10:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

I think it's quite obvious this is a completely biased representation of the issue, from calling the demonstration anti-Israel (which I keep having to revert to "in support of Lebanon", the latter doesn't imply the former). Using the word "detractor" instead of critics, and presenting essentially Kay's versions of the events to support her thesis, emphasizing on the "French canadian" nature of the critics (did the author of this article bother to look for other critics? Definitely a case of confirmation bias). The list goes on. A much shorter case against this article would be WP:NOT#OTHOUGHT it's an opinion on current events from 6 months ago. It might as well be nominated for deletion.--Boffob 22:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Deal with facts not your opinions; that are, indeed, quite irrelevant.

• I agree with the last comment. It is Boffob that is POV pushing around here.

If I may, I suggest that the opinions of 132.211.195.57 and 132.206.58.39 - who, in good faith, I assume to be two different users - might carry a bit more weight if they'd at least sign their posts. Victoriagirl 22:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind if they cared to elaborate on this. Merely stating one's opinion does not constitute an argument. They have yet to give a reason why my edits constitute POV pushing or how the article isn't POV.--Boffob 22:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)