Wednesday 28 January 2009

New & Improved manifesto

We as students of Queen Mary are occupying lecture room FB 1.13 in the College to protest against the recognised war crimes in Gaza committed by the Israeli Government, and to show our solidarity with the oppressed peoples in the region. We are pursuing this course of action to maintain the momentum of other student protests in Universities across the U.K.
As students of this institution, we unreservedly object on moral grounds to the University’s failure to boycott goods supplied by companies who fund military operations in Gaza.
Furthermore, we have strong reasons to believe the University is financially involved with arms dealers GKN and Cobham. We find this morally unacceptable and ask for complete transparency on the part of the University regarding any investments in the arms trade. It will be our policy to seek to expose this issue and open it up for debate within the College.
We sincerely regret any inconvenience caused to either staff or students at our College; however, we have been motivated to act on the basis of our moral convictions.

We demand:

For the acting Principal to condemn, on behalf of the College, all attacks on Gaza, especially the shelling of several UN schools and a University.

That the University publish a comprehensive list of all investments made in public and private bodies. If it is found that any of the shares belong to companies who are involved in arms dealings that perpetuate violence and war, we would demand that all ties be severed and the University subscribe to an ethical investment policy.

Donate used and surplus equipment, such as computers, books and journals to Palestinian Universities in need of aid.

That the Queen Mary management formally condemns the British Broadcasting Corporation for their lack of impartiality epitomised in their refusal to air the Disaster Emergency Committee Gaza humanitarian appeal film.

We also call on the University to set up an international scholarship program of ten places for disadvantaged Palestinian students who wish to study here.

That there be no legal, financial, or academic measures taken against anyone involved in or supporting the occupation. Students involved should be guaranteed free movement in and out of the space.

N.B

After considerable research into the financial and ideological background of the Starbucks Corporation, we have decided to withdraw our demand that products of the Starbucks franchise should cease to be sold on campus. Despite our misgivings about Howard Schultz the C.E.O. of Starbucks, we feel that there is insufficient evidence that the company is involved in financing the Israeli military.
We therefore replace the demand with the aforementioned condemnation of the BBC. We believe that this is a much more pertinent issue for the people of Gaza, as well as the College.

16 comments:

  1. "After considerable research into the financial and ideological background of the Starbucks Corporation, we have decided to withdraw our demand that products of the Starbucks franchise should cease to be sold on campus. Despite our misgivings about Howard Schultz the C.E.O. of Starbucks, we feel that there is insufficient evidence that the company is involved in financing the Israeli military."

    Well done on all the "considerable research" you left until *after* issuing demands. Good job, really professional, much easier to take you seriously now. Not.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Good luck to the occupation. This issue requires persistence. When I was an undergrad, we pressured our university to divest itself of its South African interests and it was the beginning of the end of apartheid, over there, anyway. What about in the Middle East?
    Many of my colleagues on campus are following your occupation and your blog and support your actions.
    God bless y'all.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hysterically funny.
    Keep it up.

    Oh, and make mine a tall latte...

    ReplyDelete
  4. by "considerable research" you mean "following a couple of links other people posted on our blog after we made a ridiculous demand"?

    or did you find out something interesting about "the ideological background" of starbucks? i mean, other than wanting to sell as much coffee for the highest profit it can sustain, what exactly is their ideological background?

    you guys are funny. i'm trying to keep in mind you're 18-20 years old.

    ReplyDelete
  5. What was QM's response to the initial letter with these requests(before it was deemed necessary to take occupation in the building)?

    ReplyDelete
  6. good work QMers... keep it up, and ignore the sarky comments :-)

    ReplyDelete
  7. The second demand has great public support and warrants a campaign of its own, university investment in the arms trade is totally unacceptable. Good work.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Glad to see we're so amusing that several readers are spending considerable time reading and commenting pointless/ mildly insulting posts, keep it up! We find you just as amusing

    ReplyDelete
  9. pointing out you made an egregious mistake regarding starbucks is pointless?

    perhaps i overestimated the age group involved here.

    you should spend some time thinking why you made that silly mistake.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Have you done any research into Hamas's ideology by the way?

    Or are coffee shops more important?

    I am still laughing at the fact that you fell for that classic anti-semitic urban myth.
    Really boosts your credibility.

    PS Cambridge occupiers have folded.

    ReplyDelete
  11. oh NO, not room FB1.13... shucks

    ReplyDelete
  12. For those who think the university occupations are nothing but amusing to you, i hope that the day injustice is done to you, people will walk on by.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Re Philip's question:

    What was QM's response to the initial letter with these requests(before it was deemed necessary to take occupation in the building)?
    29 January 2009 11:34

    I don't believe the occupiers sent the College any demands before occupying - they occupied first before knowing what QM's response would be.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Perhaps the QM occupation would like to confirm if they bothered to issue any demands before taking action?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Im not sure why you were lobbying the QM directors to make statements, you should have just got concessions. The one about dis-investment was clearly a good point.

    Good struggle - keep on keepin' on

    ReplyDelete