Wednesday, 28 January 2009

Queen Mary student's demands

We as Queen Mary students are occupying lecture room FB113 in the College to show our solidarity with the students across the UK who have taken similar actions as a protest against the recognised war crimes in Gaza.
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 reason to believe the University is financially involved with arms dealers GKN and Cobham.
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 educational institutions in Gaza, including 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 amend its ethical investment policy.


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


We also call on the University to end the sale of Starbucks products on the campus due to Starbuck’s continued financial support of the Israeli aggression.


We also call on the University to open up our international scholarship program to 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 sit-in. Students involved should be guaranteed free movement in and out of the space.

16 comments:

  1. the starbucks thing is an urban legend.

    you guys are funny.

    ReplyDelete
  2. this starbucks thing is moronic.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi Queen Mary - well done with the occupation.

    Starbucks are a hiorrible company but they don't give money to the IDF. The rumour is based around a spoof letter from the CEO Howard Schultz.

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/israel/schultz.asp

    Howard Shultz does describes himself as an 'active zionist' but I think a better target to boycott would be Boots which is investing heavily in the pharmaceutical industry in Israel.

    We need to be absolutely clear we are not against Jewish-owned or run businesses but against ISRAELI ones or those doing business with Israeli companies.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Oh, nice save.

    Why not be against AMERICAN businesses or those doing business with American companies?

    I mean, they are actually occupying two countries, right?

    As is... the UK. Perhaps it is time for a US/UK boycott.

    But of course, you're not going to sign up for that. No, there is something you particularly dislike about Israel, and those who trade with it.

    I can't for the life of me imagine what it is that sets Israel apart.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Great work guys, thank-you! Ignore all the negative comments and stay in good spirit :-)

    I think Palestinians would be really proud, its about time their suffering was heard.

    x

    ReplyDelete
  7. QUEEN MARY OCCUPATION >> We also call on the University to end the sale of Starbucks products on the campus due to Starbuck’s continued financial support of the Israeli Defence Force.

    Now, stuff like this makes you look like raving loonies aiding and abetting the dissemination an apocryphal tale.

    Several Starbuck coffee-houses in this country have been the target of criminal damage, and staff and customers placed in peril, due to this. Have any of ewes been involved? Don't you think the company and Police may be interested in your encouraging this falsehood?

    GAZA SOLIDARITY >> Howard Shultz does describes himself as an 'active zionist' but I think a better target to boycott would be Boots which is investing heavily in the pharmaceutical industry in Israel.

    Yeah, good idea! You can start by picketing oncology centres or paediatric units or burns departments, I'm quite sure you'll get oodles of sympathy. Just like checking where your tomatoes and avocados comes from, eh?

    Psychos.

    SWALIHA >> Great work guys, thank-you! Ignore all the negative comments

    Perfect approach to open debate, free thinking and sane protest, mate.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Boycott Boots - yes, how dare they invest in those advanced Israeli pharmaceuticals, the evil, evil monsters.

    Grow up.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Students involved should be guaranteed free movement in and out of the space.

    Now that is truly funny.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I think it's absolutely fine to argue that Starbucks should be boycotted, on the grounds that their CEO is a zionist, but also because they are a huge multinational with all the ethical issues inherent in that.

    However, as noted above, the company itself does not directly fund Israel (they have sponsored various dodgy events in the past, but that was years ago) so your statement should be reworded so as not to perpetuate this untrue rumour.

    Keep up the good work though! :)

    ReplyDelete
  11. >>I think it's absolutely fine to argue that Starbucks should be boycotted, on the grounds that their CEO is a zionist, but also because they are a huge multinational with all the ethical issues inherent in that.

    Hahahahaha, you absolute prick. This applies to your whole post, but this one sentence jumped out at me. Please do tell how you're posting this on the Interweb.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Greetings from a Sussex Occupier, These demands are a solid base to negotiate with, keep up the good work and stay strong, don't cave into vague statements from management.
    Solidarity,
    Tom

    ReplyDelete
  13. Alec Macpherson - your posts are offensive to other commenters and unnecessary generally, if you intend to continue using such language we will be forced to block you from posting

    ReplyDelete
  14. Okay, I'll remove one particular word. Now, please comment on your promulgating a blatant falsehood.

    ReplyDelete
  15. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete