Why should academics\/athletes\/performers have to deal with this requirement?<\/b><\/summary>\nIt’s essential for individuals with a public stature and power to shape public opinion to use their platforms towards creating a more peaceful world. Signing this declaration is a simple way to do so. Additionally, by signing this declaration, when academics whose countries engage in mass civilian killings participate at University events, they can avoid the \u2018elephant in the room\u2019 and indirectly address the audience’s likely question on their positionality vis a vis such government policies. <\/p>
In contrast, the possible reasoning for an academic refraining from signing the declaration is either because they believe that civilian killings can be justified in some instances,<\/span> or because their work is associated with a military entity complicit in civilian killings, or because they themselves participated at in the past in such military activity or may do so in the future. We believe this would reflect the individual\u2019s prejudice or racism as they would not believe in basic human rights of all people and runs counter to most academic codes of conduct. In any such event, the CHRA-adopting entity reserves its right to not be associated with them nor offer them a platform. <\/span><\/p><\/p>\n<\/details>\n\n\n <\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>
\n
What\u2019s the advantage for a university in implementing this requirement?<\/b><\/summary>\n By making the signing of this declaration a prerequisite to taking part in events, a university affirms, for example, its \u201cspecial social responsibility and […] the exemplary functions that come with it\u201d to offer a space that ensures and shields itself from \u201cintolerance, discriminating or offensive behavior\u201d (taken from the Code-of-Conduct of the University of Vienna as an example). Students can thereby be guaranteed that speakers dissociate themselves from discriminatory practices, including mass killings, against particular groups of individuals.<\/p>
From the perspective of a un<\/span>iversity, requiring individuals speaking at an event at the university\u2019s premises either physically or online to sign this declaration ensures that its platforms consistently and by principle uphold human rights and non-discrimination against all people. Furthermore, requiring the signing of this declaration will allow the university to contribute to the public debate and sensitize the general public to the high impact of lives lost to man-made wars irrespective of who the perpetrator is. This can also help shift public opinion away from resorting to wars as a solution. <\/span> <\/span><\/p> A slightly amended version of this declaration could be added to the university\u2019s code of conduct as a way to anticipate any tensions within the university halls among students and faculty and serves to attenuate any possible such tensions. Indeed, short of implementing such a rule, accusations and counter accusations among students are likely to arise, weakening the social peace within university premises. For example, it could be that students supporting Israel\u2019s invasion of Gaza will be attacked knowing that some call the invasion a genocide. Similarly, pro-Palestinian students who oppose the actions of the State of Israel may also be subject of attacks as some call any opposition to Israel a call for genocide. Along the same, lines, students opposed to continued support for Ukraine can be attacked as some say this will enable a Ukrainian genocide by Russia. <\/p><\/p>\n<\/details>\n\n\n
<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>
\n
Why would someone refuse to sign this declaration?<\/b><\/summary>\nIn an event where an invited speaker feels they cannot agree with the declaration\u2019s points and cannot therefore sign it, this could stem from the following possible reasoning: it is either because they believe that civilian killings can be justified in some instances, or because their work is associated with a military entity complicit in civilian killings, or because they themselves participated at in the past in such military activity or may do so in the future. We believe this would reflect their prejudice or racism as they would not believe in basic human rights of all people and runs counter to most academic codes of conduct. For this, the CHRA-adopting organization upholds its right to not give them a platform and refuses to be associated with them. <\/p>\n<\/details>\n\n\n
<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>
\n
\nWhat other examples of violent conflicts would this have applied too?<\/b><\/summary>\n\n\nWar on Ukraine, war on Afghanistan, war on Iraq, among others conflicts with mass civilian killings perpetrated by a democratic country. \n<\/p>\n<\/details>\n\n
<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>
\n
\nMost Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims strongly dislike the fact that they are asked to condemn Hamas before non-Arab audiences can listen to what they have to say – isn\u2019t this declaration requiring the same when asking Israeli individuals with a public stature to condemn the actions of their government before we can listen to them? Why can\u2019t we just assume it?<\/b><\/summary>\n\nIn an unfortunate way yes, it\u2019s similar, with the difference being that most non-Arab audiences by now know that Hamas\u2019 actions targeting unarmed civilians do not represent all Palestinians, just as much as ISIS does not represent Islam. Whereas the Israeli government continues to push the narrative that it is the sole spokesperson for its citizens as well as all Jews everywhere – this has also become an accepted and adopted narrative among governments and institutions including universities of the Global North. For this, it is important for individuals in question to be offered the opportunity to distance themselves from such a narrative.\n<\/p>\n<\/details>\n\n
<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>
\n
\nHow was the 0.40 threshold of free-speech index determined?<\/b><\/summary>\n\n\nThe line has to be drawn at some value; a CHRA-adopting organization can decide to have a different threshold. \n<\/p>\n<\/details>\n\n
<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>
\n
Isn\u2019t this about \u201cpunishing\u201d people who don’t share the same view as you?<\/b><\/summary>\n This is not about views or opinions, it\u2019s about acknowledging basic human rights to all. Those who refuse to sign actually give their own ‘tribe’ special rights (self-defense, right-of-return, etc.) but deny it to others. None of the points listed in the declaration are controversial, are based on human rights and should accordingly apply to all people. <\/p>\n<\/details>\n\n\n
<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>
\n
\nWhat if the individuals signing this declaration simply sign it and agree with all the points yet continue to be an indirect part of the oppression system?<\/b><\/summary>\n\n\nYes, that\u2019s a potential problem that would render this declaration moot, however, since the signature is public this indirect contribution to the oppression system would at least create a discussion on social media.\n<\/p>\n<\/details>\n\n
<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>
\n
Does this mean that Israeli signees have to deny Israel the right to self-defense?<\/b><\/summary>\nThe signee would be acknowledging that all humans are equal and all have the right to self-defense according to international law. Giving one\u2019s own ‘tribe’ the right to self-defense but denying it to others is just racist. <\/p>\n<\/details>\n\n\n
<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n