Pro-Israel votes win day

MICHELLE DODEK

On April 30, Mountain Equipment Co-op (MEC), a Vancouver-based national sporting goods retailer, had an enormous turn out for its annual general meeting (AGM). To meet quorum, MEC bylaws require 50 members of the co-op in attendance. In 2008, they had 51 members present. This year, more than 250 crammed into the meeting hall in the Simon Fraser University Segal Graduate School of Business. The reason for the unusually large turn out: a motion made by an MEC member that sought to boycott Israeli products.

MEC is owned by its three million members, each of whom can propose resolutions in the hope of influencing the operations of the company. The resolutions are advisory in nature, so the board of directors is bound to make decisions based on the best interest of the members and the company. One of the pillars of MEC's philosophy is sustainability and ethical sourcing. Therefore, MEC screens the conditions in the factories that manufacture their products. On the MEC blog, the company explains its policy in this way, "we do not divide our supply chain along political lines. In short, we will not take sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Our human rights efforts are squarely focused on our supply chain – on working to improve the factory conditions and treatment of the workers that make MEC-brand products."

Outside of the AGM on Granville Street, there were activists from both sides of the issue handing out information about the topic. Green papers, passed out mostly by students from Hillel, had five short points. The message was: "Support MEC's policy on ethical sourcing. Oppose the motion recommending a boycott on Israeli goods."

The pro-Palestinian group handed out pamphlets with pictures of dead children and an Israeli soldier, as well as a lengthy list of alleged human rights violations and the various organizations that condemn Israel. The resolution was also on one of their pamphlets and took up an entire page, with five paragraphs detailing the stance that Israel is a human rights violator and, therefore, must be sanctioned in order to bring to an end what they call "Israeli apartheid."

Inside the MEC meeting things carried on as any AGM would, with a financial report, election results for the new the board and other presentations. The first resolution came up for discussion after 90 minutes of regular business. This motion had to do with the conflict between motorized and human-powered recreation and it was dealt with in less than 10 minutes.

The second motion was the boycott resolution. MEC chair Denise Lawson explained that, although normal procedure calls for each motion to receive only 15 minutes of time on the agenda, this issue would get an extension, in order to deal with the great deal of interest. The mover of the resolution, Gordon Murray, spoke for the allotted seven minutes, reading his lengthy motion and outlining what he called "significant war crimes in Gaza." He also focused on the idea of Israel as an apartheid state. A discussion ensued, with four minutes allocated to each speaker, alternating sides. There were 10 speakers lined up to speak against the resolution and seven or eight to support it.

Those speaking for the resolution took the lead from the mover of the resolution. They spoke of Israel as a violent regime instituting an apartheid policy on Palestinians and about effecting political change through boycott. One speaker went as far as to compare Israel with Nazi Germany. The final speaker finished her message saying, "This is not the last you will hear of the boycotting of Israeli products."

The anti-resolution side was also a mix of Jews and non-Jews. The approaches to defeating the resolution included a few tactics. One theme was that MEC must focus on the company, not the country, that produces the product and another was to trust MEC's ethical sourcing policy. One speaker decried the proposed motion as "a venomous campaign of hate" and another asked that her "co-op not be held captive to these kinds of arguments."

The discussion was closed after four speakers on each side of the issue and a vote was conducted by raising orange voting cards; the numbers tallied by MEC employees. It was defeated by what looked like approximately a 2:1 ratio. The meeting ended within minutes and the discussion spilled out into the lobby and reception. A number of MEC employees defended MEC's ethical sourcing policies and said they were offended that their co-op be used as a political pawn. Other MEC employees, stunned by the 200 calls per day MEC received on this resolution during the week preceding the meeting, were amazed at the passion behind the issue.

Michelle Dodek has been a member of MEC for almost 20 years.

^TOP