I believe the decisions that were made by HRES and the University had to do with events that occured prior to this poster not being approved.
There was a table that was set up during Israel Apartheid Week in the student center by SPHR and MMPJ on the first day of IAW, that included banners with statements such as "Zionism = Racism", as well as posters with quotes of palestinians stating that Israel specifically targeted Palestinian Women and Children.
These posters, quotes, and banners DID offend and intimidate a LARGE number of both students and staff (there are no "it MAY have offended" about this...), and numerous complaints were lodged with Human Rights and Equity Services, who looked into the table and the information passed around.
I think it is most likely the case that following these complaints the HRES, in following the Student Code of Conduct, took that stance that while none of the events should be shutdown the aggressive advertising of such sayings should be toned down in order to prevent a portion of the McMaster student body from feeling harrased and intimidated.
I see a similarity to the MSU Policy that someone tabling can not aggressively pass out flyers to students passing by, but information can only be handed out if an interested student approaches the table. Similarly, inflammatory statements such as those made should not be forced upon ever student passing by the MUSC without being informed.
I have been following the situation in the middle east (out of personal interest...) for a number of years, and I believe that the term 'Israel Apartheid' is an extreme slander, which is known to originate from a UN conference held in South Africa in 2001. The Durban World Conference Against Racism was not attended by the United States or Israel, however it was attended by Canada, believing it would be about the worthy humanitarian cause of addressing Racism and Human Rights throughout the world. Instead, the conference was subverted by anti-Israeli rhetoric and focused on the Middle-East. The Canadian Delegation made a statement that the conference was a sham and an attempt to delegitimize the state of Israel.
(The full statement from Canada can be found on pages 119-122 of this .pdf file) Canada has since stated that they would not participate in a Durban II Conference.
For those of you who may not be familiar with the term Apartheid and why it is found to be offensive, the key thing to understand is not only that it does not apply to Israel, but that Apartheid is deemed by international law to be a crime against humanity. The sole purpose of pairing the two terms is to delegitimize Israel, and does not further the cause in supporting Palestinian Human Rights at all.
Unfortunately, the term 'Israel Apartheid' has entered into the realm of public debate. Israel Apartheid Week is held at a number of universities internationally, and has been growing in popularity since its start in Toronto in 2004. Due to the general communities policy on either debating the issue (adding credence to the claim), or else remaining silent so as to avoid conflict with organizing groups (specifically getting into issues over "Free Speech" as we saw here), the event has now spread to 20 cities internationally.
As a speaker stated at the forum on Friday, they wanted to hear reasons as to why Israel is not an Apartheid... For those who have not heard the explanation, there is an excellent
article in the Hamilton Spectator, published on Monday, about the term, its history, and why it simply does not apply in the case of Israel.
I do not know much about how the table was organized or who organized the events that were run during the week, but I have heard from from friends that when they approached the table and asked for more information, many of the students running at the table did not know the meaning of the term Apartheid, let alone the implications, history, or even the South African context to which the term properly refers. If this is true, it is worrisome to me because it makes sense (at least to me) that anyone tabling such a controversial table, SHOULD be capable of conveying their point of view fully, and should be fully aware of what they are talking about.
I think the University was correct in identifying this topic as a very divisive and controversial one, and was correct in the steps that they took in order to uphold the Student Code, as well as attempting to maintain the friendly, productive, and communal environment in the University. I only wish they would have been more clear on their stance from the outset, as there WAS a lot of confusion.
I also have a lot more to say about the
fiasco on Friday morning in the atrium, but it is late, so I'll come back online when I have a chance (probably tomorrow late night) and respond to any comments or questions, as well as post more information on what happened on Friday and my thoughts on the incidents.
Damn this is a long post! I hope wasn't too long, and I really hope this helps clarify some reasons as to why the University may have taken the stance that it has.