Ideas, Identity and Perspective

Oh yeah definitely. I don’t mean to say that the Quebec protests are illegitimate or unwarranted. Education is a right, and should be made a priority. Governments shouldn’t back down from their promises to help the youth get through school and find a job, especially when we’ll be the hardest hit when babyboomers retire and we’re stuck with the rising costs of taking care of the previous gen who subsequently screwed us over. 

And Bill 78 is an egregious affront to democracy and the right to free speech and assembly. It marks all the wrong steps in dealing with the situation.

And you’re right. Harper has been a menace to Canadian parliamentary democracy and fundamentally undermining everything Canada has been built upon these past 145 years. 

But I think we need to look at the bigger picture here that we have it much better off than many other youth. 50% youth unemployment in Spain. Tuition costs that are multiple times higher for youth in the States. Even generally, our standard of living in Canada is much better than, let’s say, my homeland of the Philippines, irregardless of Harper’s doing. And we’ll get him out of office, and hopefully whoever steps up to the plate next can and will do a better job. 

And the other thing that I’d like to mention is that the media surrounding the Quebec protests have been ignoring the shadowy politics and divisiveness of student protest groups, such as the CFS. Their methods, unnecessary, divisive and dominating. Much of their policy suggestions are inefficient and nonsensical (although I do agree with some of their basic tenets). Yes, tuition protests are much more justified here in Ontario with much higher tuition rates than in Quebec, but nothing has been done to make anything worse. And I’m not going to protest at the will of the CFS who continues to undermine universities throughout Canada. 

Yes, we must do better. 
We must do better to keep Harper accountable. 
We must do better to relieve students of their ill-fated futures of rising debt, rising tuition costs and little to no employment entering the workforce. 
But are protests in “solidarity” with Quebec students the right way, considering the “leadership” and record of the CFS? I don’t think so.

And for the record, I think they have all the right to protest. As long as its peaceful. And I hope both sides, police and protesters restrain themselves from violence.

As the article author, who I don’t completely agree with, says: “Solidarity is not always good, nor is it a substitute for actual action… [it] is a feel-good word, an ideological substitute for an actual ideology.” 

I’d use a different word for “caring about other people”. Compassion. Empathy. Not throwing molotov cocktails.

azspot:

reality check

(via sunfoundation)

himynameisangelo:

95 years ago on this day, the four Canadian Divisions came together under the leadership of General Byng and Commander Arthur Currie to capture Vimy Ridge as one unified Canadian Force. Today, we mark the Battle of Vimy Ridge as a fundamental event in the founding of our nation.

It is true that Canadians have developed a mythology out of the history of the First World War. We see Vimy as the creation of a national identity. Although Canadians had successfully captured Vimy Ridge, 3600 men died and 7000 were wounded. The conscription policy that Robert Borden’s government had introduced in 1917 was a divisive issue that only aggravated the tensions between English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians. The notion that we were wholly successful in World War I is largely inaccurate, despite strategic military success.

It is, however, the mass number of dead and wounded that formed a common memory in the consciousness of Canadians. With Vimy Ridge came a burgeoning nationalism that developed in Canada, and that the potential of Laurier’s dream of a Canadian century could very well be achieved. What Vimy Ridge and the First World War did was to solidify a Canadian identity that complimented the political framework established in 1867 by the Fathers of Confederation.

Today, we continue on the same path that John A. Macdonald and the rest of the Fathers had laid for us, but may we never forget the sacrifices of not only those who lost their lives at Vimy Ridge 95 years ago, but our dead in other conflicts thoughout Canada’s history.

http://thevarsity.ca/2012/03/07/trinity-college-speaks-lo-must-go

“Trinity College’s student government has called for the immediate resignation of UTSU chief returning officer Daniel Lo.

The Trinity College Meeting (TCM), Trinity’s student government arm, passed the motion nearly unanimously at a meeting Monday night.

[…] 

‘Something is very, very wrong with these elections,’ said Sam Greene, treasurer of the TCM and author of the motion. ‘Every student has the right to fair and impartial elections,’ said Greene. ‘We must have CROs and DROs that students feel they can trust, who will impose and apply the rules fairly. That is not the case with Daniel Lo.’

[…]

‘This is a dialogue that needs to happen across the campus,’ said Jake Brockman, a student head at Trinity and member of the Arts & Science Faculty Council.

[…]

‘The fact that the CRO can issue demerit points over a person’s Facebook status sets a dangerous precedent at this university,’ said Angelo Mateo, a first-year student who also voted in favour of the motion.

[…]

Among students at the meeting, there was a growing sense that their votes will never matter, so long as the CRO retains the power to disqualify candidates and leaves students with insufficient recourse.

‘It’s getting a point where the CRO has more power than the voters,’ remarked Brent Schmidt, presidential candidate with StudentsFirst who was not involved with the vote at Trinity.”

http://trinlife.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/TCM-Letter-to-Vice-Provost-Matus.pdf

“The TCM believes that Mr. Lo has failed in his duty to remain impartial, that he has compromised the fair democratic process of these elections, and that his resignation is the only appropriate course of action. 

Students at this university have a right to free and fair elections. Impartial officers are integral to the structural fairness of elections. The actions of the UTSU Elections and Referenda committee and the UTSU Chief Returning Officer have called into question the impartiality of those people entrusted with administering elections. 

Mr. Lo has repeatedly ignored and refused to respond to inquiries by students and to investigate legitimate complaints of electoral misconduct. He has taken the liberty to disregard complaints he deems “frivolous”, essentially silencing concerns at his discretion, without investigating.

Mr. Lo has been inconsistent in his application of the electoral rules with respect to some candidates. He has issued a number of politically motivated rulings against the opposition slate StudentsFirst without just cause.”

This is something I’ve become a part of (whether I like it or not) and I’m glad I’m involved and fighting for a good cause. As much as people say that there are worst problems in the world, it doesn’t mean we can be silent and not act upon problems closer to home.

That being said, what we did this week was to take action and send a strong message to the whole university that Trinity College will stand up against this failure to uphold democracy at this university. 

Never been more proud to be a Trinity student and to be involved in bringing about change. 

On a recent trip to Montreal I had the privilege to hear Beryl Wasjman speak. He commented on the theme of the conference, “Information is the new currency of International Relations” and argued that, “Disinformation was and always will be the currency of politics.” There are few places where this claim holds as much truth as U of T student politics.

All around campus, students are bombarded by posters and slogans, being invited to countless Facebook groups and candidate events. Such is the nature of our democracy. Students, however, remain disillusioned with the democratic process which has produced an increasingly irrelevant UTSU. Voters feel disengaged, misinformed and powerless in face of long term electoral trends. The ever decreasing voter turnouts are the best evidence of an increasingly apathetic electorate.

Why are students feeling cynical towards UTSU elections? Consider, for example, the various actions, or lack thereof, taken by the Students Union. At the writing of this article, there have been grumblings on campus about the absence of ample notice for the All Candidates Debate on Wednesday February 29th. Many feel blindsided by the sudden notification of the event. I expect that the response will be that UTSU did give notice to the event. But I ask in reply: why was it that so many students were left in the dark about it? At the Annual General Meeting in November, the body voted to amend a by-law that now reads that future AGMs will be advertised in any “campus publications” rather than limiting ads to specific campus newspapers. The argument was that it would expand their reach to encourage students to participate. Why then has this same logic not been applied to the All Candidates Debate?

Surely, this year’s AGM alone sets much precedent to UTSU’s actions. Like much of the same complaints about the All Candidates Debate, many people were arguing that they were not informed in time to register for proxy voting. As well, a motion was passed at the AGM to limit debate to six speakers- three for and three against. Clearly, this shows how much UTSU values the importance of informing students, and how they value each student’s opinion.

The topic of proxy voting is another issue that is a concern to students. The idea behind this political mechanism is that students who cannot attend a meeting can voluntarily register to offer their voting rights to another student who is attending. The reasoning is logical; many students cannot attend a meeting because of transportation problems (the main reasoning behind UTM students’ heavy use of proxies), class or other prior engagements. Thus, someone else who shares the same political views can utilize what could have been a wasted vote.

However, many UTSU events have proven that the concept of proxy votes is inherently undemocratic. At an AGM, members can have up to another 10 votes. When motions and bylaws were being voted upon, about 30% of those actually attending had approximately over 300 votes opposed to the other 70% who held about 70 votes. Furthermore, the current administration attempts to explain that proxy voting is a democratically established right and that the student body is free to change this policy if it wishes. But it can’t. The policy of proxy voting itself restricts any action from being taken to abolish or reform this draconian concept.

The charges do not end there. Complaints have been raised about the usage of proxy voting at Board of Directors meetings. Under the Canada Corporations Act, proxy voting is prohibited and directors must be present to fully participate and vote. A publication by Industry Canada entitled, Primer for Directors of Not-for-profit Corporations: Rights, Duties and Practices, clearly states:

 […] under the Canada Corporations Act, directors cannot vote or participate in meetings by proxy. This is legislative recognition of the importance of full participation by directors at board meetings.

 No, I am not a lawyer, but it is clear that directors cannot vote by proxy. It is their responsibility as directors to attend, discuss important issues to students and to utilize their right to vote. These directors were democratically elected and have a duty to uphold their constituents’ best interests. By not attending and allowing another director to act on behalf of the absentee, they not only show contempt for the democratic process but for Canadian law as well.

We must also remember the events that occurred in last year’s UTSU Election. Three candidates from the StudentsFirst opposition slate were disqualified for allegedly not having proper student numbers on their nomination forms. The whole slate decided to boycott the election, shortly thereafter, in protest. Matthew Gray, former Presidential Candidate for StudentsFirst was quoted as saying, “UTSU’s election processes are institutionally biased towards incumbents.” Is this what happens in a democracy that champions accountability and transparency? Is this really the way we want our student union to be elected and operate?

The case I am trying to make here is not about the inefficiency of our student union in comparison to others, or about their highly activist role in supporting causes that don’t fit with their own constituents, or even about the role of the Canadian Federation of Students with our organization. Many students have already voiced their concerns about these in previous articles.

The problem that I see as the most pressing is the legitimacy of the democratic process as we all enter into the next two weeks of the election. Whoever might be the new UTSU Executive must ensure that democracy is just as important a value as social justice and equality and that one cannot exist without the other. They must guarantee that all students are informed and have access to information about important events. They must also allow each student to have a fair chance at voicing their opinion and not stifling dissent by limiting debate or mysteriously disqualifying candidates.

We all complain about how students are apathetic towards campus politics but first, UTSU must ensure they can uphold the democratic process. By restoring students’ faith in the political system, perhaps more students might be inspired to be involved. 

Update:

I once thought that there was at least some hope in bringing about change for this year’s UTSU Elections. After a heated and controversial debate, CRO arbitrary rulings for 103 demerit points for the opposition and none for Unity and the endorsement of “our” campus newspaper for the incumbents, I can no longer feel as if this election is legitimate and that this is no longer a democracy.

Aside from disagreeing with Unity’s platform, and even after the personal attacks on “token minorities”, accusations of “terrorist” name calling and having my opinion disregarded because I’m not a “lawyer”, there is an unbiased argument that this election is a sham and I cannot trust it.

It just doesn’t help that free speech is being undermined this election by the precedent the CRO set by issuing demerit points for Robert Boissonneault’s status. Every word we say here can and might be used against the opposition. 

This election is now illegitimate in my eyes, and that of many others in the student body. I refuse to recognize that UTSU represents me. UTSU is not a democracy.

A quick preamble disclaimer before I begin: I have no background in Sri Lankan politics and know little to none about the Sri Lankan Civil War or the Tamil Tigers and I will not make any case for either side. That being said, the appointment of Shavendra Silva to the United Nations Special Advisory Group on Peacekeeping Operations to the Secretary General is an outright travesty and a shame to international human rights and justice as it delegitimizes the credibility of the Secretary General.

In 2009, Mr. Silva was the military general who headed the 58^th Division of the Sri Lankan Army during their conflict with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). In a report released by the UN on March 31^st of last year by the “Secretary General’s Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka”, the panel found “credible allegations associated with the final stages of the war… which if proven, indicate a wide range of serious violations of international humanitarian law and international rights law was committed… some of which would amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity.” The UN report is specifically damning to Mr. Silva’s 58^th Division where they allegedly aggressively attempted to capture a neutral hospital, and also murdered people who voluntarily surrendered, in paragraphs 90 and 171 respectively.

These allegations prove that the appointment of Mr. Silva to a high ranking position in the UN with special access to the Secretary General, should not be tolerated and that the Secretary General “reject or rescind any proposal to appoint Silva” as said in a statement by a coalition of human rights groups in the USA. However, when asked about the appointment, Ban Ki-Moon and his spokespeople responded with the statement, “It was the member states who decided.” It is very disconcerting to believe that the Secretary General is powerless in the face of such proposals to install an alleged war criminal into such a high position. At the very least, Ban Ki-Moon should publicly address this controversy. Yet, there has been no pressure for him to do so, nor any media coverage of this incident.

Worst of all, Sri Lanka is reportedly contemplating switching Mr. Silva’s position with Palitha Kohona, but demanding that they not be pursued by the UN Human Rights Council that meets in March. This is an example of the quiet workings and machinations of international diplomacy being abused and taken advantage of by not solely the developed Western nations, but also smaller developing nations to attempt to hide alleged war crimes and human abuses. Furthermore, it delegitimizes the credibility that the United Nations or any of its subsidiary bodies holds in maintaining and upholding peace, human rights and justice. As a student of International Relations, I hope that these allegations of war crimes committed by not only the Sri Lankan Army, but of the LTTE as well, are brought to light and that the Secretary General changes his position on the appointment of Mr. Silva.

kohenari:

This report by Matthew Lee about Shavendra Silva, a Sri Lankan war criminal who has now become an advisor on peacekeeping to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is worth your six minutes this morning.

There has been very little press on Silva — or the massacres in Sri Lanka in 2009, really — but, as Lee argues, this move into the UN peacekeeping apparatus by a war criminal who is specifically named in a UN report brings the idea of impunity to a whole new level.

soupsoup:

Private sector jobs created by Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton’s first three years in office.