# University of Ottawa Paper Fulcrum Boycotts National Defence Advertisements



## Remius (1 Apr 2008)

http://www.thefulcrum.ca/news/fulcrum-boycotts-national-defence-advertisements

Don't know if this has been mentioned or not.  Mods people, please remove if this the case.


----------



## Celticgirl (1 Apr 2008)

...   :


----------



## stegner (1 Apr 2008)

My opinion of university newspapers, at least of the institutions I have attended (this includes uOttawa), is that they are essentially pornography without any insightful analysis of you know the standard fourth-rate porn magazine.    

Not to worry though.  Between NDHQ and the  Cartier Square Drill Hall right accross the street from the University there is a lot of military traffic that goes through campus.   All those sharp uniforms that cross through the uOttawa campus counteract this hippy stupidity.


----------



## Gunner98 (1 Apr 2008)

In a knee jerk response  ;D - _DND will no longer accept or acknowledge people holding U of O degrees or sponsor people wishing to attend said U._ Does DND need to advertise, the very large HQ/billboard is in view from most outdoor vantage points on the campus.


----------



## stegner (1 Apr 2008)

Hey someone stealthily edited my post and replaced NdHq with glorious thinktank.   Whoever it was I applaud your ninja skills.


----------



## dapaterson (1 Apr 2008)

Look at this thread http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/72551.0/all.html if you wish to understand the "glorious thinktank" problem...


----------



## a_majoor (1 Apr 2008)

From a business perspective they just shot themselves in the foot; who will make up the shortfall in advertising revenues? I guess no one on the editorial board has taken Economics 101......


----------



## OldSolduer (1 Apr 2008)

I may not agree with their point of view (short sighted) but I'll fight to defend it.
If they would realize that under the various murderous regimes that have dotted history, the intellectuals are usually one of the first groups to be "re-educated" and shipped to "re-education" camps. Cambodia, The USSR in 1917 and Germany under Hitler are only a few that come to mind.
I guess you don't have to be all that intelligent to attend a university do you?


----------



## acheo (1 Apr 2008)

> DND will no longer accept or acknowledge people holding U of O degrees or sponsor people wishing to attend said U.



U of O is one of 3 universities (with Dalhousie) who is currently accepting med school students in a special program sponsored by the CF (occupationnal transfer only).

IMHO the CF needs U of O way more than U of O needs the CF.


----------



## exgunnertdo (1 Apr 2008)

Heard this on the radio this morning here in the nation's capital.  The person from uOttawa being interviewed  (a rep from the student union or something) also disagreed with the decision, but it was done by a vote at a meeting (as per their rules).  ie it wasn't the paper itself that boycotted, but someone rallied together enough "concerned" students (I think it was around 100?) to attend a meeting, acheived a quorum and passed the motion.

Sad really, that such a low number of members can acheive something like that, considering the total number of students at U of O


----------



## Dirt Digger (1 Apr 2008)

> Federico Carvajal, vp services for the Graduate Students’ Association, said that it’s not about blocking debate, but instead it is about avoiding one-sided arguments put forward by the military.  “The student population is one of the most strongly opposed to the Afghanistan mission,” he said but added that _few of them can afford to take out full-page advertisements in a newspaper to promote their views_.



Apparently, few of them can afford to write articles to promote their views?  That would cost them...hmmm...nothing?   :


----------



## OldSolduer (1 Apr 2008)

I made a mistake in the earlier post. I meant I will defend their right to free speech....not their Pollyanna views.


----------



## Gunner98 (1 Apr 2008)

acheo said:
			
		

> U of O is one of 3 universities (with Dalhousie) who is currently accepting med school students in a special program sponsored by the CF (occupationnal transfer only).
> 
> IMHO the CF needs U of O way more than U of O needs the CF.



Note the  ;D - it is April Fool's Day - the CF pays for those guaranteed positions - filled or not, the Univ doesn't do it out of kindness.


----------



## armyvern (1 Apr 2008)

exgunnertdo said:
			
		

> Heard this on the radio this morning here in the nation's capital.  The person from uOttawa being interviewed  (a rep from the student union or something) also disagreed with the decision, but it was done by a vote at a meeting (as per their rules).  ie it wasn't the paper itself that boycotted, but someone rallied together enough "concerned" students (I think it was around 100?) to attend a meeting, acheived a quorum and passed the motion.
> 
> Sad really, that such a low number of members can acheive something like that, considering the total number of students at U of O



If that's the case, then it seems entirely possible that an even greater number of students would have the power to show up at the next meeting (provided of course that they succeed in having the topic added to the agenda) and vote it back to it's previous state.

Funny how democracy works. Those who choose to sit on their butts and not exercise their votes --- are sometimes the very ones affected by their lack of exercising that vote.


----------



## AJFitzpatrick (1 Apr 2008)

exgunnertdo said:
			
		

> Heard this on the radio this morning here in the nation's capital.  The person from uOttawa being interviewed  (a rep from the student union or something) also disagreed with the decision, but it was done by a vote at a meeting (as per their rules).  ie it wasn't the paper itself that boycotted, but someone rallied together enough "concerned" students (I think it was around 100?) to attend a meeting, acheived a quorum and passed the motion.
> 
> Sad really, that such a low number of members can acheive something like that, considering the total number of students at U of O



Also heard it this morning and wanted to clarify that it was the editor of the paper who was opposed to the ban. Also the vote was 93 for the ban 85 opposed according the editior. They also had someone speaking for those who were for the ban who equated the current recruitment campaign with "selling the war in Afghanistan" and thus they were opposed to it.


----------



## Cpl.Banks (1 Apr 2008)

Frostnipped Elf said:
			
		

> In a knee jerk response ;D - _DND will no longer accept or acknowledge people holding U of O degrees or sponsor people wishing to attend said U._ Does DND need to advertise, the very large HQ/billboard is in view from most outdoor vantage points on the campus.



Carefull who you insult sir, I attend U of O and as it just so happens I am regular force officer going through ROTP . The atmosphere on campus is generally pro-Canadian Forces; the people who voted to boycott DND did so in a legitmate forum, not some kangaroo court. Therefore as much as I disagree with the verdict, I must stand by it.

In all reality it changes nothing, advertisements are posted in the washrooms, the gym's, and even in the bus stops. A little page in a paper that nobody reads adds up to a whole lot of symbolism and nothing else.


----------



## stegner (2 Apr 2008)

uOttawa is 





> generally pro-Canadian Forces


?  I guess it depends on the Faculty and the Department but I did not find the majority of the campus to be pro-Canadian Forces.  A simple poppy count around November 11th generally provides the mood of the campus and  I noticed that the U of O was far less supportive than my alma matter the University of Alberta which take great pride in hosting a large ceremony in the Butterdome and has significantly more poppies affixed to students.   That's my impression.


----------



## vonGarvin (2 Apr 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> I may not agree with their point of view (short sighted) but I'll fight to defend it.


So, you'll defend their right to censorship?


----------



## vonGarvin (2 Apr 2008)

OCdt.Banks said:
			
		

> *In all reality it changes nothing, advertisements are posted in the washrooms, the gym's, and even in the bus stops. A little page in a paper that nobody reads adds up to a whole lot of symbolism and nothing else.*


Minor symbolism.  Censorship.  It's only the little people.

I disagree.  I say that you find yourself another institution, all federal funding for U of O be terminated immediately for their insistence to censor a government agency from even purchasing advertising space in their paper.


----------



## Jammer (2 Apr 2008)

OCdt.Banks said:
			
		

> Carefull who you insult sir, I attend U of O and as it just so happens I am regular force officer going through ROTP . The atmosphere on campus is generally pro-Canadian Forces; the people who voted to boycott DND did so in a legitmate forum, not some kangaroo court. Therefore as much as I disagree with the verdict, I must stand by it.
> 
> Just so you're straight on this,
> 
> ...


----------



## Remius (2 Apr 2008)

OCdt.Banks said:
			
		

> Carefull who you insult sir, I attend U of O and as it just so happens I am regular force officer going through ROTP . The atmosphere on campus is generally pro-Canadian Forces; the people who voted to boycott DND did so in a legitmate forum, not some kangaroo court. Therefore as much as I disagree with the verdict, I must stand by it.
> 
> In all reality it changes nothing, advertisements are posted in the washrooms, the gym's, and even in the bus stops. A little page in a paper that nobody reads adds up to a whole lot of symbolism and nothing else.



Oh give it a rest.  First of all, what he said was tongue and cheek.  Ultimately it is censorship by a vocal minority.  90 students? how many thousands attend?   When 90 people can make a political statement, and that's what that was, and ban certain legitimate organisations and you decide to stand by it then you are part of the problem.  What if 90 students voted to exclude any gay venu advertising or if 90 students voted to ban any non-profit organisations like greenpeace based on ideological opinions?

Please.  I don't agree, and if I was a student I wouldn't stand by this at all.  When 90 students can essentially boycott and censor a group because it doesen't agree with a governments decision it tells me that your "legitimate" process _is_ a kangaroo court similar to what we see in banana republics and facist states where the media is controlled by a select few.

You are right though, the actions they took won't make an ounce of difference, the message is getting out and they lose 7000$ of revenue a year. 8)   

But you are right in that


----------



## armyvern (2 Apr 2008)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Oh give it a rest.  First of all, what he said was tongue and cheek.  Ultimately it is censorship by a vocal minority.  90 students? how many thousands attend?   When 90 people can make a political statement, and that's what that was, and ban certain legitimate organisations and you decide to stand by it then you are part of the problem.  What if 90 students voted to exclude any gay venu advertising or if 90 students voted to ban any non-profit organisations like greenpeace based on ideological opinions?
> 
> Please.  I don't agree, and if I was a student I wouldn't stand by this at all.  When 90 students can essentially boycott and censor a group because it doesen't agree with a governments decision it tells me that your "legitimate" process _is_ a kangaroo court similar to what we see in banana republics and facist states where the media is controlled by a select few.
> 
> ...





			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> If that's the case, then it seems entirely possible that an even greater number of students would have the power to show up at the next meeting (provided of course that they succeed in having the topic added to the agenda) and vote it back to it's previous state.
> 
> *Funny how democracy works. Those who choose to sit on their butts and not exercise their votes --- are sometimes the very ones affected by their lack of exercising that vote. *



Although the sarcasm in Mortarman Rockpainters post has clearly sailed over the head of OCdt Banks, I'd point out to you that this certainly WAS a democratic process. 

Censorship? No, not really. It was done with a free vote. YOU may not like the fact that the vocal minority WON that free vote ... but that's precisely because that silent majority chose to sit on their asses, not attend, and NOT vote. It WAS a legitimate process, one in which the side YOU agree with -- happened to lose.

See your bold ... then see my bold from my previous post. Those students from U of O who chose to sit at home on their duffs and who do not agree with the decision haven't got a valid "whine" to bring forward. If one doesn't vote when they have the democratic option to do so, they shouldn't bother bitching about the outcome of that vote -- rather, they should look themselves straight in the mirror and proceed to sort themselves out. It's not the other sides fault that the "losing" side stayed home.


----------



## Remius (2 Apr 2008)

Can't agree with that Vern.  It may have been democratic but it was still a vote for censorship.


----------



## armyvern (2 Apr 2008)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Can't agree with that Vern.  It may have been democratic but it was still a vote for censorship.



Doesn't matter. The paper is not a publicly funded one.

By your reasoning, the Board of Directors of Ladies Home Journal could not enforce a "no XXX site advertizing / No Hustler magazine adversting" policy within their publications. Likewise a Religious publication (etc) would not be able to prevent the publication of a hurtful advertisment that some other religious group wanted to pay to have published in it's pages. Or a University would have to accept advertising from from other Universities "head hunting" it's students. That's NOT censorship.

You know that's not true. At least this time, quite contrary to UVic, they had a free and democratic vote on the issue -- and some Board of Directors didn't just decide. Don't blame OCdt Banks because you don't like the outcome of that vote --- blame the lazy shits who sat home on their duffs. THAT's where the blame rests.


----------



## Celticgirl (2 Apr 2008)

OCdt.Banks said:
			
		

> Carefull who you insult sir, I attend U of O and as it just so happens I am regular force officer going through ROTP . The atmosphere on campus is generally pro-Canadian Forces; the people who voted to boycott DND did so in a legitmate forum, not some kangaroo court. Therefore as much as I disagree with the verdict, I must stand by it.
> 
> In all reality it changes nothing, advertisements are posted in the washrooms, the gym's, and even in the bus stops. A little page in a paper that nobody reads adds up to a whole lot of symbolism and nothing else.



I'm just curious - did you vote?


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Apr 2008)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Can't agree with that Vern.  It may have been democratic but it was still a vote for censorship.



This is precisely the dilemma faced when _democracy_ and fundamentalist Islam meet. In many (most?) cases in the North Africa > Central Asia part of the _Islamic Crescent_ when people are allowed to vote freely they will select an _Islamic_ party that promises to govern according to the Koran and/or medieval Arabic cultural norms thereby ensuring the end of democracy, as we understand it.

Democracy is about _waaaay_ more than simple 'majority rules' - it also involves things like protecting minorities and honouring fundamental rights. In this case a majority of those students attending voted, democratically to be sure, to deprive DND of its *right* to speak, freely, about careers in the CF.


----------



## Remius (2 Apr 2008)

Vern, I'm not blaming Banks (unless he didn't vote of course).  And I can agree that yes the student body that didn't show up to vote have nothing to complain about and are in fact the ones to blame.

But it is still censorship any way you look at it.  The examples you use are not relevant.  The Ladies Home journal or religious publications have their own specific mandate so yes, some advertisements are inappropriate.

This motion at the Fulcrum goes against it's own madate.

Here, right out of their own by-laws

_The Fulcrum Publishing Society above all will strive to achieve the following objectives:
· To promote the interests and welfare of the students of the University of Ottawa through
editorial stance by reporting accurately, fairly, and honestly on timely issues and events
which concern students, with particular emphasis on issues and events from the
University of Ottawa campus;
· To cover issues and angles not present in the mainstream media from its perspective as a
member of the alternative press;
· *To serve as an education device and as a forum for differing points of view and world
scopes; and*· To do all such things for the attainment of the above-noted objects in such a manner that
is in the interests of University of Ottawa students.
The Fulcrum Publishing Society recognizes that they are not solely a “corporation”, but rather
they are a “society” that will always act in manner that puts the welfare of University of Ottawa
students first._

By passing this motion the Fulcrum goes against it's own mandate.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (2 Apr 2008)

This is very much a tempest in a teacup, and I feel sorry for the editorial staff.

To pick up, however, on Mr Campbell's post this is a good time to remind ourselves of the dangers of the _tyranny of the majority_.  Majority votes are a great way to make decisions, but we must take care when a majority vote is used to silence somebody who happens to be in the minority.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Apr 2008)

Members can take matters into their own hands by writing a constant stream of letters to the editor explaining (in a polite and concise manner) the logical and other errors in the anti-advertising stance; obviously we do not blame the editor based on information in the article, but can discuss the tyranny of the majority, advertising revenues, the ability to speak freely, the responsibility to vote, and the factual basis of the Afghanistan mission.

Fire up the word processors! Writers; Advance!


----------



## Greymatters (2 Apr 2008)

There will always be those out there who think they are saving the world, especially when they think it will make them popular with their peer group... eventually most of them will drop their way of thinking and realize that free speech is not promoted by bans and censoring...


----------



## KJL (2 Apr 2008)

Sad thing is one of these days those who voted for this foolish ban may one day find themselves saying, "well where's is the military to enforce our rights?"


----------



## armyvern (2 Apr 2008)

They could write their Letters to the Editors complaining indeed about the _tyranny of the majority_ stepping on the *Rights* of the CF to advertize ...

But, I'm not so sure that the silent majority will do that. Writing takes time and effort. They didn't have the time, nor did they make the effort to defend their own Rights by voting; what makes you think they'll expend even more energy to write?

We can bitch and complain all we want.

_To serve as an education device and as a forum for differing points of view and world
scopes; and· *To do all such things for the attainment of the above-noted objects in such a manner that
is in the interests of University of Ottawa students.*The Fulcrum Publishing Society recognizes that they are not solely a “corporation”, but rather
they are a “society” that will always act in manner that puts the welfare of University of Ottawa
students first._

You bolded your bit, now I've bolded mine.

The University of Ottawa students (at least the ones who bothered to get off their asses and vote) exercised a vote either for or against. It was _in students interests to attend this meeting and vote_. Some didn't think so -- and didn't vote. That's democracy. 

If all the Conservatives and all the Liberals stay home next election and don't vote and the NDP voters all turn up and put NDPers in seats across the nation with huge majorities --- is that "censorship?" No, it's democracy ... and the lazy ones get to pay for their own personal transgressions.

You can't blame the hippes etc for the election outcome because they get out and vote, but the other side doesn't.


----------



## Remius (2 Apr 2008)

Then one has to question if that decision is in the best interests of the students of ottawa university.

Vern, don't confuse the process with the result.  The process was democratic, the result was censorship.  Just because it was democratic does not mean it was right.


----------



## armyvern (2 Apr 2008)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Then one has to question if that decision is in the best interests of the students of ottawa university.
> 
> Vern, don't confuse the process with the result.  The process was democratic, the result was censorship.  Just because it was democratic does not mean it was right.



This is exactly why we differ:

You move that Ladies Home Journal etc can do this because they are privately owned/operated and accepted no public funding.

Neither does The Fulcrum, so why can't it decide what it publishs for adds either??

I see ZERO difference between the two -- if it's not censorship for Ladies Home Journal to decide (without a free vote at that!!) what adds to print or not;

Why is it for The Fulcrum to do so??

Just imagine boys ... 

Your next issue of Maxim WILL be innundated with Tampax adds, despite the fact that it is a private publication and is not publicly funded -- anything else is censorship.

.


----------



## Remius (2 Apr 2008)

Vern, in the context of the students of the university the Fulcrum is publicly funded.  The Fulcrum gets its revenu from a levy from the student body.  So part of the students' tuition fees goes to cover the cost of running the newspaper.  Maxim magazine, Ladies journal  has a direct cost. Meaning I pay to read it, if I don't like what's in it or what it is saying I don't have to buy it or buy what the advertisers are selling.  The Fulcrum is paid for by the student population whether they want it or not.  So all students have to "buy" the Fulcrum whether they like it or not.


----------



## Niteshade (2 Apr 2008)

Don't forget that a student's tuition fees only pay but a percentage of their tuition and school costs. The remainder is paid for by the school (through research, grants, donations etc.), but the majority of funding comes from the Feneral Government. One could argue that the government's payments pay for the school newspaper to be published... which therefore makes it a public paper pressed by public and private dollars. There is also no subscription cost or individual per print cost (free paper).

I dislike that the CF are not permitted to advertise in it.

But it appears as though pursuant to the school's regulations, that the ban on CF material is legal. It is not censorship as a result.

It's stupid... but it's legal.

Nites


----------



## Dirt Digger (2 Apr 2008)

I don't think the issue is as much about 95% of the student body being apathetic voters, rather that 95% of the student body cares more about their classes & education (or partying) than the normally pointless campus politics.  What was originally designed to help students and provide support for services have been highjacked over the years into a system more concerned with political statements and who can out-Trotsky who at meetings.  It's only when the 5% activist (wingnut) population manages to show up at the same time and make quarum at an AGM that things get to be an issue.  Usually they'll vote to ban nuclear weapons from the campus or some other nonsense.  It's when these people actually go and vote something that makes the whole campus look like a bunch of self-censoring tools that the 95% will come around to the AGM.

Look at it this way.  All students pay a fee of X dollars to give the activists an outlet and keep them from disturbing everybody. Much like Mummy giving Johnny a quarter to ride the mechanical elephant outside of K-Mart if he's a good boy in the store.   

And yes, I did vote.  Hated the whole system.  During my undergrad I ran the UVic paintball club...third largest club in campus during the mid-nineties.  I had problems with a club counsel that found hundreds of dollars to bring in some Communist speaker, but couldn't find an extra fifty bucks so I could photocopy game advertisements that were constantly being ripped down by the Paintball = War crowd.


----------



## Remius (2 Apr 2008)

Niteshade said:
			
		

> Don't forget that a student's tuition fees only pay but a percentage of their tuition and school costs. The remainder is paid for by the school (through research, grants, donations etc.), but the majority of funding comes from the Feneral Government. One could argue that the government's payments pay for the school newspaper to be published... which therefore makes it a public paper pressed by public and private dollars. There is also no subscription cost or individual per print cost (free paper).
> 
> I dislike that the CF are not permitted to advertise in it.
> 
> ...


I don't think the Fulcrum gets any government money.

Niteshade, just because it was done legally doesn't mean that it isn't censorship.  Regulating bodies legally censor all sorts of stuff, porn on daytime tv, swearing, violence etc etc.  And it wasn't the university regulations it was the Fulcrum Bylaws, which they followed.  But read the bylaws on the Fulcrum advertising policy.  In no way did the CF violate any of the terms.  Using the boycott rules, a small minority has imposed on the student body (who pay whether they want to or not) a view on a supposedly independant newspaper.  The Fulcrum has taken its stance and can no longer claim what it says in it's mandate.  This vote clearly and loudly says that it is against military recruitment on Campus and in its publication.  It cannot be viewed as a balanced representative of the interests of the students of Ottawa University who have no recourse since the by-laws have no provison for removing an organisation from the boycott list.


----------



## Remius (2 Apr 2008)

From the Fulcrum editorial board.  They don't seem to pleased with the way things are going...

http://www.thefulcrum.ca/node/1411

Seems like certain groups have larger agendas.


----------



## Gunner98 (2 Apr 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Although the sarcasm in Mortarman Rockpainters post has clearly sailed over the head of OCdt Banks, I'd point out to you that this certainly WAS a democratic process.
> 
> See your bold ... then see my bold from my previous post. Those students from U of O who chose to sit at home on their duffs and who do not agree with the decision haven't got a valid "whine" to bring forward. If one doesn't vote when they have the democratic option to do so, they shouldn't bother bitching about the outcome of that vote -- rather, they should look themselves straight in the mirror and proceed to sort themselves out. It's not the other sides fault that the "losing" side stayed home.



A quorum of 35 students?  178 pers voted?  Readership?  

I wonder which of the stipulations DND violates, as I don't see a warning about a democratic vote to select advertisers: 
http://www.thefulcrum.ca/files/advertising_policy.pdf

Fulcrum Publishing Society will not run any advertisement that:
-is deemed to be racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise discriminatory.
-is considered to be libelous in congruence with the Canadian Libel and Slander
Act. The determination of libel will be made by the editor-in-chief of the Fulcrum.
-contravenes the laws of Canada or of the Province of Ontario.
-contains editorial content, or material which could be confused with editorial content unless it is duly labelled on the front of the material as an advertisement.
The Fulcrum Publishing Society reserves the right to refuse service to any advertiser who does not adhere to the above stipulations. Furthermore, the Fulcrum Publishing Society reserves the right to nullify existing contracts with advertisers who fail to adhere to the above stipulations.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (2 Apr 2008)

Who cares?...I'm sure some other publication will be happy to the accept extra revenue.


----------



## George Wallace (2 Apr 2008)

Well, I am in the crowd that think it is a vocal minority enforcing CENSORSHIP, outside of the papers mandate, on the paper.

I listened to Lowell Green's Talk Show on CFRA 580 and found it interesting.  Many callers were business owners, who had heard this and are now pledging to boycott U of O a la the Berkeley incidents with the USMC and American business owners boycotting the City of Berkeley.  Another caller mentioned that he worked for a company that posts advertisements on Campus, and he has noticed that all the CF Recruiting Posters and Ads on Campus were usually defaced.  

We can wait now to see if the Student Body of the U of O is of the same mindset as that of the U of Vic, when a similar "Protest Movement" made similar proposals.

On another note, the French Language paper on the U of O had previously made a "Anti-military" decision to not use CF Recruiting Ads in their paper, with no notice by outsiders.


----------



## leroi (2 Apr 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> They could write their Letters to the Editors complaining indeed about the _tyranny of the majority_ stepping on the *Rights* of the CF to advertize ...
> 
> But, I'm not so sure that the silent majority will do that. Writing takes time and effort. They didn't have the time, nor did they make the effort to defend their own Rights by voting; what makes you think they'll expend even more energy to write?
> 
> ...




This issue surfaces at the University of Guelph's student newspaper, The Ontarion, almost every year. Fortunately, for Guelph student's the debate takes place before the vote and a comprehensive effort is made to ensure the entire student body is informed on the issues.  The debate usually takes place before the final exam crunch, too.  Anyone who works, services or attends university knows this: March is a frenzy of activity and April, exam month, the cruellest month--stress and suicide, folks.

Therefore, you will not get a majority to attend at this time of the year.  The organizers of this vote _will_ know that. The Fulcrum has gone against it's own mandate of doing "all such things in such a manner that is in the interests of University of Ottawa students."  The debate occurrred post facto and while the vote may have been democratic it was deliberately structured to the advantage of the vocal minority.

I say it's a subtle form of censorship and worse: an affront to the student body. Embedded in this decision is the idea that because University of Ottawa students cannot critically think for themselves it's better not to expose them to choices like, whether or not to serve their country. The underlying hypocrisy and disdain for the majority's ability to make their own decisions is tacitly implied which should concern Ottawa U administration as well as the entire student body.

I don't think it's fair to compare an honourable institution like the Canadian Forces to a commodity like a magazine either--IMHO. It's like comparing apples and oranges. 

I hope Ottawa U students will get out and write those letters; but finish your exams first. Returning 2008-2009 students need to pay closer attention to things like this in the future: a glaring example of political sleight-of-hand designed to stifle opposing voices. 

(A full page CF recruitment advertisment was placed in The Ontarion recently and I'm glad; I have faith that University of Guelph students will excercise the critical thinking tools they've been learning and make their own informed decisions.)

Caveat Emptor, everyone!


----------



## rfishbook (2 Apr 2008)

I hope I can clarify this debate a bit. The Fulcrum is an autonomous corporation and is linked to the University of Ottawa and the U of O student government in spirit only. We receive about half of our funding through a levy of $2.80 per full-time undergraduate student per semester, and $1.50 per part-time undergraduate student per semester. The rest comes from advertising and other misc. revenue. 

Let me make it absolutely clear that the Board of Directors and Editorial Board of the Fulcrum opposed this boycott list. In fact we oppose on principle all boycotting of advertisements for anything other than discriminatory or libelous material. We fought as strongly as possible against the boycott, and believe that students are more than capable of making up their own minds on how they feel about the military and that no advertisement has the power to change their convictions. 

I absolutely understand that there are people out there who disagree with this decision (I am one of them), but I hope that no-one disagrees with the process through which this decision was reached. We held a democratic meeting which all members of the corporation (all current students) were invited to attend through advertising and other methods. At this meeting a majority of students voted in favour of the boycott. I will admit that 200 out of some 30,000 students is not the best example of representative democracy; However, we can not force students to use their democratic rights only inform them that they have that power. 

In regards to the issue of this being against the statement of principles in out bylaws, it is a matter of interpretation. The mandate is to serve all U of O students as best we can. In this case a majority of students put through a vote on how we can best serve them. In the case of our advertising policy not having provisions for boycotts, the advertising policy was updated at the meeting but does not go into effect (nor does the boycott) until the end of this publishing year and is thus not posted yet. In terms of this being censorship, I agree, however it is no more censorship than forcing R rated movies to be played past 11 O'clock at night. If censorship is agreed upon by the society in question then it is legitimate.

Democracy is an ever changing process and I am sure this decision will be revisited many times in the coming years. The decision can be repealed at any meeting of members, but can just as easily be reaffirmed. In either case, I hope that many more students will come out to discuss and debate the issue and that we will have a strong and representative voter turnout. Regardless of what decision is made and how I personally feel, I will continue to respect any decision made in a democratic fashion. 

Rob Fishbook
President
The Fulcrum Publishing Society


----------



## armyvern (2 Apr 2008)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Vern, in the context of the students of the university the Fulcrum is publicly funded.  The Fulcrum gets its revenu from a levy from the student body.  So part of the students' tuition fees goes to cover the cost of running the newspaper.  Maxim magazine, Ladies journal  has a direct cost. Meaning I pay to read it, if I don't like what's in it or what it is saying I don't have to buy it or buy what the advertisers are selling.  The Fulcrum is paid for by the student population whether they want it or not.  So all students have to "buy" the Fulcrum whether they like it or not.



And, all those students paying that fee were allowed to show up to vote ... but didn't. That's the whole point. Now they won't see those adds, will possibly lose out on what could have been an excellent career choice ... because they chose not to exercise their right to vote.

The original article states that notices went out to the student body apprising them of the issue being faced, told them a vote would occur, and encouraged them to attend.

It wasn't that only "5% of radicals showing up and happened to push their agenda through" --- the notice went out to the student body as did the subject matter of the vote; so only the radicals showed to actually vote en force ... whose fault is that?


----------



## armyvern (2 Apr 2008)

Crantor said:
			
		

> I don't think the Fulcrum gets any government money.
> 
> Niteshade, just because it was done legally doesn't mean that it isn't censorship.  Regulating bodies legally censor all sorts of stuff, porn on daytime tv, swearing, violence etc etc.  And it wasn't the university regulations it was the Fulcrum Bylaws, which they followed.  But read the bylaws on the Fulcrum advertising policy.  In no way did the CF violate any of the terms.  Using the boycott rules, a small minority has imposed on the student body (who pay whether they want to or not) a view on a supposedly independant newspaper.  The Fulcrum has taken its stance and can no longer claim what it says in it's mandate.  This vote clearly and loudly says that it is against military recruitment on Campus and in its publication.  It cannot be viewed as a balanced representative of the interests of the students of Ottawa University who have no recourse since the by-laws have no provison for removing an organisation from the boycott list.



Voting something out is not boycotting it. The minority won ... because the minority showed up for the vote. The "majority" didn't show, despite knowing it was going to happen. They didn't lose anything they weren't willing to exercise their right to vote to keep in the first place.

I don't agree with the policy either, but heck ... if the people who are losing out by it don't feel it affects them enough to exercise their rights to keep it ... that's their choice. That majority exercised their right to "not vote", the outcome is due to that choice made by them. It's certainly not because The Fulcrum itself censored anyone, or any add, nor is it due to "radicals" voting. The people to blame are squarely the ones who did not feel that this right was important to them --- for they are the ones who could have made the difference had they exercised that right to vote.


----------



## George Wallace (2 Apr 2008)

Rob Fishbook
President
The Fulcrum Publishing Society

Just a few questions, the answers of which may clear up some misconceptions or questions others may have.

1.  You say you advertised this meeting, but did you advertise the agenda of the meeting?

2.  Was this "Motion" planned in the meetings agenda, or was it one from the floor, too which the majority of the Student Body would have had no knowledge of?

3.  Do changes to the Bylaws not need to follow a formal process, or do you just allow instant changes to be made through motions from the floor?  Is there not an allotted period for discussion of such motions to create changes to Bylaws?

4.  What are the Principles that your are following for your Bylaws, and meetings?  Are they so lightly worded and constructed that Special Interest Groups of any nature, can overpower a quorum and force changes that are unacceptable to the majority?


----------



## armyvern (2 Apr 2008)

The original article answers most of your questions George. The topic was on the agenda for the AGM of _The Fulcrum_, it was advertised, debated by attendees prior to the vote, and the meeting was one of the best attended AGMs in _The Fulcrum's_ history. One side mobilized their supporters better than the other. 

One side showed up to cast their votes ... one didn't show up with enough members to outvote the others. Apparently, most of the "silent majority" (and we *are * making assumptions that the majority of those who didn't attend would have voted against this motion) had better plans for the evening that they felt more important than exercising their right to become informed and cast their vote as appropriate.

Voting people. It's your RIGHT. Exercise it. Because when you don't --- stuff like this happens.


----------



## Remius (2 Apr 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Voting something out is not boycotting it. The minority won ... because the minority showed up for the vote. The "majority" didn't show, despite knowing it was going to happen. They didn't lose anything they weren't willing to exercise their right to vote to keep in the first place.
> 
> I don't agree with the policy either, but heck ... if the people who are losing out by it don't feel it affects them enough to exercise their rights to keep it ... that's their choice. That majority exercised their right to "not vote", the outcome is due to that choice made by them. It's certainly not because The Fulcrum itself censored anyone, or any add, nor is it due to "radicals" voting. The people to blame are squarely the ones who did not feel that this right was important to them --- for they are the ones who could have made the difference had they exercised that right to vote.



Vern they voted to _boycott_ CF advertising, place the CF on a _boycott _ list in an appendix in their bylaws.  It is a boycott by all definitions.  Their words.


----------



## armyvern (2 Apr 2008)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Vern they voted to _boycott_ CF advertising, place the CF on a _boycott _ list in an appendix in their bylaws.  It is a boycott by all definitions.  Their words.



Yes they did. With a free and open vote. 

Your particular use of the term "boycott" infers that radicals pushed an agenda upon people to enact a boycott with no democratic input whatsoever; that wasn't the case. <--- That's what UVic did. That's *not* what happened with _The Fulcrum_.

The CF advertising wasn't "boycotted" by a minority imposing their will upon others who had no choice; it was _enacted as policy _ because the majority of those who showed to vote -- voted that way. But, CF advertising is now not allowed --- because someone (a whole bunch apparently) didn't bother to show up and vote in an advertised, open, debated, and free vote.

Maybe at the next AGM ... some of those who didn't bother, will bother.


----------



## George Wallace (2 Apr 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> The original article answers most of your questions George. The topic was on the agenda for the AGM of _The Fulcrum_, it was advertised, debated by attendees prior to the vote, and the meeting was one of the best attended AGMs in _The Fulcrum's_ history. One side mobilized their supporters better than the other. .



Actually it doesn't answer my questions.  I asked if this motion was advertised, not the meeting.  



> While the newspaper’s staff was opposed to the idea of boycotting military advertisements, he said, the annual general meeting at which the new policy was proposed showed other sentiments among average students.



That sounds more like it was a motion from the floor, although it really isn't clear enough to suggest it one way or the other.

This just says the meeting was advertised on various means.  One would naturally think that the "Interest Group" added in their mailings a rallying call to vote for their motion.  The rest of the Student Body may have been totally ignorant of what was about to happen; hopefully not totally apathetic.  Then I will have to agree with your words on "Vote or loose it".



> Carvajal said that students were encouraged to attend the meeting through e-mails, Facebook groups, word of mouth, and the Fulcrum’s own advertising.



If this motion was not advertised at large to the Student Body, but only circulated in the "Interest Group's" tiny circles, then the Student Body should react and call for a retraction of the motion.


----------



## Celticgirl (2 Apr 2008)

Protesting the mission in Afghanistan is one thing, but I am seeing an ever-increasing anti-military sentiment in this country. What do these boycotters and protesters wish to happen? Get rid of the military altogether? What next? No police? No prisons? Have these folks not read Lord of the Flies?  :

With regards to this issue in particular, how many military personnel in this country have kids who will someday be attending university? After this boycott by U of Ottawa, how many of those folks and/or their children will decide to 'boycott' the U of Ottawa? I would venture to say "quite a few". From a business standpoint alone, this was a poor choice on the part of The Fulcrum.


----------



## Gunner98 (2 Apr 2008)

George, Vern:

Perhaps the student body doesn't care about the advertising or the paper's politics.  If I understand the available info - The students are levied a fee by which a 'free' newspaper is produced.  If the agenda had included an increase in the student levy I think similar interest would be shown.  So, why not propose the boycotting of all advertisers and just ask the disinterested students to pay for the production of the paper.


----------



## armyvern (2 Apr 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Actually it doesn't answer my questions.  I asked if this motion was advertised, not the meeting.
> 
> That sounds more like it was a motion from the floor, although it really isn't clear enough to suggest it one way or the other.





> While the newspaper’s staff was opposed to the idea of boycotting military advertisements, he said, the annual general meeting at which *the new policy was proposed * showed other sentiments among average students.
> 
> “It’s every students’ newspaper,” he said. “And that’s one of the biggest assets of our student newspapers.”
> 
> ...



George,

When I read the entire article within it's context (my emphasis added) I get:

1) It was on the agenda (ie "the new policy was proposed" as an agenda item for vote at this AGM);

2) The fact that it was on the agenda and was advertised for vote is further re-inforced by thie next bold statement "concerned enough about *that motion in particular to come out in such large numbers*"; and

3) That the the agenda was advertised (enough were concerned to cause record attendance at the AGM as per article and bold above in #2), but that one side was better at mobilizing their supporters than the other to actually show up and vote. 

So, yes --- perhaps the results do reflect the minority opinion on campus, but the majority had opportunity to exercise their rights -- but didn't (at least not in large enough numbers to outvote the "minority" "radicals". 

So, with it agendized, advertised, debated, and voted upon --- the *majority opinion won the vote*. It just happens to be too bad for the "silent majority opinion" that they didn't bother to show; they have no one to blame but themselves for not bothering.


----------



## George Wallace (2 Apr 2008)

Frostnipped Elf said:
			
		

> George, Vern:
> 
> Perhaps the student body doesn't care about the advertising or the paper's politics.  If I understand the available info - The students are levied a fee by which a 'free' newspaper is produced.  If the agenda had included an increase in the student levy I think similar interest would be shown.  So, why not propose the boycotting of all advertisers and just ask the disinterested students to pay for the production of the paper.



Actually, if I understand this correctly, the Students are not paying anything.  The Levy is calculated on the numbers of Full-time and Part-time students attend the Campus, and then taken out of University Funds.  You and I are paying those fees, in essence, from our Tax Dollars that the Federal Government pays to Canada's Educational Institutions in the forms of Grants and Endowments, etc.  So in the end, the Students are paying only a tiny portion of the costs for their educations, and fees to the Fulcrum.


----------



## leroi (2 Apr 2008)

Rob F :

I think there's lots of room for agreement here, too.  Your students, _en masse_, need to get out and vote on these important isssues. This is a valuable political lesson for them.  Before I continue debating though, I'd like to ask  a few things:

1) Where was this advertised; what type of venues?
2) Were these venues delivered to all dues-paying students?
3) How much time elapsed between the advert and the event?
4) Was an attempt made to hold debate and discourse on this matter before the vote and if so when.? i.e.: How much time elapsed between debate and vote?
5) Did anyone at the Fulcrum consider the untimeliness of this issue? (Erring on the side of angels, here, I know that end of term is often a time recruiters target; so, perhaps it's an assumption on my part that the vote's untimeliness was strategic? )
6) Could these types of important decisions be made at a more suitable time of year? 
7) Was the Canadian Forces the only targetted boycott?
8)Was there a list? (Good grief, I hope this is a negative answer.)
9) Was there a rationale offered by those who voted to boycott  Canadian Forces advertising in The Fulcrum? What reason?

Sorry, I'm still stuck on the timing and  the student's opportunity to discourse. And that's because during the discourses and debates held here at Guelph on this issue, a tremendous amount of rich learning takes place between the two opposing views.  People actually learn. Intellectual transformations take place when individuals realize ... that, hey, these issues are not as black and white as was previously thought.  

Thanks for responding.
Good luck with the controversy.


----------



## RTaylor (2 Apr 2008)

What we need is a good old World War and the Draft. It'll bring these whiners to their knees. 

Won't have to pay them to advertise then!


----------



## armyvern (2 Apr 2008)

Leroi,

Did you read the original article at all??



> Carvajal said that students were encouraged to attend the meeting through e-mails, Facebook groups, word of mouth, and the Fulcrum’s own advertising.



The Fulcrum published it's own adverts to get the word out about this ... which is available for "free" all over campus to those UofO students (not really "free" because those students are paying a levy to _The Fulcrum _ with their tuition fees anyway as already stated by Rob).

Again, many of your questions are answered in the original email and in the post made on this site by Rob from UofO.


----------



## George Wallace (2 Apr 2008)

Vern  

I read that completely differently, and it does not say whether this was on the agenda or not, of even if there was an agenda.  




> While the newspaper’s staff was opposed to the idea of boycotting military advertisements, he said, the annual general meeting at which *the new policy was proposed * showed other sentiments among average students.



Tells me that this was brought up "AT" the meeting, not before.



> “*The members were concerned enough about that motion in particular to come out in such large numbers*,” Carvajal said. “It definitely reflects the majority of students.” According to Wood, however, the campaigning to bring students to the meeting attracted a very particular group.
> 
> “I would argue that the motions passed at this meeting regarding advertising boycotts reflect *the opinions of a specific group of students that [was] well-organized and adept at mobilizing*, and not necessarily that of the student body at large,” she said.



This tells me that the specific "Interest Group" planned in advance to present a motion.  It doesn't say anything at all of what was published in advance by the Fulcrum as an agenda for the meeting.  

As it does not appear to be as clear cut to me as it may to you, I would like some confirmation as to what preceded this Meeting prior to the motion being made.


----------



## leroi (2 Apr 2008)

Vern, 

Yes, I had read the information. I asked more specific questions of Rob because I suspect the process was subtly manipulated and hijacked by a special interest group in advance of the vote. 
Admittedly, I could be wrong.

Anyway, it continues to be a contentious and hotly debated issue at the University of Ottawa:


http://www.thefulcrum.ca/letters

leroi/Joan


----------



## vonGarvin (2 Apr 2008)

Had those opposed to CF advertising in their paper decided to run counter ads (showing why the CF is an evil war machine, etc), then all the power to them.  This is no different that Berkeley opposing the USMC recruiting office.  Those students are hypocrites.  They oppose Chinese oppression in Tibet, want to boycott the olympics, yet live in houses and apartments full of objects stamped "made in China".  They like their rights, but want to scrub the "evil" CF from their paper.  This is the evil of "political correctness" in telling us what we ought to see, because we are too foolish to make up our own minds, and they know better.  We are talking about banning a government organisation from advertising in their paper.  A majority voted for it.  Big friggin' deal.  If the majority of Canadians voted to have all persons of colour deported, would it be right?  Well, the majority voted that way, right?  Wrong.  We live in a liberal democracy, where the rights of all must be respected.  The CF is a well-respected institution, and even though in a democratic forum a group of people decided that they didn't want the CF advertising in their paper, there are other ways.  They could have marched and protested.  They could have had "group ins" where they cut and burn the CF ads from the paper.  As I stated, they could have put in counter-adverts (but that would have cost money).
Don't fool yourselves: this was a blatant act of censorship (not to be confused with putting R rated movies on after 11 pm).


----------



## Greymatters (3 Apr 2008)

This event does a good job of demonstrating one fundamental principle of democratic processes - its not a free ride.  

You cant live your whole life refusing to be involved in the democratic just because 'its a nuisance' and then protest when someone uses the process to their advantage.  You want to live in a system where you dont need to make a decision and the government in place will make all your decisions for you?  Hey pal, plenty of those kinds of countries like that out there around the world.  

Same with this university - every student had the chance to stand up and say something, and as Vern and others so pointedly stated, they didnt.  They stayed at home and watched 2.5 Men, or played computer games, or spent quality time with their better halves.  Good for them.  But guess what?  Someone else had their own agenda and now these same people sit about all shocked and wondering how it all happened and whining about how its interfering with their porn surfing time. 

Whats good about this event is just like what happened at UVic - the world is watching and many are laughing at how stupid the students are for letting this happen.  What university will this happen to next?  You think it will never happen again?  Dream on.  What are you doing at your university to prevent fringe groups from stealing your freedom...?


----------



## Proud_Newfoundlander (3 Apr 2008)

You have to stay rather vigilant on University Campuses. Small fringe groups are very often active in student government, and views are put forward, often in "Laws" that dont reflect the views of the majority of students. All you can so is stay vigilant and try to be involved. These reflect the views of voting students, not just attending students, you have to attend meetings and vote, just enough to keep the fringe elements from prevailing. The University of Victoria's student unions attempt to prevent CF recruitng and its subsequent defeat on the issue, are both prime example, the mation and the victory, are prime example of what I'm talking about


----------



## rfishbook (3 Apr 2008)

Hey everyone. I will do my best to add to any of the discourse that has been discussed here by answering the questions of those who have asked.


George Wallace:



Q1.  You say you advertised this meeting, but did you advertise the agenda of the meeting?


A1. The agenda of the meeting along with all of the motions were advertised well in advance of the meeting. In fact, a preliminary meeting of the board of directors is required to approve all motions that go to the AGM. However, this is strictly to ensure they are within legal boundaries and to resolve any conflicts with other policies so that they can be enacted, and not to shoot down any motion we disapprove of. The meetings are open to all members.

Q2.  Was this "Motion" planned in the meetings agenda, or was it one from the floor, too which the majority of the Student Body would have had no knowledge of?

A2. This motion was planned weeks in advance. Motions from the floor that amend policy are prohibited (only amendments to motions and motions to do with the actual running of the meeting are allowed). In fact, I helped draft the policy at the request of the students who came forward. The thought had occurred to me to simply dodge their calls and e-mails, ensure the motion couldn’t go forward to the AGM, or otherwise sabotage it based on my personal beliefs, but had I employed tactics such as that I doubt I would be able to look myself in the mirror.


Q3.  Do changes to the Bylaws not need to follow a formal process, or do you just allow instant changes to be made through motions from the floor?  Is there not an allotted period for discussion of such motions to create changes to Bylaws?

A3. All changes to the bylaw must be approved in advance by the board, advertised and posted to the corporate website, and generally made available to members weeks in advance.


Q4.  What are the Principles that you are following for your Bylaws, and meetings?  Are they so lightly worded and constructed that Special Interest Groups of any nature, can overpower a quorum and force changes that are unacceptable to the majority?

A4. We require a quorum of 35 (recently amended to 25) members to be present at an AGM to enact any policy. I realize that this is less than .01% of our membership, but in fact we have had trouble attracting even this many students (despite many different incentives and advertising initiatives to publicize the meeting). Keep in mind that 7-12% turnout is standard for three days of elections at voting booths across campus for our student federation elections. Sad as it is, this meeting must happen legally for us to elect a board of directors, present our audit and proceed with business. Without it we do not exist. In a perfect world all students would attend, but unfortunately if we relied on this the corporation would not last more than two years. 


Also:

All student levies at the University of Ottawa (and most universities) are separate funds voted on by the students and simply collected by the University of Ottawa on our behalf. The University simply acts as a conduit. Were the Fulcrum to cease to exist the U of O would not get any of this money and the levy would be dissolved. It is similar to throwing a toonie in the Cancer Society jar at a store. The store collects the money on their behalf and relays it to them. They are completely separate funds. 

Leroi:

Q1. Where was this advertised; what type of venues?

The AGM was advertised in the paper for three straight weeks in ads as large as we could fit (usually ¼ to ½ page). The word was also sent out via electronic media (U of O Facebook groups, e-mail lists, bulletin boards, our website, etc…)


2) Were these venues delivered to all dues-paying students?

See above, but we did all that was in our ability (sadly we are not allowed access to the administration’s mailing list of all U of O students).


3) How much time elapsed between the advert and the event?

Three Weeks


4) Was an attempt made to hold debate and discourse on this matter before the vote and if so when.? i.e.: How much time elapsed between debate and vote?

Students were informed to the best of our ability and encouraged to contact us to ask questions, but no preliminary meeting to discuss matters to be presented at the AGM was held. Corporations routinely use AGM’s as a venue to both debate and vote. Please keep in mind the immense cost in both labour and funding to secure space to hold a meeting of this sort. Also keep in mind that this was only one of 20 motions presented at the AGM.


5) Did anyone at the Fulcrum consider the untimeliness of this issue? (Erring on the side of angels, here, I know that end of term is often a time recruiters target; so, perhaps it's an assumption on my part that the vote's untimeliness was strategic? )

The request of the students who proposed the boycott motion came after they first noticed the advertising campaign in February; However, the AGM is scheduled in March as per our bylaws in order to elect the board of directors who will take office on May 1, present the financials for the year to date, and allow the board to present policy motions after a year of exposure to the Fulcrum’s Bylaws. Mid-March has been the standard time since we went autonomous three years ago and was not strategic in any way. 


6) Could these types of important decisions be made at a more suitable time of year? 

A general meeting can be called at any time by following the provisions in our bylaws; However, by circumstance of the issue coming to light one month before our AGM meant that this was the most suitable venue for the vote to occur.


7) Was the Canadian Forces the only targetted boycott?

Yes. In fact, the Board considered a proposal to allow advertising for chewing tobacco earlier in the year and voted in favour of allowing the ads. We oppose all advertising boycotts unless they are discriminatory or libelous.


8)Was there a list? (Good grief, I hope this is a negative answer.)

There has never been a boycott list in the current institutional memory of the paper.


9) Was there a rationale offered by those who voted to boycott Canadian Forces advertising in The Fulcrum? What reason?

I don’t feel comfortable relaying the particular arguments and feelings of those who voted in favour of the boycott; However; many articles with interviews from these individuals have been published in the last few days in the Ottawa Citizen, Ottawa Sun, and Ottawa Metro. I encourage you to read these. 



I am more than happy to answer more questions on this, but I hope these answers have convinced you that this vote was carried out in a fair and democratic manner with attention paid to all the details of ensuring this. Our Bylaws have been reviewed by many brilliant business minds (one perk of being associated with a University and having access to some of its resources), and this process was not lumped together haphazardly. In the end I believe that one side of the debate was able to more easily mobilize and get their message out (please keep in mind that while recruiting and pushing our views would have been considered inappropriate on our behalf and a disservice to the approx 35,000 disparate students we serve, those in facour of the boycott were not hampered as such). The boycott side won fairly and legitimately, and while I and most of the Fulcrum staff are disappointed we respect that this is a decision made in the most democratic process available to us


----------



## George Wallace (3 Apr 2008)

rfishbook

Thanks very much for laying the facts out so crystal clear.  On that note, I have to agree with ArmyVern's assessment.  I would also like to point out that approx 85 persons did feel the need to vote against the motion, and as rfishbook pointed out that would have been approx three to four times the normal attendance at their AGM.  So this AGM had a very high turn out, with a majority of "anti-CF" participants narrowly beating the CF supporters.

This got me thinking and it is rather Orwellian isn't it.  Animal Farm has come to U of O.  

"Napoleon is always right."

"ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL, BUT SOME ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS"


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Apr 2008)

I’m always amazed at how we (the denizens of Army.ca) wrap ourselves around the axle when either:

•	An American deserted tries (and inevitably fails) to _’escape’_ in Canada; or

•	Some ill-informed Canadians – that describes most university students, in my experience – decide they don’t like the military.

These events are as normal as sunrise/sunset; let’s get excited when:

•	People decide that contracts are meant to be honoured, whether for car repairs or military service; and

•	Students actually think.


----------



## Remius (3 Apr 2008)

I wouldn't go as far as saying the students were lazy and should have gotten out to vote if they aren't happy.  I'm sure a significant portion were apathetic and didn't go out to vote or were just oblivious to what was happening.  The way I see it if they pay for something they can complain all they they want whether they voted or not.  If they want change then yes, they should take action.  

Also, keeping track of every organisation's goings on is a little arduous at a university.  So the Fulcrum has a meeting where students can vote.  So does the Rotonde.  So does SFUO, so does the Graduate Student's association, and the various faculty organisations, the residence associations and so on and so on.  That's a lot of democracy to keep track of.

I guess it boils down to watching what interests and concerns you.  There was a vote and now there are consequences for both sides.  One side didn't come out enough and lost.  One side won and will probably have to watch the Fulcrum suffer financially.

I'm not happy about it because it puts a limit on the CFs ability to recruit the best possible candidates and that affects us all who are in the CF.  I don't have a vote and frankly I don't read the Fulcrum (never really read it while I was at Ottawa University either) but I still think it was a bonehead move by a fringe minority pushing an agenda.  I don't really care if it was democratic or not.  I don't agree with the decision and wouldn't stand by it either. (I'll stand by the process though)


----------



## Greymatters (3 Apr 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I’m always amazed at how we (the denizens of Army.ca) wrap ourselves around the axle when either:
> 
> •	An American deserted tries (and inevitably fails) to _’escape’_ in Canada; or
> 
> ...




I see your point but I disagree.  Sitting silent, even on the smallest issues, leaves a vaccum that is filled by the opinions/arguments of others.  

Whenever a comment is made about an issue, the opposing side must always be prepared to say something; it can be an acknowledgement, or facts, or reasons, or explanations, or a rebuttal, but something must be said.  If nothing is said then only the original comments stand, and left alone and said enough times they will be regarded as the truth by third party observers.  By at least saying something, the observers who act as judge jury and executioner of the issue can at least have an opportunity to read/hear both sides of the issue before making their decision... 

_Edit - oops, that stuff below should have been deleted..._


----------



## Strike (3 Apr 2008)

rfishbook,

Thanks for your detailed answer.  I know it can be frustrating to get so much info out on a forum like this.

I guess my only issue with the whole process is as quoted below:



			
				rfishbook said:
			
		

> 7) Was the Canadian Forces the only targetted boycott?
> 
> Yes. In fact, the Board considered a proposal to allow advertising for chewing tobacco earlier in the year and voted in favour of allowing the ads. We oppose all advertising boycotts unless they are discriminatory or libelous.



I guess I'm confused about how the CF ads were either discriminatory or libelous.  But I digress.

The big issue here, as stated earlier is that there are most likely a number of students at U of O who were upset by the decision, but didn't take the time to get off their behinds and attend the meeting and vote.  As far as I'm concerned, unless they went and showed their view, they have no right to complain.  I have the same view of people who complain about various governments.  If you didn't vote, you have no reason to complain, because you had no affect in the outcome.


----------



## acheo (3 Apr 2008)

> If you didn't vote, you have no reason to complain, because you had no affect in the outcome.



Well put Strike!


----------



## rfishbook (3 Apr 2008)

Hey Strike, 

   You're absolutely right that CF ds are neither discriminatory or libellous and thus the board opposed them vehemently. Unfortunately we were outovted at the AGM, the only body more powerful than the board.


----------



## leroi (3 Apr 2008)

Hi Rob,

Thanks for setting the facts straight and explaining the process. 

Sounds like it was done in a fair and just way.

I've read the letters in the Fulcrum from yesterday.

Too bad more voices against the boycott were not raised earlier.

Warm Regards,

leroi


----------



## Celticgirl (3 Apr 2008)

rfishbook said:
			
		

> Hey Strike,
> 
> You're absolutely right that CF ds are neither discriminatory or libellous and thus the board opposed them vehemently. Unfortunately we were outovted at the AGM, the only body more powerful than the board.



It sounds like the AGM had their own "agenda". Pun intended.


----------



## George Wallace (3 Apr 2008)

On a lighter side, after reading some of the letters, a couple really stood out that showed the total lack of education or research some of these students or people mascarading as students, have.  This one is absolutely comical:

http://www.thefulcrum.ca/node/1420


> *James Douglas  * -  Member of the Student Coalition Against War
> I HELPED TO kill people this summer in return for $10 an hour. It is a mistake I will never make again. At the time I did not realize what I was doing. I don’t want to be condescending or assume this foolishness or opinion on others, but I do feel the need to speak out about it.
> 
> I was part of a large, complex, well-organized professional murder machine. There is no getting around this; murder IS the most basic and primary purpose of all military.
> ...




If I have ever read anything so out of touch with reality, this guy is in the running for first place.  He inspected Fire Supression Systems; Fire Extinguishers, Sprinklers, and such, for $10 a hour, and he thinks he was partaking in the killing of innocents.   :  Is he even a Student?  He definitely rides on the short bus.


----------



## Greymatters (3 Apr 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> On a lighter side, after reading some of the letters, a couple really stood out that showed the total lack of education or research some of these students or people mascarading as students, have.  This one is absolutely comical:
> 
> http://www.thefulcrum.ca/node/1420
> 
> If I have ever read anything so out of touch with reality, this guy is in the running for first place.  He inspected Fire Supression Systems; Fire Extinguishers, Sprinklers, and such, for $10 a hour, and he thinks he was partaking in the killing of innocents.   :  Is he even a Student?  He definitely rides on the short bus.



I read that one too, one of the more diarrhetic contributions that no one would miss if it had never been sent in...


----------



## Franko (3 Apr 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Well, I am in the crowd that think it is a vocal minority enforcing CENSORSHIP, outside of the papers mandate, on the paper.
> 
> I listened to Lowell Green's Talk Show on CFRA 580 and found it interesting.  Many callers were business owners, who had heard this and are now pledging to boycott U of O a la the Berkeley incidents with the USMC and American business owners boycotting the City of Berkeley.  Another caller mentioned that he worked for a company that posts advertisements on Campus, and he has noticed that all the CF Recruiting Posters and Ads on Campus were usually defaced.
> 
> ...



As did Steve Madely on A Channel Morning show. He called for a boycott of all businesses who advertise in that rag for sponsoring censorship.

http://www.cfra.com/hosts/steve.asp

He was pretty pissed about it all.

Regards


----------



## slowmode (3 Apr 2008)

Now after reading this article in the Ottawa Sun yesterday morning I thought it was a joke. But after reading it, it occurred to me this was in fact serious. This is beyond my belief and outrages me. A university is suppose to be a place where people can make there own decisions without censorship. censoring certain items shows that people don't have the free will to account for their decisions.


----------



## Celticgirl (3 Apr 2008)

Recce By Death said:
			
		

> As did Steve Madely on A Channel Morning show. He called for a boycott of all businesses who advertise in that rag for sponsoring censorship.
> 
> http://www.cfra.com/hosts/steve.asp
> 
> He was pretty pissed about it all.



Good stuff, Steve!


----------



## vonGarvin (3 Apr 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> He inspected Fire Supression Systems; Fire Extinguishers, Sprinklers, and such, for $10 a hour, and he thinks he was partaking in the killing of innocents.   :  Is he even a Student?  He definitely rides on the short bus.


Actually, he makes a good point.  Whether someone is changing a light bulb at NDHQ, welding a destroyer in Halifax or gunning a LAV 3 in Afghanistan, they are all part of DND.  Though perhaps not military, and definitely nowhere near the "F" echelon, said Fire Suppression System Inspector was employed by the military during time of war.  I'm not that conversant in international law, doesn't that make him a legitimate target for the enemy, just as the Todt Organisation was for us in world war two?
As an aside, I recall a speech given by some military guy somewhere.  The story in the speech went something like this:
(General to lady sweeping the floor in the Pentagon): what are you doing?
(Lade to said general): I'm helping to win a war.

The point is that no matter how minor, trivial or "non war-like", persons working for any military are doing there part.  If what they were doing weren't required, then they wouldn't be doing it.
Having said that, said fire suppression system inspector neglected to say that he also helped to rescue people picked up by SAR, monitor ceasefire agreements around the world, as well as to protect our embassies world wide (Yes, I agree, his rantings were rather "loonie")


----------



## rfishbook (4 Apr 2008)

For those voicing their support of an advertising boycott of the Fulcrum by local businesses, I hope you'll think critically about the effect that something like this would have on our paper. A loss of revenue would not mean that the paper would stop publishing or that the average student on campus (and those students who were in favour of the boycott) would see much difference at all. In fact, the quality of the paper would be the last thing cut. What it means is less money to pay the salaries of our employees (most of whom are paid far less than they deserve for the time and dedication they put in), it would force us to work with outdated equipment and software (which sacrifices our ability to live up the portion of our statement of principles to train all interested students to the best of our ability in journalistic pursuits), it would mean less money to donate to charities when we get the chance, and less money for volunteer appreciation (volunteers who get paid nothing and are the backbone of the paper).

In the end an advertising boycott would do nothing to effect the outcome of the vote and would only serve to directly hurt the 85 students who showed up at the AGM and actually fought this motion. The Fulcrum and all those who work long and hard hours to do something we believe in have already been crippled against our will, calling for further punishment of those that fought the hardest against this is unjust to say the least.


One last thing, to those who are calling the Fulcrum a "rag" or other degrading terms, I encourage you to first visit thefulcrum.ca and read our articles and editorial commentary. Rather than basing all assumptions on this one policy, I encourage you to read what I believe to be sound (and well repected within the student press community) journalism. Simply calling the paper a "rag" without reading it is hypocrisy, and demeans the students who work hard to put together an infromative and unbiased paper in the interest of informing their student body.


----------



## armyvern (4 Apr 2008)

I'd agree with you rfishbook.

It only hurts those who actually tried to prevent this from happening.

I find it quite ironic that this site is witnessing opposite behaviours based on two like outcomes -- and that you can't win no matter how you play it.

In the UVic case, members of this site went nuts screaming about "where's the democratic process" ... "how can a Student Union board arbitrarily implement this decision to boycott recruiting on Campus", "that's just wrong." 

Then, we have _The Fulcrum_ who they are slamming because they did NOT arbitraily implement a decision and rather went with the democratic vote.

Eerily, in the UVic case, those members then went on to praise those students who showed up and ended up democraticlly overturning the UVic anti-recruiting policy.

Apparently though, democratic process is only good when it results in backing up what they want to see happen.

All the more power to _The Fulcrum_: you have demonstrated your ability to remain an outlet where those involved actually have a choice in the decisions to be made. Sometimes, we may not like those decisions, but at least they came about freely and fairly. 

One would hope that those 85 who voted in favour of keeping the advertising are driven to bring forth this issue at the next AGM as well, and able to harken enough of the silent majority off their duffs and out for the vote ... if your paper manages to last that long.

Ironic that by using and honouring the democratic process -- you now find yourself boycot-threatened by the very folks who would ask where that democratic process was had you arbitrarily imposed the same decision.

Good luck with your paper, I hope that it prospers and that you are able to overcome this setback. And, I hope that UofO students have really learned something about exercising their rights to vote -- it's important.


----------



## leroi (4 Apr 2008)

Vern,

Good reply.

Rob,

Hopefully the brouhaha will die down shortly.  I've read _The Fulcrum_: it's certainly _not _ a rag and very professional.

I respect your integrity for remaining unbiased through what must have been a difficult process and for remaining faithful to you principles.

leroi/Joan


----------



## Celticgirl (4 Apr 2008)

armyvern]Sometimes said:


> You're absolutely right that CF ds are neither discriminatory or libellous and thus the board opposed them vehemently. Unfortunately we were outovted at the AGM, the only body more powerful than the board.



Are the CF ads discriminatory or libelous? No, they are not. So they broke their own rules in this case. Is that "fair"? I don't believe it is. I'm a believer in democracy, even when the result doesn't go my way, but this is a vote that I believe should never have even taken place. The CF was singled out and targeted for boycott _against this paper's own policies.  _ 

[quote author=rfishbook]For those voicing their support of an advertising boycott of the Fulcrum by local businesses, I hope you'll think critically about the effect that something like this would have on our paper.[/quote]

I don't think it will stop at a boycott of advertising for The Fulcrum. As I said before, there are a lot of military personnel who have children who will be attending university someday, some of them very soon. I think The Fulcrum is putting a huge black mark on the university with this blatantly anti-military action and the repercussions will be wide.


----------



## Proud_Newfoundlander (4 Apr 2008)

I'll say it again, democracy is only truly a model democracy if people participate, and it appears here, like many campuses, that fringe groups got into university and became active while the rest of the student body focused on work and partying, and became oblivious to the going on's on university. If we want this anti-CF crap to stop more students need to get involved


----------



## armyvern (4 Apr 2008)

Celticgirl said:
			
		

> The vote itself may have been done in a democratic way, but it should never have been voted on in the first place:
> 
> Are the CF ads discriminatory or libelous? No, they are not. So they broke their own rules in this case. Is that "fair"? I don't believe it is. I'm a believer in democracy, even when the result doesn't go my way, but this is a vote that I believe should never have even taken place. The CF was singled out and targeted for boycott _against this paper's own policies.  _
> 
> I don't think it will stop at a boycott of advertising for The Fulcrum. As I said before, there are a lot of military personnel who have children who will be attending university someday, some of them very soon. I think The Fulcrum is putting a huge black mark on the university with this blatantly anti-military action and the repercussions will be wide.



Really?

The Fulcrum has a policy that states that if it's readership wants to see changes to the paper, they can put forward motions for agendas to be voted upon by those with vested interest in the paper (ie the students).

The Fulcrum acted EXACTLY in accordance with it's policy regarding "changes" it's readership wanted to propose. That is EXACTLY what happened here.

If it's going to STOP -- then those ones who sat on their duffs had better do something about it and get out, get invloved, and vote. Period.


----------



## Shamrock (4 Apr 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> If I have ever read anything so out of touch with reality, this guy is in the running for first place.  He inspected Fire Supression Systems; Fire Extinguishers, Sprinklers, and such, for $10 a hour, and he thinks he was partaking in the killing of innocents.   :  Is he even a Student?  He definitely rides on the short bus.



I wonder how he feels about people accusing us of war crimes in Afghanistan... because he's complicit now.


----------



## George Wallace (4 Apr 2008)

Shamrock said:
			
		

> I wonder how he feels about people accusing us of war crimes in Afghanistan... because he's complicit now.



Perhaps he has moved on to other things?


----------



## brihard (4 Apr 2008)

...And the inevitable Facebook debate has started.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=13460053645


----------



## Shamrock (4 Apr 2008)

rfishbook said:
			
		

> In the end an advertising boycott would do nothing to effect the outcome of the vote and would only serve to directly hurt the 85 students who showed up at the AGM and actually fought this motion. The Fulcrum and all those who work long and hard hours to do something we believe in have already been crippled against our will, calling for further punishment of those that fought the hardest against this is unjust to say the least.



rfishbook, you've pretty muched summarized the entire reason FOR the boycott.  While the Fulcrum's dedication to some of its stakeholders is commendable, in flooring the motion without considering the broader ramifications of an aye vote, the Fulcrum was remiss to those who stood to suffer the most; that this was not considered until AFTER the vote went through does not mean it should be given a carte blanche apology.  The paper has made a decision, it must either stand by it and face the consequences or change it.  If that means no money is available for staff, then so be it.

Advertisers now have vested interest in terminating their custom with the Fulcrum; it has shown a marked lack of loyalty to its clients in refusing to run adverts for specious reasons.  Furthermore, it has taken a very clear political stance that may not be reflective of the advertisers, company owners, and consumers.  Were a paper to alienate a considerable section of my target audience because of its political stance, I would be interested in terminating any further dealings with the publisher.  

It's unfortunate the paper now stands to suffer, but I have no sympathy.  In allowing the voters to dictate the paper's stance, the Fulcrum has allowed them to dictate the paper's future.


----------



## Celticgirl (4 Apr 2008)

Shamrock said:
			
		

> It's unfortunate the paper now stands to suffer, but I have no sympathy.  In allowing the voters to dictate the paper's stance, the Fulcrum has allowed them to dictate the paper's future.



Hear, hear! Very well-put, Shamrock.


----------



## HDE (5 Apr 2008)

Personally I don't know enough about the quality of The Fulcrum to know whether or not it is a "rag" or not.  In this particular instance it appears  small, but organized, group of individuals have managed to force the paper to follow a policy that the paper itself finds objectionable.  Does it follow, then, that punishing the paper actually achieves anything useful?  In the short term it makes some folks feel good because it teaches th paper a "lesson" of some sort, however I don't see trashing The Fulcrum as serving much purpose in the longer term; essentially you're giving considerable success to the yahoos who forced through the motion we all object to.  The editor has had considerable courage coming here to army.ca, likely a fairly hostile crowd, and attempting to provide readers with info on the what actually transpired and, quite frankly, I admire him for it.   Who knows how The Fulcrum will evolve if we dump on folks who appear to be among the more rational and forthright people in the story ?


----------



## armyvern (5 Apr 2008)

Does anyone but me see the hypocrisy here??

Here ... you're giving _The Fulcrum _ shit for allowing democracy and saying the decision should have been imposed (because a democratic vote did not  get the result you wanted  to see):



> Quote from: Shamrock on Yesterday at 22:38:55
> It's unfortunate the paper now stands to suffer, but *I have no sympathy.  In allowing the voters to dictate the paper's stance*, *the Fulcrum has allowed them to dictate the paper's future*.



Some reactions on this site after the decision was ARBITRARILY imposed in UVic:

Yet, kudus and +1s to these posts over in the UVIc thread where you're giving _UVic_ shit for imposing and saying the decision should have been democratic (because imposition did not get the result you wanted to see):



			
				Greymatters said:
			
		

> *F'ing christ, what an embarassment.*  Some minority activists have obviously taken over the student council and, as most student dont give a crap or pay attention to their activities, *has on its own decided to rewrite the rules to accomodate their beliefs*.





			
				fullmetalparka said:
			
		

> I am so freaking fed up with this mentality. "*You don't know any better, so I'll decide for you. Bias be damned*!"





			
				BernDawg said:
			
		

> That my friend is the entire point of my earlier post.  *Big Brother is watching and obviously they know what's best for all of us because we are just a mindless mass,* especially the ones fortunate enough to go to an institute of higher learning.  :rage:



Then the praise after a motion was put forward by students to VOTE in an attempt to rescind this imposition:



			
				00334 said:
			
		

> One of the directors that was absent from that meeting is making a motion at Monday's UVSS meeting to overturn that Sept 10 motion.  The motion will be this:
> 
> "WHEREAS UVic students have the right to evaluate all career options and points of view;
> and WHEREAS the UVSS has no right to censor the information that is provided to UVic students;
> ...





			
				Feral said:
			
		

> ...Her most recent politically minded move is *to move this issue to the annual general meeting so that the students can decide: * which completely goes against what was said earlier about how the students aren't informed enough to make this kind of decision.



Then, in that thread, there are some inclusions from members of this site of emails that they forward and sent to UVic carrying titles such as "_UVic Students have no right to choose_".

Then a few more about imposing upon the students with the students having no say ...



			
				NavComm said:
			
		

> ...How dare the student union decide what the other students should or should not be exposed to vis-a-vis career choices!





			
				NavComm said:
			
		

> I do realize that the student union is not the same as the administration of the school. However, there are still some rules that student's union have to follow, ie: being inclusive, upholding human rights, etc.
> 
> _If the shoe were on the other foot and it was the administration not allowing freedom of choice or speech, these same students would be protesting! _ Also, who funds the office space/building that houses this student union?


 (Interesting comment there in that that is exactly what's happening on this forum right now because The Fulcrum DID allow freedom of choice)

This comment:


			
				Greymatters said:
			
		

> These guys need a wake up call to the fact that their actions are more militant than ours...


 in that their action to "impose" a decision is a militant action.



			
				Feral said:
			
		

> I wasn't able to make the event (I figured skipping the class that I have a midterm in on Friday wasn't a good idea), but from what I was told it was pretty tame. There were a couple of protesters that ended up walking out after muttering about the RCMP and "imperialism", but otherwise uneventful. I'm just hoping that it's informed even a few people about what this is all about.
> 
> For now though I think it's just a matter of overcoming the typical student apathy *and getting them out to vote at the AGM. Those who want the ban are small in numbers but are very dedicated. It does sound like there are enough signatures for the petition to impeach though (although that is second-hand knowledge so don't hold me to it until it's confirmed through another source).*



Then, the students succeed in having this "imposed decision" tabled on the UVic AGM, debated, and set for vote as to whether to overturn the imposed decision or stay with it: (It was overturned by the majority vote)



			
				3VP Highlander said:
			
		

> *Great to see that this issue motivated the students to debate and exercise their democratic right to vote. *  After all did not the blood of many soldiers earn them this right.





			
				Greymatters said:
			
		

> I saw this clip on the news last night, the students looked quite happy with their achievement.
> 
> Talk about sour apples on the anti-military side.  When they squeak through a ban against military recruitment its for the common good. When the student body shows up and argues that they want the military to show up, its because they dont understand the issues.  When the anti-war group pulls a fast one in the voting, its revolution in action.  When the student body shows up and starts using Roberts rules of order, they're manipulating the system.
> 
> Bah, what a bunch of whiners...


 Of course, the people "squeaking through the ban" in UVic were the Student Union Council who voted within themselves to "impose" the ban because students couldn't think for themselves.



			
				NavComm said:
			
		

> Well well what an interesting turn of events. Hurray for those students who took the time to stand up for their rights and not be bullied by those zealots on their student board!





			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >"For me, exercising my democratic right and freedom of speech is about taking actions to actually stop things from happening," student Jennifer King said.
> 
> So everything turned out democratically; a bunch of people stopped a thing (the ban on a recruiting presence in the UVIC SUB) from happening.



Either you want it done via a democratic vote or not. Take your pick. Allowing someone to vote doesn't make _The Fulcrum _ wrong just because YOU don't like the result. That's hypocritcal. DEMOCRACY and freedom IS what we fight for -- and here you are slamming it's occurance. You praise democracy of student votes in overturning UVic to get the results you wanted after they were imposed -- and slam _The Fulcrum _ for not "imposing" to overturn the results of a democratic & free process.

Funny type we miltary folk are ... anything against us must be wrong. Wrong for imposing it (because they should have voted on it). Wrong for voting on it (because they should have imposed it). 

Reminds me of philosopher Jagger's fine words "_you can't always get what you want _ ..." even through democratic process if you don't get your butt out there and exercise your democratic right to vote.

Hello. Bueller, anyone?? Pot --- Kettles --- Black.


----------



## Proud_Newfoundlander (5 Apr 2008)

Isnt it only counsellors that are elected ? I belief student council are apoointed by a nationwide organization. Students are also forced to join and pay dues


----------



## Yrys (5 Apr 2008)

Proud_Newfoundlander said:
			
		

> Isnt it only counsellors that are elected ? I belief student council are apoointed by a nationwide organization. Students are also forced to join and pay dues



I'm not sure of it is working in the anglophone part of the country, didn't talk to SSMU people about that,
back in the day. In Québec, General Association have their council elected either in General assembly or in Board of governors whichever their constitution dictate.
When you're in the executive of the General Association, you can get delegate to the Board of Governors of the  FEUQ,
which is the provincial federation (Quebec Federation of University Students). Their own executive get elected in a general assembly, where executive of General association that are member attend.

Student are force, because the law (Rand, I think) that govern Students Associations mimic the one about unions. If you work in a place where there is a union,
you don't get your say into whether you join or not...


----------



## Shamrock (5 Apr 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Does anyone but me see the hypocrisy here??
> 
> Here ... you're giving _The Fulcrum _ shit for allowing democracy and saying the decision should have been imposed (because a democratic vote did not  get the result you wanted  to see):



I don't see how I'm being hypocritical.

The Fulcrum, as a company, floored a motion and allowed its stakeholders to vote on it; stakeholders voted in favor of the motion and it was passed.  Any change of company policy will have an affect on the company; a hot-button topic like the CF, client loyalty, and client control over its paid advertising content will have broader ramifications.  The Fulcrum was irresponsible in allowing the motion to be floored without considering and weighing these ramifications; if they now face the near catastrophe they should have forseen, it would have been in the paper's best interest to illicit as large a possible Nay vote.  The Fulcrum has the right to deny custom but so too do its clients.  If they feel the Fulcrum has been disloyal to them or the CF, then they have the right to take their business elsewhere.  

The shareholders have spoken; if the majority of the attending shareholders have decided "integrity" is more important than survival, then so be it.  They do not have my sympathy in the same way UVSS would not have my sympathy if its AGM were to produce a motion that harmed it grievously.

Is CF recruiting a big deal?  Yes, absolutely.  Anyone who cannot form an informed opinion, cannot see through the bullshit, promises, dangers and restrictions to personal and civil liberties prior to signing the dotted line also lacks the faculties to vote.


----------



## armyvern (5 Apr 2008)

It's hypocrital exactly because had _The Fulcrum_'s tabled motion led to a "keep the military recruiting adds" outcome -- people like you would be cheering on the democratic process at it's best exactly as they did with the UVic bit.

That's what's hypocritical. You don't like the process only because you don't agree with the outcome. Had you agreed with the outcome -- you wouldn't have a single care in the world about their process that they undertook. In fact, it wouldn't even be news, nor being discussed here most probably.


----------



## Shamrock (5 Apr 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> It's hypocrital exactly because had _The Fulcrum_'s tabled motion led to a "keep the military recruiting adds" outcome -- people like you would be cheering on the democratic process at it's best exactly as they did with the UVic bit.



Vern, I admire your skills as a moderator.

Your ability to read and contribute to an argument, however, is sorely lacking.  I have neither cheered nor criticized either vote, but rather their inability to forecast the outcome of their process.  An aye vote or a nay vote; both will have negative consequences.  Which will have a more adverse effect and which can be dealt with?  Professional entities make decisions like this on a daily basis.  Some collapse while others thrive.

Are "people like me" hypocrites because we think people should suffer the consequences of their actions, or are "people like you" the kind that feel no-one should be forced to deal with the negative outcomes of a poorly conceived plan?  Arguing they should be protected against negative consequences, even if those consequences mean absolute failure of the Fulcrum, implicitly states they did not make an informed decision -- and if students cannot make an informed decision _here_ how can they make an informed decision _there_ in the recruiting centre or _there_ in the voting booth?

Am I a hypocrite because I believe in adult responsibility for adult decisions?  I can live with that.  Nobody gets a free ride.  Fuck up and face the consequences.


----------



## armyvern (5 Apr 2008)

Shamrock said:
			
		

> Vern, I admire your skills as a moderator.
> 
> Your ability to read and contribute to an argument, however, is sorely lacking.  I have neither cheered nor criticized either vote, but rather their inability to forecast the outcome of their process.  An aye vote or a nay vote; both will have negative consequences.  Which will have a more adverse effect and which can be dealt with?  Professional entities make decisions like this on a daily basis.  Some collapse while others thrive.
> 
> ...



My "skills" as a poster sorely lacking?? Because I disagree with you?? And, what pray tell -- do my "skills" as a mod have to do with anything? You've not stated anything that I haven't already stated in this thread. 

Suffer the consequences of their actions?? Why yes ... those that sat home and didn't turn out to vote and those who didn't find this issue an important one to be involved in ... certainly will -- as I've said; they have no one to blame but themselves.

They certainly should be adults in their decisions and reap what they have sown. Did you miss it when I said that at least ten times now?? I just happen to put the blame where it lies. 

I put the blame squarely on them. Not on_ The Fulcrum_ proper who did the democratic thing as their policy states is their process; a process by which, FYI states that an item must be placed upon the agenda, debated, and then voted upon. Exactly what occured.

Their policy does not state that they get to delay that process when they "can't predict the outcome". That would be undemocratic. Imagine the Tories, for example, "sorry today's federal elections are cancelled because we might not win" ... 

Indeed, where were those adults who chose not to exercise that democratic right and thereby effected this outcome? To blame anything but their apathy -- is not putting the blame where it lies.

And, I've yet to post that I agree with the vote's outcome (rather I do not like it's outcome) ... but I blame those responsible for not exercising their right to vote, not the staff of _The Fulcrum_ who did the democratic thing.


----------



## Trinity (5 Apr 2008)

Sadly... the students who voted and thus made the decision will not feel the ill affects from it.

The Fulcrum I read online will lose $7000 in advertising as a result.  Not to mention people
who are now boycotting or up in arms with the Fulcrum.  

In this case the minority gets away with their views at the expense of someone else (the Fulcrum).

Now... with 2 editions left??? until school is over not much damage is done and this can be easily revisited next school year.
But alas, it was all done legally and democratically as per their students rules of their incorporation.  Like
it or hate it it was a well played move by the opposition.  But at best it's symbolistic and isn't going to stop
recruiting.  If anything it's had the opposite effect with more newspaper and media time than the lost $7000 
worth of ads could ever buy.


----------



## Shamrock (5 Apr 2008)

The Fulcrum is beholden to its stakeholders and the stakeholders have made their voices known: boycott the advertisements, don't boycott the advertisements, or I don't care.

It is the stakeholders who hold stake in the Fulcrum's success or failure and these people who have voted in an issue that will either allow it to succeed or fail.  The Fulcrum is not a separate entity from its stakeholders; they are part and parcel.  These people care enough about the Fulcrum's content to make the decision. If the paper collapses, then it is on the stakeholders' shoulders.  They cannot absolve themselves of responsibility (although they may be willfully ignorant of their participation towards its success or failure).  Those who abstained obviously don't consider themselves stakeholders.  

The motion was announced and stakeholders attended the AGM.  Speeches were shared, and it was here that those who had the most to lose (staff and employees) had the obligation to tell voters what the nay vote means; I can only assume they did everything in their power to do so.  They failed to convince the Aye voters of the consequences.  Who is to blame?  The people who care more about their agendas and ideals than the success of a school paper.  All stakeholders will feel the effects of this and every decision; some will notice a decrease in salary, others a decrease in quality, others an increase in "integrity." Those who neither read nor contribute to the paper, nonstakeholders, will not.1  

Those who did not show up for the vote have no vested interest in the topic and/or the paper; they are non-stakeholders.  Without an interest in either topic why should they show up?  If they have no reason to show up, why should they be held accountable for something someone else feels is relevant? 



1 Even if this decision results in a higher student levy to make up for shortfalls in revenue, I assert the vast majority of those not in attendance were still non-stakeholders as few will realize the reason behind the increase, care about it, or even notice it.


----------



## Blindspot (5 Apr 2008)

Democracy in and of itself is not reason enough to discount protestation of an unfavorable (or morally wrong) result. If that statement is untrue than everyone should be respecting the last Palestinian election, including the Canadian Government. Let's also not forget the results of German democracy in the early 1930's. While the scope is not the same, the principle is. Furthermore, not protesting a result because "you're hurting the wrong guy" is also problematic in that the voices that need to be heard don't get heard. A company decision, democratic or not, should not be allowed to go unchallenged by whatever legal means the "wronged" or "losing" party can or wants to muster. 

Whatever democratic decisions an individual endorses has absolutely no anti-hypocritical requirement to any other; it simply comes down to what an individual feels is right or wrong. I feel the vote result with respect to the Fulcrum was wrong. I also feel that the UVic ban being overtuned was right. That doesn't make me hypocritical or democratically challenged.


----------



## Greymatters (7 Apr 2008)

Aha, I felt my ears burning and there was Vern, actually clipping not one not two but three quotes from me.  You could have knocked me over with a feather!  I must have been on a roll...



			
				Trinity said:
			
		

> Sadly... the students who voted and thus made the decision will not feel the ill affects from it.
> The Fulcrum I read online will lose $7000 in advertising as a result.  Not to mention people
> who are now boycotting or up in arms with the Fulcrum.
> In this case the minority gets away with their views at the expense of someone else (the Fulcrum).
> ...



Thats a good point you bring up.  Did no one on the Fulcrum stand up and say what the consequences of the vote either way would be on the organization itself?  Thats one of the things they're supposed to be learning at University isnt it, how decisions affect an organization?  There should have been at least one person with HR, business or marketing experience who should have thought of that...


----------



## armyvern (7 Apr 2008)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> Aha, I felt my ears burning and there was Vern, actually clipping not one not two but three quotes from me.  You could have knocked me over with a feather!  I must have been on a roll...
> 
> Thats a good point you bring up.  Did no one on the Fulcrum stand up and say what the consequences of the vote either way would be on the organization itself?  Thats one of the things they're supposed to be learning at University isnt it, how decisions affect an organization?  There should have been at least one person with HR, business or marketing experience who should have thought of that...



You're quite quick to presume that no one on staff at The Fulcrum stood up and spoke to the consequences. A quick read of the original article would indicate that they did, and that they published advertizements with an aim to get the facts out there --- and get the voters in to vote against the motion.

I believe also, that a member of the staff has been right here and posted reagrding the staff's attempts at informing and making aware the UofO student population.


----------



## Greymatters (8 Apr 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> You're quite quick to presume that no one on staff at The Fulcrum stood up and spoke to the consequences. A quick read of the original article would indicate that they did, and that they published advertizements with an aim to get the facts out there --- and get the voters in to vote against the motion.
> 
> I believe also, that a member of the staff has been right here and posted reagrding the staff's attempts at informing and making aware the UofO student population.



And just as quickly slapped down again...  :blotto:

Yes, I did presume and missed the part about the their efforts to inform the student population...


----------

