# UVIC threads on Recruiting, Protests & Students against War



## 00334 (21 Sep 2007)

http://www.martlet.ca/view.php?aid=39668

UVSS reps say students can’t make up own mind about military.


----------



## Jaydub (21 Sep 2007)

I wonder how many UVIC students, that are CF members, pay dues to the UVic Students’ Society...

Is there any way this can be overturned ?


----------



## geo (21 Sep 2007)

> The motion was passed to clarify a policy amendment passed 10-1 by the last UVSS board of directors in April.That board amended the society’s policy on military issues to include, “*The Society is opposed to the militarization of Canadian Society, and is unsupportive of a Canadian military establishment that violates international law and human rights.*”
> 
> Current UVSS board members felt that motion left it ambiguous as to whether or not the military was banned from the SUB.
> 
> The ban voted in on Sept. 10 means that the Canadian Armed Forces will be unable to attend the annual recruiting fair put on by UVic’s Career Services in the SUB every January. The Armed Forces attended last year’s recruiting fair.



Uhhh... please remind me - when did we violate international law and human rigthts? Was I asleep that day? Drat!

Militarization of Canadian Society?  Uhhh.... did we do that?  Can we do that?

Heh - with a bunch of students thinking like that I make a motion that the CF not permit it's officer cadets to study at that school AND that no research grant be provided to the school... don't want them to dirty their hands, dealing with our dirty money.... oh nooooo!


----------



## GAP (21 Sep 2007)

For this kind of crap freedom soldiers die? Kinda makes one want to rethink the whole concept..... :


----------



## Greymatters (21 Sep 2007)

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.


----------



## 00334 (21 Sep 2007)

GreyMatter 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.



It's not that that UVIC students don't care, it's that the UVSS exists in its own world.  This was passed Sept 10 but I didn't hear about it until today when I picked up the latest copy of the Martlet.


----------



## charlesm (21 Sep 2007)

I wonder if they know how many student at UVIC are in the Military?

Are these students now second class citizens because they are in the military?


----------



## Jorkapp (21 Sep 2007)

Believe me, it's worse where I am.

Here's a snippet from an email sent by my student government last semester:



> == Anti-War Protest in Toronto ==
> 
> On March 17th the CSA will be sending a bus to Toronto to participate in the cities
> anti-war protest. If you are interesting in joining us please email <censored> to
> reserve your seat!



For the record, $55.69 is the student fee for this government. Given there are at least 10 OCdt's (that I know of) at UoGuelph, that's $556.90 (if not more) military money spent protesting... the military. From what I've heard, the student government is a little more balanced and level-headed than last year, but we'll see.


----------



## George Wallace (21 Sep 2007)

Next question to put forward to these 'wackos' is "How do they justify allowing large Corporations who have large contracts to sell the Militaries around the world with equipment and services to attend?"  Are they also included in the Ban?  Is Freddy Chef being banned from the Job Fair?  They supply Rations to the CF.  Will Bell Canada be banned from the Fair?  It an many of its subsidiaries supply communications devices and services to the CF.  Will the Airline companies who bid for CF contracts be banned also?  I would imagine most, if not all, of the remaining companies attending the Job Fair will have some sort of contractual agreements with the CF, be they large or small in scale.  Even Staples provides office supplies to the CF.  Where will this idiocy end?


----------



## FSTO (21 Sep 2007)

Name any University in Canada (or the world) where the student union isn't full of the leftish crowd. In the 80's when I was at University the student union was full of professional students whose main dream it seemed was to live the rest of their lives in school. Almost all of the other students with an ounce of initative and drive were working their butt off to get through school and get on with their lives. Hence they had no time for the out of this world musings of the student union.

As for U Vic, is it the union or the University itself that decides who comes to fair? I would suspect that it is the latter.


----------



## BernDawg (21 Sep 2007)

I suppose that they'll remove all the books they don't agree with from the library and burn them in a big bonfire, after dark (of course) then they can run around and smash the windows out of all the businesses that support, or might support, the CF.  Wow this is starting to sound familiar.....


----------



## chanman (21 Sep 2007)

Speaking of the Student Society, the Simon Fraser one has never been able to meet quorum to change their own bylaws - including the one requiring a 500 student quorum.  Yes, they can't get and keep 500 students at the meeting long enough to do anything at a school with somewhere on the order of 20,000 students.

It's a small wonder they still exist, although it would have been nice if we could opt out of funding them with our student activity fees...


----------



## medicineman (21 Sep 2007)

Nice to see UVic hasn't changed any since I went there many moons ago...

MM


----------



## 00334 (21 Sep 2007)

FSTO said:
			
		

> Name any University in Canada (or the world) where the student union isn't full of the leftish crowd. In the 80's when I was at University the student union was full of professional students whose main dream it seemed was to live the rest of their lives in school. Almost all of the other students with an ounce of initative and drive were working their butt off to get through school and get on with their lives. Hence they had no time for the out of this world musings of the student union.
> 
> As for U Vic, is it the union or the University itself that decides who comes to fair? I would suspect that it is the latter.



Career Services decides who comes to the fair.  However, the career fair is located in the student union building so the student union dictates who can be in the building and indirectly who can be at the fair unless the Career Services people decide to relocate the job fair.


----------



## xena (21 Sep 2007)

Strictly speaking, since they are *"unsupportive of a Canadian military establishment that violates international law and human rights"*, there would be no ban of the CF since it is *not* a military establishment that has _violated international law _ and/or _human rights_.

A strict interpretation of what they said renders it null and void.

I wonder if they crafted it that way to appeal to leftists who don't think terribly analytically, but yet won't really cause any change to anything...

But, what do I know...?


----------



## a_majoor (21 Sep 2007)

Although xena is quite correct with the legal interpretation, I suggest the University administration and Senate should start receiving some letters and phone calls pointing out the fact that their institution is Federally funded, has CF members on campus and that many corporations do business with the CF and Federal Government.

Letter writers should also cc their Member of Parliament and all the various corporations which recruit at these job fairs, since politicians need to know that this University's students apparently do not want government monies or support; and so prospective employers can get a sense of what sort of people they might be hiring. 

Lets see what happens when reality intersects the university!


----------



## 00334 (21 Sep 2007)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Although xena is quite correct with the legal interpretation, I suggest the University administration and Senate should start receiving some letters and phone calls pointing out the fact that their institution is Federally funded, has CF members on campus and that many corporations do business with the CF and Federal Government.
> 
> Letter writers should also cc their Member of Parliament and all the various corporations which recruit at these job fairs, since politicians need to know that this University's students apparently do not want government monies or support; and so prospective employers can get a sense of what sort of people they might be hiring.
> 
> Lets see what happens when reality intersects the university!



I've actually done some research on the issue and it turns out the the UVSS is in someway contracted out by the university so it is not part of the university so they can do anything they want with regards to students without the approval of the university.  I think the best thing to do in this situation is to petition career services to host the career fair somewhere other than the SUB because the CF isn't banned from the campus; they are banned from the SUB.


----------



## FullMetalParka (21 Sep 2007)

> Director-at-large Christine Comrie said it was important to ban the military from recruiting because some students are ignorant about the issues.
> 
> “A lot of students don’t know about the issues and don’t know about the facts,” she said. “We have to make this decision for students.”



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 (21 Sep 2007)

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!"


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:


----------



## Astalos (22 Sep 2007)

Who cares if the CF is not welcome there.  It is their loss anyway.


----------



## larry Strong (22 Sep 2007)

Are there really that many naive/stupid people in University? How did they ever get that far.


----------



## chanman (22 Sep 2007)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> Are there really that many naive/stupid people in University? How did they ever get that far.



No, the problem is that there are too many people in University that don't give two hoots about the Student Society, so they can get away with such crap.

Combine the resulting low participation rate in student politics with the power that is actually allocated to the Student Society, and you see why things like this actually get pulled off.  The SFSS at SFU was considerate enough to hamstring themselves with a moderate required quorum that they consistently fail to meet, but not all schools have such considerate Student Societies.


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Sep 2007)

Behold the Word.

There is only One Truth and it is vouchsafed to very few.  We, the few, must protect the many from the Untruth.



> 42. From what has been said it follows that *it is quite unlawful to demand, to defend, or to grant unconditional freedom of thought, of speech, or writing, or of worship*, as if these were so many rights given by nature to man. For, if nature had really granted them, it would be lawful to refuse obedience to God, and there would be no restraint on human liberty. It likewise follows that freedom in these things may be tolerated wherever there is just cause, but only with such moderation as will prevent its degenerating into license and excess. And, where such liberties are in use, men should employ them in doing good, and should estimate them as the Church does; for liberty is to be regarded as legitimate in so far only as it affords greater facility for doing good, but no farther.   ... LIBERTAS, ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII ON THE NATURE OF HUMAN LIBERTY 1888


http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_20061888_libertas_en.html

Apparently our friends on the UVSS are of a mind with Pope Leo XIII.   Somethings are just too dangerous to allow individuals free and undirected thought.  I sense some excellent Bureaucrats in the making.


----------



## a_majoor (22 Sep 2007)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Behold the Word.
> 
> There is only One Truth and it is vouchsafed to very few.  We, the few, must protect the many from the Untruth.
> http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_20061888_libertas_en.html
> ...



These future Inquisitioners may be swept away by the next Reformation. (We can only hope).


----------



## LordOsborne (22 Sep 2007)

I have sent them an email, calling into question their bias and their lack of logic. The very nature of the a career fair is to give students the chance to browse and then CHOOSE their preferred career. Their argument that, "students are ignorant" makes no sense to me. Why deny the already "ignorant" students (of which i am one :) the chance to gain at least one side of the story? Whatever happened to the freedom of choice?


----------



## willy (22 Sep 2007)

This isn't new- the UVSS banned the military from the SUB previously.  I think it was in around 2000 or 2001.  I was a student at UVic at the time.  There was a real furor over the fact that recruiters had brought in some swag to display, including dummy munitions and/or inert weapons.

I don't really care what the UVSS thinks.  Let them have their tempest in a teapot.  The SUB is their building, they can do what they want with it.  Maybe I would be more upset if I thought a recruiting drive at UVic stood a snowball's chance in hell of attracting some applicants, but having worked at them in the past I doubt that they will- a leper colony would draw a better crowd in that place.  Maybe I would also be more upset if I thought there was a snowball's chance in hell of reasoning with UVic in general/the UVSS in particular, but I really don't.  This is just the way it is at UVic, and I don't have it in me to get worked up over it anymore.


----------



## vangemeren (22 Sep 2007)

I never seen stuff like this here North Bay. Military personal come in all the time in their Cadpat and take courses at the university. They have always been welcome at the job fairs and nobody seems to say anything about it.

The student union here has enough trouble keeping itself together let alone pass policy statements. In the 4, going on 5 years I've been here, the elected president has never served a full term of a year. Durring the melt down (in fighting) last year the University did not step in because the student union is a separate entity from them and does not intervene as policy.


----------



## 29CARR (22 Sep 2007)

Some of the rather inflamatory statements made in the article really remind me of statements made by racists.  A lot of hatred, with very little/no truth, no logic, and justification for their own inappropriate actions (ie. _it was important to ban the military from recruiting because some students are ignorant about the issues._).  I wonder if some of them are Anti-Dentites as well.


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Sep 2007)

Why complain? 

This just means we can allocate more recruiters to elementry school. This way we can nab the kiddies before the university prof's begin *their* brain washing.


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Sep 2007)

>“A lot of students don’t know about the issues and don’t know about the facts,” she said. “We have to make this decision for students.” 

Apparently the council doesn't realize the council membership falls into the set of people who don't know about the issues.  Regardless, it's amusing that they have appropriated to themselves the right to act in loco parentis for adults.  The student body of UVic is, apparently, composed mostly of children - especially the graduating 22 (or so) year-olds who would be the people primarily interested in the job fair.

If the UVSS is correct - that the students are ignorant - we must question whether the students' judgement can be trusted on any other issue.  They might not know about the issues or know the facts.


----------



## Greymatters (22 Sep 2007)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >“A lot of students don’t know about the issues and don’t know about the facts,” she said. “We have to make this decision for students.”
> 
> Apparently the council doesn't realize the council membership falls into the set of people who don't know about the issues.  Regardless, it's amusing that they have appropriated to themselves the right to act in loco parentis for adults.  The student body of UVic is, apparently, composed mostly of children - especially the graduating 22 (or so) year-olds who would be the people primarily interested in the job fair.
> 
> If the UVSS is correct - that the students are ignorant - we must question whether the students' judgement can be trusted on any other issue.  They might not know about the issues or know the facts.



Based on that kind of logic, then these same students should not be allowed to vote, or drive, or drink alcohol, or get married or handle their own finances.  And any consequences of their past votes should be null and void - including SVSS election results...

Really, what drivel.  If these guys actually provided any 'facts' instead of paranoid accusations, then the students would be informed.


----------



## BC Old Guy (22 Sep 2007)

> Who cares if the CF is not welcome there.  It is their loss anyway.



Actually - I care. Part of my job is to provide accurate information to people that are making employment decisions - especially for themselves.  The UVic website notes that it has 19,475 students enrolled.  Out of that many, I would normally expect to get 4 enrolments, which requires 12-15 people applying.

I think that out of that number of students at UVic that there are 15 or more people who would do well in the military.  So now we have to consider -  how do we let these people know that the military is a viable career choice?

Interesting tactical problem.


----------



## max flinch (22 Sep 2007)

This is typical of what the UVSS has been up to at least since I was at UVic from 89 - 93, so it's nothing new. I must applaud the Marxist - I mean, the Martlet, for reporting what appears to be pretty neutral account of the event. That's a change since I was there. They used to be to the UVSS what Pravda was to the Central Committee in the old USSR.

I just have to shake my head at the reasoning. "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up." They are banning the military because of things that they assert they don't know about, have never heard of, but are sure that exist. The assumption that if you don't agree with their viewpoint, you must therefore be to stupid to form your own opinions, seems to be the basis for the reasoning of a lot of issues on the agenda of people in this area of the political spectrum. That said, it only bans the military from recruiting in the Student Union Building, correct? That's an awfully small part of a big campus.

During the first Gulf War, when Canadian ships were in the Gulf, there were people about who were gleaning names from the newspaper of serving members, then phoning their spouses to say, "This is Major so-and-so, and your husbands been killed. We'll let you know more later." Some of the members of UVSS at the time were quoted as supporting this kind of behaviour, because it was that kind of a tactic that was needed to make all members of the military community realize how wrong the war was. "No blood for oil, blah blah blah." These people and their ilk forget that Hitler was a socialist, and that many of the ways they see as legitimate strategies have some nasty parallels in history.


----------



## 00334 (22 Sep 2007)

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;
and WHEREAS the decision to ban the Canadian Armed Forces from the SUB has caused considerable outrage in the Campus Community;
BIRT that the motion passed at the Monday, September 10, 2007 meeting, banning the Canadian Armed Forces from the SUB, be rescinded."


----------



## 3rd Herd (22 Sep 2007)

Vacant seat on the Board of Governors for a student representative anyone ? http://www.uvss.uvic.ca/index.php?page=students-representation

The UVic Senate is the decision making body for all academic matters of the University. The Senate is the body that approves course curriculum, degree programs and other academic regulations. It also monitors all policies regarding admissions, grade appeals and probation standards. Each faculty has a student elected annually to represent their needs and there are a number of at-large positions.
-vacant (7) http://www.uvss.uvic.ca/index.php?page=students-representation

Elections
Every March, undergraduate students elect student representatives for the Students´ Society, University Senate, and University Board of Governors. These representatives are responsible for ensuring that you are represented and that your ideas and concerns are voiced. Campaigning takes place for two weeks and includes two "All Candidates´ Forums" where candidates present their platforms and students can ask questions on important issue.


----------



## big_johnson1 (24 Sep 2007)

The problem is mainly that Students Against War have the ear of the current UVSS board, and their small minority manages to pass this ridiculous stuff because they basically are the only ones who show up at the meetings. Personally, as a student at UVic, it's embarassing, but then again, people don't expect much else from that school. I wrote a little email to the chair expressing my (not the CFs) opinion of how I am being painted, especially following a media interview where she essentially said that members of the military are not welcome in the student union building. 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.


----------



## SweetNavyJustice (24 Sep 2007)

It's funny that I actually found this thread while 'killing time' waiting for the meeting here at UVic.  

I am not one prone to showing up for such activities, but when I read the article in the Martlet last Thursday I was outraged.  I couldn't get over how a group of students were calling another bunch of students too ignorant to decide on who is a good employer.  

Being that I have actually spent seven months in Afghanistan and consider myself pretty swept up on the history of the country, it's politics and situation, I also had to laugh that one of the members of the UVSS council's claim that he was well read on the subject of what is going on.  To me, unless you have been to the place, or taken the time to get out in the public and actually talk to Afghanis living in Canada, then your being well read basically means that you've researched a number of other people's opinions that mirror yours (both for a military presence in the country and against), and can either regurgitate their claims or make an opinion off of their opinion.  What is that saying about opinions being like As@holes?!  I also suspect that these same well read people on the subject of AF couldn't tell you who Ahmed Shah Massoud, Gen. Doustem, or Abdul Sayyaf are.  

Beyond my outrage over the UVSS being idiots and lack of understanding over the actual issues in Afghanistan is a greater concern.  It is them trying to censor who should present themselves as a potential employer.  As Mike Wallace mentioned earlier in the thread, it's not as though you are then, through extension, going to ban companies that do business with the CF.  Or, since the UVSS talks of prisoner abuses, if such allegations were true, you cannot blame an organization for the inappropriate actions of an extreme minority.  As a 'company' the CF does not condone this behaviour, and does and will punish it accordingly.  To ban the CF on these grounds would be tantamount to banning every environmental group from the campus because a few of them have spiked trees and caused injury.  

At any rate, with any luck you won't be reading a story in the papers tomorrow about some old soldier who has actually been to Afghanistan and is also a student at UVic having gone over the table at UVSS members for their idiocy.


----------



## sonardork (24 Sep 2007)

If anyone wants to express their personal opinion to the UVic "movers and shakers" here are some key email addees I got from the comments section at the Small Dead Animals  blog on this subject:

scarlson@uvic.ca
chanclr@uvic.ca
plaliber@uvic.ca
gmanager@uvss.uvic.ca
martlet@uvic.ca
ombuddy@uvic.ca
academics@uvss.uvic.ca
chair@uvss.uvic.ca
edit@martlet.ca


_edit to fix hyperlink_


----------



## Greymatters (24 Sep 2007)

Here's the site for the UVic 'Students Against War'.  For those of us who were around when the wall was still up and read what the big red machine used to put out, this material will look quite familiar...

http://sawvictoria.ca/


----------



## Greymatters (24 Sep 2007)

I posted it on another thread, but its more appropriate here - 

Here's the site for the UVic 'Students Against War'.  For those of us who were around when the wall was still up and read what the big red machine used to put out, this material will look quite familiar...

http://sawvictoria.ca/


----------



## TCBF (24 Sep 2007)

GreyMatter said:
			
		

> Here's the site for the UVic 'Students Against War'.  For those of us who were around when the wall was still up and read what the big red machine used to put out, this material will look quite familiar...
> http://sawvictoria.ca/



"Students Against War is a collective of campus groups committed to the fight against all forms of oppression and explicitly violent conflict. Our campaign is one of creative resistance, education, direct action, public forums, and solidarity with communities living and resisting war and occupation. The group's mandate is to resist the militarization of society, and to confront the injustice of imperialism at home and abroad, in our capacity as students and as citizens."

- Typical Commie word-use in Pink (of course).


----------



## q_1966 (24 Sep 2007)

I wish the ruxted group would spam UVIC and that website with information to set the record straight 

I also see them trying to tye us to the US Forces and the invasion of Iraq


----------



## Roy Harding (24 Sep 2007)

The text of an email I sent on Saturday to edit@martlet.ca (the only contact email I could find on the site):



> “No right to choose
> UVSS reps say students can’t make up own mind about military
> by David Karp
> The Canadian Armed Forces are banned from recruiting in the Student Union Building (SUB).”
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Sep 2007)

Pay attention to the activist playbook here - knowing how the other side fights always helps  ;D

Funny how they've "secured" the document so you can't print it out - what would they say if government did the same thing?  Why wouldn't you want hard copy? Hmm....

Mind you, if you highlight the text, and copy & paste it to a document, it looks like you can print it out.   :nana:

- edited to give "fix" -


----------



## q_1966 (24 Sep 2007)

Im just pissed when im mislabeled as a US solier, "No Grandma, Im not going Iraq, I would be going to Afghanistan, Stop watching CNN and watch CBC once and awhile"
Im Proudly Canadian, Theres a reason we are bigger and on top. 

That guide is a load of garbage, The key is Informed Protests Not sponsored by any Political Party, because political parties bring manipulation with it.

Edit: a little re-working of the last sentance.


----------



## 3rd Herd (24 Sep 2007)

SweetNavyJustice said:
			
		

> At any rate, with any luck you won't be reading a story in the papers tomorrow about some old soldier  who has actually been to Afghanistan and is also a student at UVic having gone over the table at UVSS members for their idiocy.



Already been done and have the T-shirt, did not make the local papers though but made several issues of the Martlet (2000 I think). But on the serious side they always have positions unfilled. I used to plan strategy with the head of PRIDE and the head of the Native Student Union. They got tired of our veto's and took to calling us the "Cripple, Queer and Wagonburner". I am waitting for a few of those to realize their dreams of becoming a MLA or an MP and then some old memories become political coinage.  >


----------



## 00334 (24 Sep 2007)

For once, the system works...somewhat.

UVic students challenge ban on military recruiting

http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=8acff5b4-f8a8-4139-9bf3-d147d59fabc2&k=82382

I was at the meeting and the support for the CF and the right for them to recruit in the building was rather impressive.


----------



## TCBF (24 Sep 2007)

3rd Herd said:
			
		

> ...They got tired of our veto's and took to calling us the "Cripple, Queer and Wagonburner". I am waitting for a few of those to realize their dreams of becoming a MLA or an MP and then some old memories become political coinage.  >



- Are the minutes of the meetings archived somewhere?  Taped, or sanitized hardcopy?


----------



## a_majoor (25 Sep 2007)

Amazing how similar the messages are:

"ISAF is a collective of Nations under a United Nations mandate committed to the fight against all forms of oppression and explicitly violent conflict. Our campaign is one of education of Afghan citizens, direct action against Taliban oppressors and their mercenaries, public forums with village elders, and solidarity with communities living and resisting war and occupation. ISAF's mandate is to resist the militarization of Afghan society, and to confront the injustice of Islamofascism at home and abroad, in our capacity as citizens and soldiers."

The main difference, of course is we act on our mandate.


----------



## 3rd Herd (25 Sep 2007)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Are the minutes of the meetings archived somewhere?  Taped, or sanitized hardcopy?



TCBF

I have copies of the Marlet articles, as for the comments a formal complainant was filled with the ethics staff at UVic over it and somewhere in my files have the copies of those. If I remember correctly we also filled with the UVic ombudsperson. The icing on the cake was when their head of beverage services disappeared with 175,000(?) or so of student funds. The actual amount, his name and all that did make the papers though.

Edit to add:

00334 
thanks for the TC article. I worked with one person mentioned a number of times, glad to see she is still there.


----------



## Greymatters (25 Sep 2007)

Why is it not so surprising that, now that some students have objected and forced the issue, there is a whole lot of backpedaling and CYA going on...


----------



## Greymatters (25 Sep 2007)

TCBF said:
			
		

> "Students Against War is a collective of campus groups committed to the fight against all forms of oppression and explicitly violent conflict. Our campaign is one of creative resistance, education, direct action, public forums, and solidarity with communities living and resisting war and occupation. The group's mandate is to resist the militarization of society, and to confront the injustice of imperialism at home and abroad, in our capacity as students and as citizens."  - Typical Commie word-use in Pink (of course).



The arent 'commie-pinko' words.  These are the words that hostile intelligence agencies, seperatist groups and other fomenters of violence around the world use to recruit future covert and overt agents, instigate guerilla action groups, and the same spiel that has been spread at universities since before WW2.  They even describe tradecraft for studetns to follow as part of developing their own 'direct action' aka 'insurgent group' as well as basic counter-measures against law enforcement agencies.  All in the name of freedom of speech of course.  They even attempt to deny its what they're doing by providing a rebuttal claiming they arent doing it all.  It so transparent its laughable, and people believe this stuff.


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (25 Sep 2007)

> >“A lot of students don’t know about the issues and don’t know about the facts,” she said. “We have to make this decision for students.”



Hello, she's what 21, 22 OK, oh there's just so much life experience oozing from her :. Give me a break! Still attached to mommy's apron strings.

Gal your life experience I can fit into a thimble and still have room, first of, geta life before you decide what other people should do with theirs.


----------



## Travis111 (25 Sep 2007)

i would really like to appologize for the UVSS. as a student here at UVIC i was absolutely disgusted with the ban. the fact that that they feel they need to "protect" from the canadian military is just a slap in the face. what makes them think they know more about the issue than their fellow students? am i not capable of make my own decisions? and what kind of message does this send our troop over seas? look, i'm going to be honest, i'm not exactly for the war and i certainly wouldn't have been recruited if they had been allowed to come here but that's beside the point. the military is a job, like any other. if students want to join why should the UVSS tell them they shouldn't or they can't? Unfortunately these people live in a world where they think nobody should join the military and we can just make peace with everyone and live happily ever after. Warn is a part of life, the military is a part of life. open your eyes and start living in the real world.


----------



## q_1966 (25 Sep 2007)

Its intresting to note the over-use of the word "terrorist" and how its now "Insurgent" in the media


----------



## 2 Cdo (25 Sep 2007)

TCBF said:
			
		

> "Students Against War is a collective of campus groups committed to the fight against all forms of oppression and explicitly violent conflict. Our campaign is one of creative resistance, education, direct action, public forums, and solidarity with communities living and resisting war and occupation. The group's mandate is to resist the militarization of society, and to confront the injustice of imperialism at home and abroad, in our capacity as students and as citizens."
> 
> - Typical Commie word-use in Pink (of course).



These groups never really change. The entire "resist the militarization of society" only applies to Western societies, never the opposition. I am old enough to remember their rhetoric when the Soviets were our enemy, and I never heard any of these groups oppose ANYTHING the Soviets did. :


----------



## GAP (25 Sep 2007)

Brazil_66 said:
			
		

> I wish the ruxted group would spam UVIC and that website with information to set the record straight
> 
> I also see them trying to tye us to the US Forces and the invasion of Iraq



Now why would the Ruxted group do that? That would give legitimacy to their arguments, and they have none.

As far a I know, the Ruxted group does commentary on the status of our government and it's policies, more pointedly DND practises and policies. It does not spam a kiddies playground to prove a point.


----------



## c_canuk (25 Sep 2007)

I think these sort of people are looking for someone to take up a fake "Noble fight" with to make themselves look good. They want to be seen as Noble crusaders and the military is an easy target because we don't and can't fight back against an agenda of rumor. By waging a moral fight against fictional foe they don't have to leave their homes, let alone travel to somewhere that needs humanitarians who will actually get their hands dirty

By harassing an entity that can't defend itself well from that corner to make themselves look like the little guy fighting for morality they are proving they aren't. 

If they weren't cowards they would put their money where their mouth is, join an NGO and go to Dafur or somewhere else they say needs help and actually do something instead of pretending to protect students from a corrupt military that does not exist from the comfort of their heated homes, abundant food & drink and families while whining at the bar about the people providing the freedom that affords them those very luxuries. 

It's a safe bet for them because harassing the people with guns that are sworn to protect them looks like a dangerous proposition to the ignorant but is the safest group to target.

In short these people are to humanitarians what ninjasnipernavyseal airsofter/internet toughguys are to the military, posers.

EDIT: Spelling


----------



## Snaketnk (25 Sep 2007)

I'd love to see the students responsible for this expelled... I think it's an utter abuse of power. Everything else here is so eloquently put, that I'll just re-state how disgusted I am.


----------



## armyvern (25 Sep 2007)

Snaketnk said:
			
		

> I'd love to see the students responsible for this expelled... I think it's an utter abuse of power. Everything else here is so eloquently put, that I'll just re-state how disgusted I am.



I predict that they shall find this thread ... and shall be along to post their intellect to it ...


----------



## armyvern (25 Sep 2007)

And, both running threads spawned by the recent UVic happenings -- now merged.

ArmyVern
The Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## a_majoor (25 Sep 2007)

An interesting contrast between how different Universities prepare their students. UVic should hang its collective head

http://bctory.blogspot.com/2007/09/how-soon-can-i-transfer.html



> *How Soon Can I Transfer?*
> For those of us keeping score today....let's see what was happening in the world of universities today.
> 
> COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Taking Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to task over his horrid human rights record and fervent denial of the Holocaust.
> ...


----------



## brihard (25 Sep 2007)

A bit of commentary I posted on a Facebook group on the subject...



"The comments quoted in the article seem to assert that the Canadian Forces use depleted uranium. We do not. Our munitions designed to penetrate heavy armour use hardened tungsten alloy, with no radiological hazard whatsoever.

It behooves the members of the student governemnt to check their facts. It's hideously ironic that one of their motivations for banning CF recruiting is that the average student is, and I quote, “A lot of students don’t know about the issues and don’t know about the facts,”.

If they want to take it upon themselves to make this decision for students, they ought to have the basic academic honesty to make sure that their 'knowledge' is at least factual. Especially when they're going to condescend to accuse the general student population of ignorance. I wouldn't tolerate this at my school, nor should UVic students tolerate it at theirs."


----------



## big_johnson1 (25 Sep 2007)

As a UVic student and a member of the CF it's shameful, I didn't get a chance to speak my peace during the debate unfortunately (or fortunately?). We've got national coverage now, and it's looking pretty bad..


http://www.rbcinvest.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/LAC/20070925/BCMASON25/Headlines/headdex/headdexEducation/3/3/5/


----------



## FSTO (25 Sep 2007)

Listened to the Student union chair this morning on the local CBC station. She was backpeddling furiously on the subject of why they made the decision. She went on and on about democracy and different voices and open debate. What she should have said was; "We made a bad decision and will take this matter to the students and let them decide"

This whole issue has made U Vic look like total buffoons.


----------



## xena (25 Sep 2007)

I don't know about that.  I think it makes the total buffoons look like total buffoons.  The rest of the students who objected to what amounts to censorship, don't come across as buffoons.

Just my $0.02.


----------



## 00334 (25 Sep 2007)

UPDATE: There is an enderly gentleman walking around campus with signs with pro-troop and anti-UVSS slogans.  I never thought that this would be so big.


----------



## NavComm (25 Sep 2007)

I saw a bit about this story on the news, I apologize if it's already been posted.

The usual reproduced under the fair dealings disclaimer...

http://www.canada.com/ch/cheknews/news/story.html?id=8acff5b4-f8a8-4139-9bf3-d147d59fabc2&k=82382

Lousie Dickson
Times Colonist

Monday, September 24, 2007

Detail from a Canadian Forces recruiting poster. UVic's student society has banned military recruiters from its building.

University of Victoria students are protesting a decision by their student society to ban active  Canadian Forces recruiting at a career fair in their building.

The outcry, which includes a 350-member protest group on Facebook, has forced the UVic Student Society to let students have the final say on the issue. A motion will be brought forward at the student body's annual general meeting Oct. 18 and the decision will be binding. The fair is Jan. 30.

"There's such strong feeling about it on both sides," said Tracy Ho, chair of the UVSS board of directors. "That's why we're bringing it to the students."

At the Sept. 10 board meeting, Ho cast the deciding vote in favour of the ban, breaking a  6-6 deadlock. Some students are concerned about the recruiting practices of the military, she explained. They believe the military does not give students information about the psychological, mental and physical effects soldiers face when they return from service. Others don't want the military in the Student Union Building, where the fair will be held.

"The Student Union Building is truly the only space on campus that is for students and run by students," said Ho. "They feel strongly about not having the military in their space actively recruiting them in their own space.

"This issue touches home for a lot of students. A lot of people feel very passionately about the issue. I'm very happy it has sparked this debate. This is what university is all about."

Many students are unhappy by what they perceive as a lack of debate. Pamphlets and posters handed out on campus Monday argue UVSS has no right to tell students whether they should  join or not join the Canadian Armed Forces. Students were also set to protest a board meeting Monday night. A petition is being circulated to impeach student directors who voted to ban the military from the career fair.

"I feel somewhat insulted that some members of the board think I'm incapable of making a decision on my own," said Jordan Dilba, a fourth-year economics student. "I think regardless of how people feel about the war, students are in favour of people making their own decisions."

Fourth-year history student John Fox said he was extremely upset by UVSS's actions.

"The Canadian Forces provides funding for many UVic students," said Fox. "There are people I know who wouldn't be able to go to university without the funding they get. One of the primary missions of UVSS is to lower tuition fees and here we have a group that's helping students and they want to kick them out.

"The UVSS has essentially declared the Armed Forces are criminals. Their reasoning is incredibly  flawed. It's completely preposterous they're making these claims."

"You should be exposed to all information," said Max Bakken, a fourth-year philosophy student. "We are students. We are here because we are intellectual. We can make that decision."

Shannon Lucy, a third-year anthropology student, supports the UVSS decision.

"I'm not for censorship," said Lucy. "But since the Canadian Armed Forces is doing illegal things, they don't really have any business on a public site. We can't be endorsing them."

In Vancouver, Lt.-Navy Rand Freeman of Canadian Forces Recruiting was reluctant to comment on the dispute.

"The Canadian Forces is very mission-oriented and so is Canadian Forces Recruiting, he said. "Our mission is to attract people. We will continue with our mission."

Jennifer Margison, manager of UVic Career Services, said the student society is within its right to determine what kind of events take place in its building - and she respects that.

"We will just make some alternate arrangement for the military to speak to students who wish to speak to them. That's not really going to a problem," she said.


----------



## armyvern (25 Sep 2007)

Merged it into the ongoing UVic saga thread NavComm.


----------



## armyvern (25 Sep 2007)

Now here's a UVic ID 10 T who needs some education obviously ...

I'd censor her, but my arms aren't that long ...

friggin' wingnut ...

quoted from NavComms article:



> Shannon Lucy, a third-year anthropology student, supports the UVSS decision.
> 
> "I'm not for censorship," said Lucy. "But since the Canadian Armed Forces is doing illegal things, they don't really have any business on a public site. We can't be endorsing them."



WTF??? Over ...


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Sep 2007)

Well we are doing illegal things, I promised her I wouldn't co..........


----------



## CF_Enthusiast (25 Sep 2007)

That's the kind of thing that annoys me, un-informed people getting air-time (or paper time?) They make the CF look bad for something that is not true. People could be reading that, and not have a very thorough understanding of the mission and think, "we're doing illegal things? I didn't know that! Maybe the mission IS immoral."

Or maybe not. What do I know?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Sep 2007)

...me on over and tell her how wrong she is.


----------



## armyvern (25 Sep 2007)

Bruce,

Your cheque's in the mail.

From Mike.


----------



## armyvern (25 Sep 2007)

CF Enthusiast said:
			
		

> That's the kind of thing that annoys me, un-informed people getting air-time (or paper time?) They make the CF look bad for something that is not true. People could be reading that, and not have a very thorough understanding of the mission and think, "we're doing illegal things? I didn't know that! Maybe the mission IS immoral."
> 
> Or maybe not. What do I know?



Where do you think those uninformed people learned this attitude and ignorance of facts from??

The very same media that now gives them coverage!! The media in this country is not interested in presenting the facts of the mission to Canadians (read Ruxted if you want that); they are interested in "educating" them only with stories that "bleed" and earn their pretty publications and shareholders the largest profit margin possible.


----------



## NavComm (25 Sep 2007)

Thanks Vern! Sorry about that, I guess I'm not as good at multi-tasking as I thought.

Modified to add: UVic is one of the schools my daughter will be looking at as she advances her education (from college to university) in two years. But I'm the one paying for that education, so I will have a very hard time funding a school who's student union would even consider this type of censorship. How dare the student union decide what the other students should or should not be exposed to vis-a-vis career choices!


----------



## bang (25 Sep 2007)

Being Victorian here, I recognize the UVSS  has the right to allow and deny who it allows into the Student Union Building as it wishes.  UVSS policy is rarely the policy of UVic.  I also think it needs to be said that the SUB recently lost their liquor license.  Chances are it's worth googling and quite amusing.

Things always have a tendency to sort themselves out.


----------



## Snaketnk (25 Sep 2007)

NavComm, why don't you let them know that your daughter won't attend the school with this ban in place. It would just put more pressure on the administration if they recieved many letters like that.

(I'm also aware the situation is currently resolving itself)


----------



## big_johnson1 (25 Sep 2007)

The issue isn't resolving itself yet. Students Against War have made this into a platform for Afghanistan. One of the UVSS board members who voted for the ban said that this was a "symbolic" protest against the CF being in Afghanistan (at least they didn't call for the CF out of Iraq like last year). There are petitions going around right now, and I'm sure that the issue (allowing the CF to recruit during the annual career fair) will end up on the agenda for the annual general meeting, however if SAW keeps making this an Afghanistan issue (I see it as a freedom to choose issue) it may get more to their side. That the AGM is a month away is another problem, as these things tend to get forgotten, and the anger sweeping the student body now will be a lot more tempered by then I suspect.


----------



## Snaketnk (25 Sep 2007)

> The Current ban has been receended. However the BoD (Board of Govenors of the UVSS) has instead moved the issue to the annual general meeting where the students have a vote in the matter. Further more I encourage this group to discuss and aide in informing people about this issue, and it is my hope and goal to see this motion put forth at the agm of banning the CF from the fair and the sub building rejected.



A quote from a Student in the Facebook group.


----------



## armyvern (26 Sep 2007)

Snaketnk said:
			
		

> A quote from a Student in the Facebook group.



Oh gawd. I hope that was an (un)fine example of capitalization, punctuation and spelling from a frosh; now, they're starting to scare me.


----------



## xena (26 Sep 2007)

Nah, it's probably a Fine Arts, English major student.


----------



## GK .Dundas (26 Sep 2007)

You could replace most Liberal Arts Degrees with a library card and almost no one would notice.


----------



## Greymatters (26 Sep 2007)

Except the library...  ;D


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Sep 2007)

>I will have a very hard time funding a school who's student union would even consider this type of censorship.

The school and the student union are separate entities.  The student union's area of influence doesn't extend much outside the student union building (known on nearly every campus as SUB).  Think of the difference between a high school administration and the school's student council (except a university admin can't be bothered to oversee a student union with the same firm hand, nor should it).  Jackass behaviour from student unions is par for the course.  The only funds that need to be withheld are the student union dues (which would then limit certain privileges, such as memberships in clubs and societies sponsored by the union and attendance at various union-funded events).


----------



## Snaketnk (26 Sep 2007)

But by not funding the school, higher-ups in the school (Not sure how university politics work...) would likely pressure the Student Union to reverse its decision.


----------



## Greymatters (26 Sep 2007)

Is it true that some of the leaders in these student unions are not even students, but rather adults hired to work in the student union?  I ask because I attended a meeting at Malaspina and the person who spoke to us was a thirty+ male, who admitted he wasnt a student but was hired by the student union and was speaking on the student union's behalf.

Is this the case at UVic? Or were those all students speaking?


----------



## NavComm (26 Sep 2007)

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?


----------



## Flip (26 Sep 2007)

And there you have it NavComm....


> ie: being inclusive, upholding human rights, etc.



Call out the turkeys for who they are...
If their code of conduct says they are to uphold human rights, what business do they have removing options for the student body at all? And what business do they have
opposing the actions of the CF who are PROTECTING HUMAN RIGHTS?

If they protest against the CF, they protest against the values protected by the CF.
Human rights, democratic rights, womans rights.etc. etc.
They have already demonstrated this with their actions.


----------



## GK .Dundas (26 Sep 2007)

Surely sir. you wouldn't be so cruel as to require them to follow their own rules ! ;D


----------



## exgunnertdo (26 Sep 2007)

Was on student union back in the day (ours wasn't like this, though ).  

The SUB, even though it's on campus, will be under the jurisdiction of the Students' Union.  We owned our building, leased space to the various businesses there (bar, coffee shop, book store, and so on), and made the decisions about what went on there.  The university administration wouldn't likely be able to do anything about this, short of offering the CF space to hold their display on UVic property (as opposed to Student Union property).

The student union will have a constitution which will (likely) state that all board members must be full-time students.  Ours did, anyway.  The SU will then likely have paid staff (office manager, or something), and is certainly within their rights to hire people to research/speak about issues.  Only the elected board members (ie full time students) would be able to vote on motions.

The cross over to the university administration would be that the President (or maybe Vice, one board member, anyway) would have a seat on the University Board of Governors, and the Student reps from each faculty would sit on their various faculty councils.  So the university really has no say on what goes on in Student union, but the student union gets a voice in the running of the university.  If the students at large don't like what the student union is doing then they have to stand up and hold their elected reps accountable (as they are doing), but the university won't step in and do anything.  It's the students' union dues that pay to run the students' union, so they need to ensure it's done properly.  

For the record - I am not defending what they did, just pointing out that it was by the books.  Disgusting, really...


----------



## NavComm (26 Sep 2007)

My daughter is away at school right now so I haven't had a chance to talk to her about this. I was actually the one pushing her to go to UVic because I  (selfishly) wanted her to be closer to home. If this student union situation isn't resolved, I don't know how she would feel about attending that school. I don't know how involved in that part of campus life she would be. It's definitely going to be a deterrent from my point of view, because I find the whole thing so absolutely opposite to what most student societies promote and hold dear...freedom of choice!


----------



## NavComm (26 Sep 2007)

Snaketnk said:
			
		

> NavComm, why don't you let them know that your daughter won't attend the school with this ban in place. It would just put more pressure on the administration if they recieved many letters like that.
> 
> (I'm also aware the situation is currently resolving itself)



I think for the time being I will just wait and see how events unfold. I am keeping my fingers crossed that cooler heads prevail within the student union.


----------



## career_radio-checker (27 Sep 2007)

I've already stated the last time recruiters were kicked out of schools that I changed my mind on making open opinions of people who are opposed to the military establishment. Mama always said "If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all". So my trap is shut

But that doesn't mean I can't look into the issue and get a good read out of it. 

http://www.uvss.uvic.ca/index.php?page=meeting-minutes

An open source link to the meeting minutes of the UVSS, so that you can inform yourselves. The fun one is 02 Apr 07.


----------



## NavComm (27 Sep 2007)

> 3. The Society is opposed to the militarization of Canadian Society, and is
> unsupportive of a Canadian military establishment that violates international
> law and human rights.



The motion is ridiculous because by definition 'militarization' has not taken place in Canada. Have we armed the citizens? Trained them? Indoctrinated them? Mobilized them? I don't know, but I've yet to see a skytrain full of downtown businessmen packing C-7's and cadpat rucksacks.

This is all just the usual student activist bullturd fueled by copious amounts of marijuana and beer and peace and love. I hope the rest of the student body see it for what it is and direct their present board to 'stay in their own lane'.


----------



## big_johnson1 (27 Sep 2007)

One of the claims was that having military personnel in the student union building constituted "arming the campus".. I would love to get the permission to get every CF member, reg and res, to go to campus for a full day in uniform, in a show of solidarity.. Show the students how many around them have affiliations with the CF.


----------



## Greymatters (28 Sep 2007)

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


----------



## big_johnson1 (28 Sep 2007)

Dr Keith Martin, MP to Esquimalt/Juan de Fuca, and some CF members who are UVic alumni are putting on a talk on Tuesday Oct 2nd, at 1400hrs in the Cornett building, room A129 at the UVic campus. This is being listed as a non-partisan event to inform the students about the issues surrounding the ban against the CF, and apparently about the CF in general (hopefully to dispel some of the myths held by many students). Should prove to be interesting.


----------



## Snaketnk (28 Sep 2007)

I hope that it's filmed/made publicly available. I can't exactly attend .

I like Feral's idea, but I have a feeling it would cause too trouble having soldiers in uniform walking all over campus.


----------



## big_johnson1 (28 Sep 2007)

Yeah that's more of a kindof silly idea than anything else.. I think it would be a nice show of solidarity, but ya, it would probably cause way too much trouble.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Sep 2007)

Feral said:
			
		

> One of the claims was that having military personnel in the student union building constituted "arming the campus".. I would love to get the permission to get every CF member, reg and res, to go to campus for a full day in uniform, in a show of solidarity.. Show the students how many around them have affiliations with the CF.



One time/place to do this is Remembrance day. Organize the service on campus and invite the student body to attend with the people who make freedom of assembly and expression possible. Make sure lots of vets are there too.


----------



## NavComm (28 Sep 2007)

GreyMatter said:
			
		

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



+1


----------



## Signalman150 (28 Sep 2007)

The whole thing reminds me of an event recorded by Sir Winston Churchill in the first volume of his History of WWII - The Gathering Storm. It took place in 1933.  The Student Union a Oxford University made and passed the following resolution.

"...that this House will in no circumstances fight for its king and country".

As WSC himself points out, only six years later many student at Oxford were doing just that, and many gave their lives in the cause.  The words of a misguided and foolish association of left-leaning students have little value compared to the valour and belief system of the individual. The UVSS does not speak for the students, and, as pointed out previously on this thread does not IMI not represent the student body as a whole.


----------



## NavComm (28 Sep 2007)

I took a look at their current board of directors and recognize one of them. Her parents are very entrenched in the labour movement as well as left leaning civic and provincial/federal politics.


----------



## brihard (29 Sep 2007)

I've been following this on Facebook, and it's become a rather huge issue for the school. They've gained national prominence amongst student groups for this stunt, and support is pouring in from nationwide. There's a large and vocal student campaign supporting the CF, and they're petitioning to add a letter of welcome for the Cf and an invitation to recruit to the agenda of the next student society annual general meeting. It looks like they should be successful, too.

I'll keep you guys apprised.


----------



## eerickso (29 Sep 2007)

NavComm said:
			
		

> I took a look at their current board of directors and recognize one of them. Her parents are very entrenched in the labour movement as well as left leaning civic and provincial/federal politics.



So how is this connection made? From supporting labour movements to hating the military?


----------



## The_Falcon (29 Sep 2007)

leftcoaster said:
			
		

> So how is this connection made? From supporting labour movements to hating the military?



Because we aren't unionized???


----------



## Greymatters (29 Sep 2007)

leftcoaster said:
			
		

> So how is this connection made? From supporting labour movements to hating the military?



There's a lot more to it than that.  You should read some of their 'direct action' flyers and handouts explaining their group ideology and it becomes self-evident why they believe what they do.


----------



## TCBF (30 Sep 2007)

GreyMatter said:
			
		

> There's a lot more to it than that.  You should read some of their 'direct action' flyers and handouts explaining their group ideology and it becomes self-evident why they believe what they do.



- Many of us are a bit far removed from that.  Could you elaborate on this?


----------



## TN2IC (30 Sep 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> > Shannon Lucy, a third-year anthropology student, supports the UVSS decision.
> >
> > "I'm not for censorship," said Lucy. "But since the Canadian Armed Forces is doing illegal things, they don't really have any business on a public site. We can't be endorsing them."
> 
> ...



*Silly Hat on* 

Unknown Call Sign, Unknown Call Sign. Check your means, check your means. Out.  :rofl:


----------



## bang (1 Oct 2007)

Feral said:
			
		

> Dr Keith Martin, MP to Esquimalt/Juan de Fuca, and some CF members who are UVic alumni are putting on a talk on Tuesday Oct 2nd, at 1400hrs in the Cornett building, room A129 at the UVic campus. This is being listed as a non-partisan event to inform the students about the issues surrounding the ban against the CF, and apparently about the CF in general (hopefully to dispel some of the myths held by many students). Should prove to be interesting.



If you find a text of the brouhaha, would you be interested in posting it?  I'd go as I'm always interested to hear what the doc has to say, but I've got a lab to deal with then.


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Oct 2007)

>So how is this connection made? From supporting labour movements to hating the military?

Beats me.  Ask the people for whom the two behaviours go hand-in-hand how they made the connection.


----------



## a_majoor (1 Oct 2007)

leftcoaster said:
			
		

> So how is this connection made? From supporting labour movements to hating the military?



While there is no 100% correlation, the Labour movement (as expressed by the Union movement, which is what I think is being implied here) has traditionally supported the International Socialist movement (indeed is a key part of it), and as such has been a vocal supporter of international disarmament, "peace" movements, the United Nations, multiculturalism, "customary International law" and so on. 

The unifying themes are to dismantle or weaken the Sovereign State; free market capitalism; the Rule of Law and property rights. The justification is "group rights", lumping people into undifferentiated social or economic classes, with the Labour Movement representing "the workers".

Other variants of Socialism lump people into undifferentiated groups based on different arbitrary categories such as ethnic origin, or exalt different groups as being the true ruling class (such as Maoists celebrating the role of peasant farmers. Given the chance, they would take steps to ensure you become one too).

Since the Armed Forces are the ultimate guarantor of the State, standing between the citizens and external enemies, as well as having the potential to impose State power within the boundaries of the State, Socialists are not big fans of professional armies. Even in states where Socialists have assumed total power, they hamstring the professional forces with internal controls (like Soviet era Commissars) and also tend to create parallel forces like the National Socialist German SS or the Soviet MVD to ensure the levers of power are well defended against the masses. 

While it may seem a long step from Jack Layton or Elizabeth May to Joseph Stalin, following the logic behind Socialism only leads in that direction.


----------



## Shec (1 Oct 2007)

"Shannon Lucy, a third-year anthropology student, supports the UVSS decision.

"I'm not for censorship," said Lucy. "But since the Canadian Armed Forces is doing illegal things, they don't really have any business on a public site. We can't be endorsing them."

In response to this a quote from the movies seems appropro.  Visualize,  if you will,  Jack Nicholson portraying Col. Jessup in A Few Good Men:

"I  have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to."


----------



## Greymatters (1 Oct 2007)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Many of us are a bit far removed from that.  Could you elaborate on this?



At the risk of being called a conspiracy theorist...

Many of you are familiar with historical groups that went by the name of 'Direct Action' of which two are notable.  Im not talking about the plethora of 'Direct Action' out there since the Internet was created, but the original Direct Action from the 1960's/70's.  The Direct Action group from BC (aka the Squamish 5) and the Action Direct from France are the most famous, but other groups used variations of that name.  Although miles apart, these two shared common interests and activities, that being both were anti-military and both were terrorist groups that committed terrorist acts.

When you look at the material on the current Direct Action website, you can see that the materials says the same thing that these groups used to say.  That the military (and NATO) is a bloodthirsty machine, that its all the fault of fatcat capitalists, and that the only way to solve the problem is to directly confront the capitalist leaders and NATO war machine.  Nothing has changed in 30 years.  This is exactly what the previous Action Direct in France used to say, along with the Italian Red Brigades, German Red Army faction, and like groups in Belgium, Spain, and other European countries of that era.  Thats why these historical groups targeted leading industrialists and NATO officers for assasinations and bombings.  Further those historical groups were created, acted and organized in the exact same way.  Groups formed on a university campus, gather together a groups of friends, trust no one unless youve had a chance to question them,  covert communication and meetings, etc. etc.... oh and who just happens to be there associated with all these groups?  The local communist party in one form or another, who promoted 'up the proletariat, workers unite, and down with captialist military fascim'. 

So the connection.  Its all based on communist-created material that dates back from the end of WW2.  This type of material has always stated two things; workers should throw off their chains and unite (via unions) to confront their capitalist oppressors, and that NATO is the cause of war, thus must be dissolved.  Its not that the two are linked by argument, but by political goals of the nation who started and supported so many of these university based terrorist groups.  Im sure they have a complete dialogue explaining their argument handy somewhere, but its not worth looking at.  Other evidence?  Look at their website and read the material for yourself, and surprise surprise, they also have a spot saying they are united with the Youth Communist Party, what a coincidence... 

Now is the big bad bear behind this?  Who knows. They started the ball rolling, but it is more likely that the concept has taken on a life of its own.  Even if its not under their control anymore, its still a great forum for finding people who are: wlling to use violence, know how to form covert organizations, conduct meetings, understand security precautions, plan resistance efforts, are opposed to the current government practices, are against global capatilism, and against NATO - in other words, perfect recruits for future sympathisers, safe house owners, agents, provacateurs, spies, or fifth columnists. All you have to do is convince them to use weapons and youve got a whole bunch of home-grown terrorists.


----------



## Reccesoldier (1 Oct 2007)

Funny isn't it, that the deadliest, most blood soaked ideology in history (the twins, socialism and communism) preach all their thought in the name of peace, love, humanity and understanding...  Yet their legacy was nations turned into prisons, horrible human suffering vast poverty and a class (party) system so pervasive and invasive that it touched virtually every aspect of the peoples lives


----------



## NavComm (1 Oct 2007)

leftcoaster said:
			
		

> So how is this connection made? From supporting labour movements to hating the military?



Sorry I wasn't online on the weekend to answer this.

I see it's been explained very well (thank you to those who did it much more eloquently than I ever could), so I won't bother going over it again.

modified to add this link: http://www.martlet.ca/view.php?aid=39668

A couple of items in this article popped out at me: 



> Tim Fournier from Students Against War spoke against the Canadian military recruiting on campus. He agreed that any law-abiding group should be allowed on campus, but argued the military committed illegal acts.



He doesn't have any proof of this but he does say that the CF tortures Afghanis and uses depleted uranium. When asked to substantiate these allegations he says that he can't and that the military lies.

and the best quote of all IMO is:



> Director-at-large Christine Comrie said it was important to ban the military from recruiting because some students are ignorant about the issues. "A lot of students don't know about the issues and don't know about the facts,she said. *We have to make this decision for students*."


 (emphasis added by me)

Me thinks they have become what they profess to disdain.


----------



## Private Parts (2 Oct 2007)

Editorial from today's Halifax Chronicle-Herald (shared with usual disclaimer)

Article link



> *Free to recruit*
> 
> THOSE who disagree with the role today played by the Canadian military, such as the Students Coalition Against War, have every right to say so in this country.
> 
> ...


----------



## eerickso (2 Oct 2007)

You know what I like about United States? Their radio. You can listen to so many outrageous viewpoints. There is absolutely no fear of saying crazy stuff. However, when somebody tries to physically influence opinion like what is happening at UVIC, they should have to deal with the law.


----------



## TCBF (2 Oct 2007)

'Talk Radio' and 'Bloggers' are two very potent tools in the democracy toolbox.

Satellite radio will eventualy disenfrachise most AM/FM listeners, and the looming Internet controls (ala China, Burma, etc.) will hobble the Bloggers.


----------



## q_1966 (3 Oct 2007)

and XM and Sirus will have a monopoly over satelite radio = more control...


----------



## Aerobicrunner (3 Oct 2007)

Feral said:
			
		

> Dr Keith Martin, MP to Esquimalt/Juan de Fuca, and some CF members who are UVic alumni are putting on a talk on Tuesday Oct 2nd, at 1400hrs in the Cornett building, room A129 at the UVic campus. This is being listed as a non-partisan event to inform the students about the issues surrounding the ban against the CF, and apparently about the CF in general (hopefully to dispel some of the myths held by many students). Should prove to be interesting.


I havn't seen anything regarding this event and how it went yesterday.  Was there a large or small crowd?  Was the crowd hostile or sympathetic? Was the debate informative and lively?  Is it possible to get a summation?


----------



## Stout (3 Oct 2007)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Next question to put forward to these 'wackos' is "How do they justify allowing large Corporations who have large contracts to sell the Militaries around the world with equipment and services to attend?"  Are they also included in the Ban?  Is Freddy Chef being banned from the Job Fair?  They supply Rations to the CF.  Will Bell Canada be banned from the Fair?  It an many of its subsidiaries supply communications devices and services to the CF.  Will the Airline companies who bid for CF contracts be banned also?  I would imagine most, if not all, of the remaining companies attending the Job Fair will have some sort of contractual agreements with the CF, be they large or small in scale.  Even Staples provides office supplies to the CF.  Where will this idiocy end?



Bravo


----------



## TCBF (3 Oct 2007)

"Where will this idiocy end?'

- This idiocy will end when Union Members start losing their jobs because of some student activists.  A few students will get their faces re-arranged by a labourer, and the situation will right itself.


----------



## big_johnson1 (4 Oct 2007)

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).


----------



## eerickso (4 Oct 2007)

TCBF said:
			
		

> "Where will this idiocy end?'
> 
> - This idiocy will end when Union Members start losing their jobs because of some student activists.  A few students will get their faces re-arranged by a labourer, and the situation will right itself.



Exactly, there are lots of good people tired of being associated with these idiots.


----------



## AmphibousAssult (6 Oct 2007)

Like my favorite saying goes, "If you don't stand behind our troops, feel free to stand in front of them". I can't wait for next week I'm doing a red and white recruiting trip on Vancouver island, then me and my buddy from UVIC can have a good laugh at these guys. Personally, I don't know how anyone can listen to these people and call "US" liars. I'm personally stunned by this. just floors me.


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Oct 2007)

:


----------



## Sassy (8 Oct 2007)

I hope this issue is in MSM, perhaps the brass could do a press release showing how much money the military and it's members put into the economy on Victoria Island.  My husband was part of the first detachment sent to Pat Bay, I remember Victoria as a Military friendly town.  

University Students, usually, are hardcore socialist koolaide drinking moonbats, feeding the hungry and the poor whilst saving the homeless are their favorite protest subjects.  The Military is usually the Profs. special projects, hallowed halls of Acadamia and all that non-sense.  People out of touch with reality being paid by the public purse, perhaps it's time the left got esponged out public funded universities.  They have to much power and control over some young minds that don't seem to be able to think for themselves.


----------



## Privateer (9 Oct 2007)

> University Students, usually, are hardcore socialist koolaide drinking moonbats, feeding the hungry and the poor whilst saving the homeless are their favorite protest subjects.



I'm sorry, but that statement is ridiculous.  I was once a university student, as were many of my colleagues in the CF, both officers and NCMs.  Most university students are focused on getting their degrees and then finding a job, and take no part in student politics, left, right or centre.  (See earlier posts re the inability of the SFU student society to meet a quorum.)  On what do you base your remarks?


----------



## SweetNavyJustice (19 Oct 2007)

Good day all, 

Just a quick note on the debate last night at UVic.  There were about 60 people there, mostly from the anti-war movement, but that's to be expected in a panel that they arranged.  

I was pleased to have been able to represent 'our' side of our involvement in Afghanistan, and believe it or not, I think that some of the people were actually listening to what I had to say so that's positive.  

If anyone is interested, there was a small article written about it in the local paper this morning that I've included below.  

SNJ


Afghanistan mission sparks debate at UVic
Sandra McCulloch, Times Colonist
Published: Friday, October 19, 2007
Canada's role in Afghanistan was the topic of a debate that drew about 60 people to the University of Victoria yesterday evening.

The debate, sponsored by the group Students Against War, featured freelance journalist Antony Fenton of Pitt Meadows and Bill Danielsen, a UVic student and member of the Canadian Forces.

Fenton and Danielsen gave responses to questions asked by a moderator on Canada's involvement in the conflict.


On why Canada is in Afghanistan, Danielsen said "because we were asked to be there" by the Afghan government.

The Canadian Forces are there "because the government of Canada sent us there to help a nation that asked for help."

He dismissed the notion that the West could benefit from the area's natural resources.

Fenton said Canada was helping the U.S. with its "imperial policy" and argued the point that Canadian corporations had a strong interest in the gold buried there. On the effectiveness of the reconstruction initiatives, Fenton argued that international aid is a counter-insurgency tool and the idea that you can't begin reconstruction until you have stability is "rhetoric."

Afghanistan was heavily damaged by civil war, and Canada is helping to build roads, dig wells and construct infrastructure, Danielsen said. "Since 2001, the per capita income has doubled," he said.

Foreign troops have helped build 8,000 kilometres of new roads, he added.

During a seven-month deployment there, Danielsen said he and his troop were regularly handing out school supplies and raised money to dig a well.

The debate leads up to a motion to be presented next week at the UVic Students Society annual general meeting that calls for banning Canadian military recruiters from the Student Union Building.

The motion "is not an attempt to restrict students' rights to sign up for the Armed Forces, but rather [is] a symbolic gesture of protest towards the Canadian military recruitment practices," reads the annual meeting's agenda


----------



## GAP (19 Oct 2007)

Is it not amazing what a free exchange of ideas does without the threat of having your head cut off or shot because you preached blasphemy.....go figure.


----------



## vonGarvin (19 Oct 2007)

SweetNavyJustice said:
			
		

> Fenton said Canada was helping the U.S. with its "imperial policy" and argued the point that Canadian corporations had a strong interest in the gold buried there.



So, the oil argument is moot: now it's gold?  Holy friggin' moly!



			
				SweetNavyJustice said:
			
		

> On the effectiveness of the reconstruction initiatives, Fenton argued that international aid is a counter-insurgency tool and the idea that you can't begin reconstruction until you have stability is "rhetoric."


Yeah, "rhetoric".  Send Fenton over to construct with Taliban taking him hostage and beheading him every two weeks!
:


----------



## GAP (19 Oct 2007)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> So, the oil argument is moot: now it's gold?  Holy friggin' moly!



Now where is my gold pan.....time to strike out for some of that mulla....ooops, I might end up getting the wrong type of mulla.  :


----------



## tynanfromBC (20 Oct 2007)

I am a little late to reply to this. 

Banning the military from recruiting at a public institution is a huge joke. Not only that, but the articles that have created national attention on the subject are. Several people have quoted that third year anthropology student for her comment saying that we are doing illegal things there, but what about the articles author who placed that comment in the paper that day? I was surprised no one said anything about this. A journalist, or aspiring journalist, whatever they may be should have at least provided some support for that comment. Frankly the structure of that article was poorly written and with little merrit in my books. I hope they vote to allow the military to recruit there. We are all granted fundamental freedoms, and although you can go downtown to Fort St. to the Victoria recruiting center (a 15 minute bus ride from UVic exchange on the #14), meeting with a person one on one while exploring your options is probably a little less intimidating that walking into the center and being approached by a buncha Sgt's. Anyways, just my opinion is all. I think more attention should be pointed at the journalist and editor for deliberately allowing a completely unfounded opinion to be printed in an article that should be portraying the facts.


----------



## Flip (22 Oct 2007)

Sadly, you could say this about most of the mainstream media.



> I think more attention should be pointed at the journalist and editor for deliberately allowing a completely unfounded opinion to be printed in an article that should be portraying the facts.



Imagine! The UVic student union getting national attention - embarrassing their cause!  ;D


----------



## big_johnson1 (26 Oct 2007)

For your information, the vote to ban the CF from the student union building was voted down this evening. There were a great deal of people trying to manipulate the meeting and make the debate about Afghanistan, but we prevailed in the end. For those in the lower mainland of BC it will probably be on the evening news. I'm sure that there will be a great deal of protesting done at the career fair, but that is nothing new.


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Oct 2007)

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.

*UVic students overturn military recruitment ban*
Vote overwhelmingly against ouster of Forces from January career fair
Cindy E. Harnett, Times Colonist, 26 Oct 07
Article link

University of Victoria students voted overwhelmingly in favour yesterday of allowing military recruiters at a career fair in their Student Union Building, reversing an earlier student society decision to ban them.

Cheers, applause and calls for beers rang out when the standing-room only crowd of about 350 voted in favour of what the majority said was an issue of freedom of speech.

"This is a big victory for democracy," UVic student Jon Fox said. "I'm just really glad everyone came out, no matter what side they were for. We made a democratic decision today that has upheld the rights of everyone, not just a select few."

Student George Robinson worked for more than a month, urging students to vote against the ban.

"I'm thrilled the motion to ban our Armed Forces was defeated," Robinson said. "We worked hard to get a majority of the moderate student on campus out today."

Opposing sides both used passionate arguments about democratic rights and the freedom of speech to explain their views.

The pro-ban side said prohibiting the military from recruiting on campus is a way of making a statement against Canada's combat role in the NATO-led mission in Afghanistan.

"For me, exercising my democratic right and freedom of speech is about taking actions to actually stop things from happening," student Jennifer King said.

"I see this ban as a concrete thing I can do to prevent the spread ... of our military action and [students] being drawn into something they may not know the totality of," King said.

Meanwhile, the anti-ban side argued that including the military allows everyone the right to have a voice, access and choice.

UVic student Daniel Lonsdale, in his naval cadet uniform, said his intelligence was insulted by the Sept. 10 decision to ban the Canadian military from a career fair in the Student Union Building in January.

The September vote was a 6-6 deadlock, broken by chairwoman Tracy Ho who favoured the ban.

"I think it's embarrassing they think we can't make up our own minds. That's what university is all about," Lonsdale said.

The debate yesterday was confused by myriad issues -- one student was dressed in mix-and-match Abu Ghraib/Guantanamo Bay prison garb, an apparent denunciation of U.S. military treatment of detainees.

There was an overwhelming number of interruptions for points of order, points of privilege and points of information during the annual general meeting. At one point, someone decided there was no point at all in continuing and called for the debate to end and the vote to be called.

The chairwoman was challenged, the rules were challenged, and during an intermission students broke out their Robert's Rules of Order meeting handbooks.

Serina Zapf, a political science student, came to the meeting to vote against the ban and for "a dialogue of voices." But she ended up not voting at all after becoming disheartened.

"I actually didn't vote one way or another," Zapf said. "I felt the side voting against the ban was being disrespectful of other people's right to speech. I think people are missing the real issue here."

Tom Page, a visiting student from Britain, was also shaking his head.

"It's ironic people that are supposedly voting in favour of freedom of speech are trying to shut down the other side of the debate," Page said. "That's not freedom of speech at all."

ceharnett@tc.canwest.com


----------



## 3VP Highlander (26 Oct 2007)

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 (26 Oct 2007)

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...


----------



## NavComm (26 Oct 2007)

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!


----------



## big_johnson1 (26 Oct 2007)

It's really quite entertaining. This is from the UVic Students Against War facebook group:

Thomas P Radcliffe (Vancouver, BC) wrote 2 hours ago
It dawned on me during this disaster of a meeting that the Canadian Forces was in fact paying many (most) of the students there who voted down the issue. This was not a democratic vote, but a funded and organized co-opting of the process by the reservists and active members who are members of the UVSS! 

Those with facebook can go to this link: http://uvic.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=5910384065&topic=4007


----------



## NavComm (26 Oct 2007)

That's right. Which budget item did this payroll came from? Oh yeah, it must be the "Students Against Students Against War and Freedom of Speech" meeting disruptions and miscellaneous exercising of fundamental rights.  :blotto:


----------



## a_majoor (27 Oct 2007)

Feral said:
			
		

> Thomas P Radcliffe (Vancouver, BC) wrote 2 hours ago
> It dawned on me during this disaster of a meeting that the Canadian Forces was in fact paying many (most) of the students there who voted down the issue. This was not a democratic vote, but a funded and organized co-opting of the process by the reservists and active members who are members of the UVSS!



 :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Time to check my ALCAN shares; I sense a great profit coming on...................


----------



## Shamrock (27 Oct 2007)

Feral said:
			
		

> Thomas P Radcliffe (Vancouver, BC) wrote 2 hours ago
> It dawned on me during this disaster of a meeting that the Canadian Forces was in fact paying many (most) of the students there who voted down the issue. This was not a democratic vote, but a funded and organized co-opting of the process by the reservists and active members who are members of the UVSS!



I think someone's tinfoil helmet is a little tight.


----------



## Greymatters (27 Oct 2007)

Probably testing out the statement he's going to use in his next report to Direct Action Central Command:

"We were unable to radicalize the student elements due to the interference of the imperialist capitalist forces who paid a large portion of the student body to show up and vote against our efforts to free the unwashed and unwitting masses from their chains...etc.etc.."

Double  :


----------



## Roy Harding (27 Oct 2007)

No doubt a journalism student - he has a brilliant future in the MSM.


----------



## medaid (27 Oct 2007)

MRP wanna go halves on an expedition to afghanistan to find the gold? I heard there's a whole crap load burried right below KAF! That's why we put our base there!!

Pffft PUHLEASE give me a break. I'm all for freedom of speech, however, I think it should be amended to freedom of intelligent speech. The uninformed university/college students should all be given a swift kick in the ass and banned from higher education, because obviously, the higher education have not served them one little bit. While we're at it... They should all be shipped off to afghanistan to form their own NGOs, and no the CF should not be mandated to protect them. AT ALL.


----------



## Brad Sallows (27 Oct 2007)

And our governments pay public sector unions, many of whom have direct and strong ties to certain political parties and therefore, on occasion, to sitting governments.  So I wonder what his point is supposed to be.


----------



## Rayman (27 Oct 2007)

Feral said:
			
		

> Thomas P Radcliffe (Vancouver, BC) wrote 2 hours ago
> It dawned on me during this disaster of a meeting that the Canadian Forces was in fact paying many (most) of the students there who voted down the issue. This was not a democratic vote, but a funded and organized co-opting of the process by the reservists and active members who are members of the UVSS!



Ok so in other words, people of the CF shouldnt get paid? Some people....


----------



## Greymatters (27 Oct 2007)

I'll have to find my old contract and see if it says in there anywhere "obligated to show up at university campuses and disrupt student union meetings"...


----------



## TCBF (27 Oct 2007)

"It dawned on me during this disaster of a meeting that the Canadian Forces was in fact paying many (most) of the students there who voted down the issue."

- I'll bet some Militia units would love to have that sort of turn out on a Tuesday night!


----------



## TCBF (27 Oct 2007)

decoy said:
			
		

> Apparently the "Counter-recruitment" campaign being undertaken by the anti-war lobby is a national issue:
> 
> Check THIS out (holy frack!):
> 
> ...



- They can't even Canadianize their own propaganda - they use US stuff!

- Makes you wonder who writes their term papers...

 ;D


----------



## PMedMoe (27 Oct 2007)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Makes you wonder who writes their term papers...



Probably get them here.


----------



## Greymatters (27 Oct 2007)

All of their stuff is US-based with a sprinkling of 'Canadianization', and the kids they tell this BS to dont know the difference so think it still is the truth.


----------



## TCBF (28 Oct 2007)

- I am constantly amazed at how bereft of their own ideas the Canadian left actually is.  How can they be "Anti-American", yet constantly parrot the propaganda of the American left?

- I guess Communism truly is an "International".


----------



## JBoyd (28 Oct 2007)

well i always say, they whine and complain and where there 'dont support the troops' t-shirts, but who do you think keeps it so they are allowed to wear those shirts?


----------



## career_radio-checker (29 Oct 2007)

JBoyd said:
			
		

> well i always say, they whine and complain and where there 'dont support the troops' t-shirts, but who do you think keeps it so they are allowed to wear those shirts?



Three words:

Made-in-China


----------



## 3rd Herd (29 Oct 2007)

decoy said:
			
		

> It makes you wonder if they have ever actually spoken to a Canadian soldier???  Once again, it's much easier for them to pass judgment if they can conflate the US with Canada...



"We have much to build on. According to the London Free Press, "The number of Canadian soldiers who have gone absent without leave has doubled in the last six years... Records[what records????????] obtained through access to information show 708 troops were convicted of going AWOL in 2005 - more than twice the 340 convicted of the offence in 2000. Numbers show a sharp rise after 2001, when the 9/11 terrorist attacks propelled Canada's military into a more dangerous, combative role abroad." This highlights just how much support this national counter-recruitment campaign will have. Indeed, Francisco Juarez, a Canadian soldier  until recently, became the first to speak out against Canada's war in Afghanistan. It is just a matter of time before more Canadian soldiers begin to do the same." (http://operationobjection.org/about.html)


----------



## Flip (29 Oct 2007)

Check out The Torch today!

http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/

There's a video posted of the vote...... ;D


----------



## vonGarvin (29 Oct 2007)

3rd Herd said:
			
		

> "We have much to build on. According to the London Free Press, "The number of Canadian soldiers who have gone absent without leave has doubled in the last six years... Records[what records????????] obtained through access to information show 708 troops were convicted of going AWOL in 2005 - more than twice the 340 convicted of the offence in 2000. Numbers show a sharp rise after 2001, when the 9/11 terrorist attacks propelled Canada's military into a more dangerous, combative role abroad." This highlights just how much support this national counter-recruitment campaign will have. Indeed, Francisco Juarez, a Canadian soldier  until recently, became the first to speak out against Canada's war in Afghanistan. It is just a matter of time before more Canadian soldiers begin to do the same." (http://operationobjection.org/about.html)


"Going AWOL" could mean something like sleeping in and missing PT.  Not always the case, of course, but certainly included in the figures.  I know ALL ABOUT being charged with AWOL   :'(


----------



## Greymatters (29 Oct 2007)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> "Going AWOL" could mean something like sleeping in and missing PT.  Not always the case, of course, but certainly included in the figures.  I know ALL ABOUT being charged with AWOL   :'(



It speaks volumes that the people who quote AWOL statistics do not even understand how broadly the charge is applied.


----------



## Reccesoldier (29 Oct 2007)

I'm more pissed that they called Juarez a 'soldier'. :rage:


----------



## medaid (29 Oct 2007)

I agree. Juarez... I really wish they would STOP using that IDIOT as their poster child! My God! What a fracking idiot he was and now he's being used as a tool to change the minds of more idiots! Lovely!


----------



## Strike (29 Oct 2007)

> "Going AWOL" could mean something like sleeping in and missing PT.  Not always the case, of course, but certainly included in the figures.



...missing a dentist/doctor/physio/IRP appointment, getting caught behind a pile-up on the way back from leave and not making it in past check-in, getting weathered in and losing phone service -- any number of these would still be qualified as AWOL.


----------



## career_radio-checker (29 Oct 2007)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> It speaks volumes that the people who quote AWOL statistics do not even understand how broadly the charge is applied.



Operation Objection has been covered already in other threads.

Still, in collaboration with what has transpired at UVic in the past month, both Students Against War (SAW) and Operation Objection follow the same trend of quoting American recruiting styles and practices as Canadian. This is their fatal error -- to which we are eager to point out. But one thing I have notice while following this story is that the students who successfully campaigned against the ban at UVic lobbied on the platform that this was of 'freedom of choice' issue. Rarely, if ever, did they point out the completely unfounded claims of Students Against War. I admit to writting the anti-ban camp, pointing out the flaws of SAW and their ridiculous claims to which they thanked me yet stuck to their original platform. In my own selfishness this somewhat annoyed me, yet after seeing the results of Thursday's vote, I realized this made the victory all the sweeter. 
1. It disproved the myth that University students (especially on the 'left' coast) are all 'pinkos' and 'commies';
2. It proved students not only understand the freedoms afforded to them but that they want to exercise them;
3. It showed students do understand the necessity of a military even if they don't want to join;
4. It showed SAW that they were really in the minority;
5. And most importantly it proved that UVic students were fully capable of mounting their own protest against what they rightfully saw as ignorant and naive claims and infractions on their rights -- without some selfish pissed off soldier, like myself, needing to point it out to them.

I shall enjoy my humble pie.
Good job to the anti-ban group
CRC


----------



## JBoyd (29 Oct 2007)

what they need to realize is that there is a large difference between AWOL and desertion


----------



## TCBF (29 Oct 2007)

JBoyd said:
			
		

> what they need to realize is that there is a large difference between AWOL and desertion



- A couple of weeks...

 ;D


----------



## Greymatters (29 Oct 2007)

career_radio-checker said:
			
		

> Operation Objection has been covered already in other threads.
> 
> Still, in collaboration with what has transpired at UVic in the past month, both Students Against War (SAW) and Operation Objection follow the same trend of quoting American recruiting styles and practices as Canadian. This is their fatal error -- to which we are eager to point out. But one thing I have notice while following this story is that the students who successfully campaigned against the ban at UVic lobbied on the platform that this was of 'freedom of choice' issue. Rarely, if ever, did they point out the completely unfounded claims of Students Against War. I admit to writting the anti-ban camp, pointing out the flaws of SAW and their ridiculous claims to which they thanked me yet stuck to their original platform. In my own selfishness this somewhat annoyed me, yet after seeing the results of Thursday's vote, I realized this made the victory all the sweeter.
> 1. It disproved the myth that University students (especially on the 'left' coast) are all 'pinkos' and 'commies';
> ...



+1 to that!


----------



## vonGarvin (29 Oct 2007)

JBoyd said:
			
		

> what they need to realize is that there is a large difference between AWOL and desertion


DESERTION:
(1) Section 88 of the National Defence Act provides:
  "88. (1) Every person who deserts or attempts to desert is guilty of an offence and on conviction, if the person committed the offence on active service or under orders for active service, is *liable to imprisonment for life or to less punishment *  and, in any other case, is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to less punishment.
  (2) A person deserts who
  (a) being on or having been warned for active service, duty during an emergency or other important service, is absent without authority with the intention of avoiding that service;
  (b) having been warned that his vessel is under sailing orders, is absent without authority with the intention of missing that vessel;
  (c) absents himself without authority from his place of duty with the intention of remaining absent from his place of duty;
  (d) is absent without authority from his place of duty and at any time during such absence forms the intention of remaining absent from his place of duty; or
  (e) while absent with authority from his place of duty, with the intention of remaining absent from his place of duty, does any act or omits to do anything the natural and probable consequence of which act or omission is to preclude the person from being at his place of duty at the time required.
  (3) A person who has been absent without authority for a continuous period of six months or more shall, unless the contrary is proved, be presumed to have had the intention of remaining absent from his place of duty."

(1) Section 90 of the National Defence Act provides:
  "90. (1) Every person who absents himself without leave is guilty of an offence and on conviction is *liable to imprisonment for less than two years or to less punishment*.
  (2) A person absents himself without leave who
  (a) without authority leaves his place of duty;
  (b) without authority is absent from his place of duty; or
  (c) having been authorized to be absent from his place of duty, fails to return to his place of duty at the expiration of the period for which the absence of that person was authorized."

I put in the punishments available in *BOLD YELLOW* for emphasis.  Note that the punishment listed for Desertion is for "active service" offences. (EG: not showing up to go to Afghanistan).  I also seem to remember that desertion used to be punishable by death or less punishment prior to 1999.

EDIT: Should a better way to track the effect on war be how many convictions of desertion have taken place since 2001? Service members who avoided going to Bosnia (say, 1993 time frame, if any) could have been charged under this section (desertion, vice AWOL).


----------



## vonGarvin (29 Oct 2007)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - A couple of weeks...
> 
> ;D



Actually, continous absence for six months or more turns it from AWOL to desertion.


----------



## JBoyd (29 Oct 2007)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> DESERTION:
> (1) Section 88 of the National Defence Act provides:
> "88. (1) Every person who deserts or attempts to desert is guilty of an offence and on conviction, if the person committed the offence on active service or under orders for active service, is *liable to imprisonment for life or to less punishment *  and, in any other case, is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to less punishment.
> (2) A person deserts who
> ...



Well yes, that was what i was getting at, they seem to think that AWOL means that a soldier deserted his post he doesnt agree with the war or the efforts of the CF, when in fact this is hardly the case. I hate that these organizatiosn are so much on the high horse that they skew information for their benefits


----------



## Greymatters (29 Oct 2007)

JBoyd said:
			
		

> Well yes, that was what i was getting at, they seem to think that AWOL means that a soldier deserted his post he doesnt agree with the war or the efforts of the CF, when in fact this is hardly the case. I hate that these organizatiosn are so much on the high horse that they skew information for their benefits



Well put...


----------



## Foxhound (29 Oct 2007)

This line from the article a couple of pages back, is the one that caught my eye:

"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, if i understand correctly, this student's idea of her responsibilities in a democracy include agitating against the democracy of which she is supposed to be a part, not defending it.  "...stop[ing] things from happening" versus working to make things happen.

Ugh.


----------



## Munxcub (29 Oct 2007)

Well the opposition's job is to oppose right?  :


----------



## Foxhound (29 Oct 2007)

I get that Munxcub, honestly I do.  I have no problems with legitimate protests per se.  Yet to have a university student stand up on her hind legs and declare that, for her, in order for her to be exercising her democratic rights and freedom of speech, she must "stop things from happening."  So no wonder the right-of-center is called un-democratic, we're not stopping enough from happening, I guess.


----------



## JBoyd (29 Oct 2007)

Perhaps it would help if they could actually see what would eventually happen if she along with the others like here suceeded in stoping in any actions.

Personally I also think that her comment is off-the-wall ridiculous, Why is it none of these kids understand that without our military, democracy would not prevail?


----------



## larry Strong (29 Oct 2007)

I would be interested to see a break down of the stats...


----------



## Center_Right_newfie (29 Oct 2007)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmKub_BXXV8

Enough of that. Its all over. Membership in these unions should be voluntary and their activities heavily curtailed. I dont care if most students dont give a rats ass about the union


----------



## PMedMoe (1 Nov 2007)

Listening to Sounds Like Canada on CBC radio right now.  The opponents on military recruitment in schools just called the recruiters liars.  These people need to look in a mirror.


----------



## JBoyd (1 Nov 2007)

Liars? I wish they would come up with some founded proof to that claim

I have met some unfounded truths lately too, more specifically people going around telling people that oh they dont have to fully train you they ship you out to war as soon as your basic is done.....  what a load of BS that is


----------



## PMedMoe (1 Nov 2007)

I sent an email to the CBC radio site for the program which (basically) stated:

"How dare these people call anyone in the Canadian military (an honourable career) a liar!
The opponents to military recruitment in high schools and universities need to get educated about what out military actually does and stop spouting half-truths and unbased facts."


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Nov 2007)

My objection was to the odious comparison of the military to prostitutes. I take personal offence to that bit and I complained to "Sounds Like Canada," the CBC Ombudsman and the Minister of Canadian Heritage.


----------



## PMedMoe (1 Nov 2007)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> My objection was to the odious comparison of the military to prostitutes. I take personal offence to that bit and I complained to "Sounds Like Canada," the CBC Ombudsman and the Minister of Canadian Heritage.



Yes, that one impressed me as well.    I also liked the comment near the end where the guy said he'd like to get rid of the military completely.  I thought, "Next time there's an ice storm or a flood, don't call us."  Then I recalled the old saying "I don't agree with what you say but I will defend your right to say it."  :-\


----------



## JBoyd (1 Nov 2007)

Yes lets disband the military, and then when Kim Jong II has gone completely raving mad (not that he already isnt, but.. ) and then decides to become this century's major facist dictator we will let that F-Bag defend the countries freedom.


----------



## medaid (1 Nov 2007)

I would LOVE to have someone call me aliar to my face, while I am IN uniform and performing recruiting duties. I have yet to meet a civi that did not walk away with achange of heart after talking to me. If they didn't I have at least put a doubt in their mind about their beliefs... Boo ya.


----------



## PMedMoe (1 Nov 2007)

Nothing you could say would have mattered to these two opponents. (Where the heck do they find these nut bars?) 
The female guest seemed to think that all high school students were stupid in that they wouldn't realize what they were getting into by signing up for the military.  Her opinion was that if you go to war, you may get killed but even if you do come back alive you will have some kind of injury.  One of the guys here wondered if she'd ever walked some streets in Toronto.  At least in the military you can defend yourself.    Then she implied that the military was targeting people who were suicidal.....yeah, that's just what we need..... :
The male guest was worse, he seemed to think that the military just wants to give you a gun and get you to shoot people.


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Nov 2007)

>"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.


----------



## a_majoor (1 Nov 2007)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Listening to Sounds Like Canada on CBC radio right now.  The opponents on military recruitment in schools just called the recruiters liars.  These people need to look in a mirror.



Many CBC stories in all their media (radio/television/websites) have such an obvious bias that I no longer look to them for any factual information, rather I am examining the stories in the sense of examining enemy "PSYOPS". Recent stories about Canadian arms exports (suggesting there was something sinister about _private companies not releasing their trade and financial secrets_) or the CBC reporter saying the current battle against the Taliban north of Kandahar city openly states they are in contact on the edge of the city; even though the contact is 25 + Km away. The fact the reporter is always reporting from inside KAF is pretty signifigent (hey CBC lurkers; a lot of us have been to KAF and know pretty much where inside the base she is reporting from, and also about how long it would take for her to actually go to the battlegfield and, you know, _report_ on what is happening). I am sure lots of other readers have their own favorite examples.


----------



## career_radio-checker (5 Nov 2007)

A little follow up. The UVSS meeting minutes were updated since this whole fiasco started 
If you are bored; get off on reading about protocol; or genuinely want to read this stuff you can check it out here 

http://www.uvss.uvic.ca/index.php?page=meeting-minutes

for the 24 Sept 07 ; 
17 Oct 07 meetings.


----------



## Greymatters (5 Nov 2007)

That's a good read.  Its extremely satisfying to see self-important board members stewing in their own sweat after verbally high-fiving each other at their prior meeting.  The discussion clearly outlined that the 'anti-war' proponents had little in the way of facts other than their own opinions.  The board members were also well-skewered by the comments about support to political groups on campus when it was pointed out their blindness in failing to acknowledge that if they really object to the CF overseas they should be confronting the federal government.  

As to post-incident ramifications, a lot of current board members are going to asked about their international beliefs come next election time...


----------



## Stout (14 Dec 2007)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Her opinion was that if you go to war, you may get killed but even if you do come back alive you will have some kind of injury.



whoa are you telling me that by joining the Army I may be put in harms way!!!!!!! no body told me that when I was recruited or made me sign anything stating that I was aware of possible danger to my person. :crybaby:
But seriously I dont think most canadians agree with the opinions of these said persons. I just received my job offer today and I am fully aware of what the military entails as a career especially as a Combat Engineer and no one lied to me during the process.


----------



## Rodahn (31 Dec 2007)

I think the following puts a fairly good slant on the mindset of the majority of students.....


A young woman was about to finish her first year of University.  Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Federal liberal, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favour of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Conservative, a feeling she openly expressed.  Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harboured an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs.  The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father.  He responded by asking how she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew.  She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing?"

She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by.  All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA.  She is so popular on campus; University for her is a blast.  She's always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over."

Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0.  That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That's a crazy idea.  How would that be fair?  I've worked really hard for my grades!  I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree.  She played while I worked my tail off!"

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to the Conservative Party."


----------



## JBoyd (1 Jan 2008)

Rodahn said:
			
		

> I think the following puts a fairly good slant on the mindset of the majority of students.....
> 
> 
> A young woman was about to finish her first year of University.  Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Federal liberal, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favour of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words redistribution of wealth.
> ...



That actually made me chuckle


----------



## Greymatters (1 Jan 2008)

I like.

We could use more arguments like that...


----------

