University of Ottawa Paper Fulcrum Boycotts National Defence Advertisements

[Remius]

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

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

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

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

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

But you are right in that

 

[armyvern]

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

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


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

But you are right in that

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Remius]

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

 

[armyvern]

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

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

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

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

 

[Celticgirl]

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

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

I'm just curious - did you vote?

 

[Edward Campbell]

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

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

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

 

[Remius]

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

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

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

Here, right out of their own by-laws

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

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

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

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

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

 

[a_majoor]

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

Fire up the word processors! Writers; Advance!

 

[Greymatters]

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

 

[KJL]

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

 

[armyvern]

They could write their Letters to the Editors complaining indeed about the tyranny of the majority stepping on the Rights of the CF to advertize ...

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

We can bitch and complain all we want.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Remius]

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

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

 

[armyvern]

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

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

This is exactly why we differ:

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

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

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

Why is it for The Fulcrum to do so??

Just imagine boys ...

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

.

 

[Remius]

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

 

[Niteshade]

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

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

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

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

Nites

 

[Dirt Digger]

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

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

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

 

[Remius]

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

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

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

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

Nites

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

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

 

[Remius]

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

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

Seems like certain groups have larger agendas.

 

[Gunner98]

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

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

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

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

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