University of Ottawa Paper Fulcrum Boycotts National Defence Advertisements

[vonGarvin]

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

 

[Greymatters]

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

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

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

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

 

[Proud_Newfoundlander]

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

 

[rfishbook]

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


George Wallace:



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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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


Also:

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

Leroi:

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

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


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

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


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

Three Weeks


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

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


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

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


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

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


7) Was the Canadian Forces the only targetted boycott?

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


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

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


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

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



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

 

[George Wallace]

rfishbook

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

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

"Napoleon is always right."

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

 

[Edward Campbell]

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

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

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

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

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

• Students actually think.

 

[Remius]

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

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

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

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

 

 

[Greymatters]

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

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

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

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

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

• Students actually think.

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

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

Edit - oops, that stuff below should have been deleted...

 

[Strike]

rfishbook,

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

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

7) Was the Canadian Forces the only targetted boycott?

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

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

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

 

[acheo]

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

Well put Strike! 

 

[rfishbook]

Hey Strike,

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

 

[leroi]

Hi Rob,

Thanks for setting the facts straight and explaining the process.

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

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

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

Warm Regards,

leroi

 

[Celticgirl]

Hey Strike,

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

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

 

[George Wallace]

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

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

James Douglas  -  Member of the Student Coalition Against War
I HELPED TO kill people this summer in return for $10 an hour. It is a mistake I will never make again. At the time I did not realize what I was doing. I don’t want to be condescending or assume this foolishness or opinion on others, but I do feel the need to speak out about it.

I was part of a large, complex, well-organized professional murder machine. There is no getting around this; murder IS the most basic and primary purpose of all military.

I never picked up a gun or shot anyone. But let us not fool ourselves. The people behind the scenes are absolutely essential to the murder that occurs. They make the organization effective—each doing its own, seemingly benign, part and coming together through structure. Perhaps the main difference is that they may be more cowardly than the soldier who uses a weapon. They help in the killing yet have the benefit of a mental insulation. They are kept distant from the risk of being killed, or perhaps worse having to watch a stranger die by their own deliberate hand. On the subject of courage, I might quickly note that it requires much more to die resisting non-violently than to pick up a gun.

So, why did I take such a job? Simply, I was uneducated in the matter. I have always felt that the military was a shady thing, best to avoid. But when I was chosen randomly through FSWEP to work for the Department of National Defence (DND) inspecting fire prevention systems, it was a relief to me. I was unhappy about having a student-loan debt and did not know where the money for my next year of university was going to come from. I beg you to not underestimate the mental pressure that unemployment, debt, and social pressures can have on a person trying to listen to the faint voice of their conscience. The voice of a conscience is slight, like a whisper, and it takes great care to listen to it properly. I feel fortunate to have learned this lesson before graduating and being exposed to the risk of taking a more long-term job in the military.

Remember, this situation is artificial. Students are in debt largely because the government spends on military instead of education. Then, we would like jobs so we may work for the military. The military is a living organization that has the ability to attract more money to itself, so this cycle continues. Currently, with General Hillier, Canada has a military leader that has unusual skill in talking to politicians and running public campaigns to cause the military to grow. The only way to stop this cycle of violence is to take a strong stance against it.

Since I left DND, I have taken the time to learn from certain people, notably from Tolstoy’s The Kingdom of God is Within You. Through some simple study I have learned a lot about war, military, and the alternative of non-violence. I have become very much convinced that we can all realize the courage within ourselves to take a stance against the military in favour of non-violent resistance. That is, to thoroughly shun violence, killing, and weaponry in favor of love. To take real action for a less violent and better world is worth doing and there are those of us who have chosen to go boldly forward in the matter.

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

 

[Greymatters]

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

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

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

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

 

[Franko]

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

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

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

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

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

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

He was pretty pissed about it all.

Regards

 

[slowmode]

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

 

[Celticgirl]

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

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

He was pretty pissed about it all.

Good stuff, Steve! 

 

[vonGarvin]

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

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

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

 

[rfishbook]

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

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


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