YPY denied club funding, again
The pro-life club Youth Protecting Youth (YPY) has once again been denied funding by the UVic Students’ Society (UVSS) Board of Directors.
At the UVSS Clubs Council meeting on Sept. 29, a majority of 29 clubs voted to fund YPY, while 17 were opposed.
But the UVSS Board overturned Club Council’s decision at an Oct. 5 board meeting, after a heated two-hour debate.
Director-at-Large Kelsey Hannan said he’s pro-choice, but thinks YPY should receive club funding.
“YPY was denied funding back in November, supposedly for activities of postering,” he said. “It’s been a year — I don’t believe they’ve done any of that [since then.]”
Hannan suggested that denying funding to YPY could create a precedent for a future pro-life board to refuse funding for pro-choice clubs.
Director-at-Large Christine Comrie objected to YPY’s plans to host speaker Stephanie Gray from the Genocide Awareness Project, a group which compares abortion to genocide.
“[YPY] said they would never bring the Genocide Awareness Project to campus,” said Comrie. “A year later, they have. This board decided not to give funding to YPY because what they were doing was deemed as harassment of students.”
But YPY club president Anastasia Pearse said the motivation to bring in a speaker was to start a dialogue on the issues.
“We are bringing Stephanie Gray here for a debate on campus,” said Pearse. “We have contacted multiple groups, multiple people in the community, and no-one has yet stepped up to debate Stephanie Gray.”
The vote on funding for YPY was held by secret ballot, a proposal made by Director-at-Large Meghan Shannon and passed by the board. Shannon said she felt “intimidated” and she was more comfortable voting anonymously.
Hannan opposed holding a secret vote.
“I don’t think we’re doing anyone a service, no matter what side they’re on in this issue, by trying to hide our votes and not being accountable to our membership,” he said.
The final ballot count was 10 board members opposed to funding YPY, six in favour and one abstention.
182 Comments
The Martlet has an open comments policy and will endeavour to promote healthy discussion. We strive to act as an agent of constructive social change and will remove racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise oppressive comments.
Leave a Comment
Meghan Oct. 8, 2009, 1:02 a.m.
I didn't want to promote anonymity; but rather, promote the accountability of the enitre board as a decision making body.
It is a controversial topic and a ballot vote ensured everyone's vote would not be affected by the atmosphere in the room.
Meghan Oct. 8, 2009, 1:02 a.m.
I didn't want to promote anonymity; but rather, promote the accountability of the enitre board as a decision making body.
It is a controversial topic and a ballot vote ensured everyone's vote would not be affected by the atmosphere in the room.
Michelle Oct. 8, 2009, 1:12 a.m.
Meghan, arguing that anonymity promotes accountability is like arguing that sex promotes virginity.
How do you expect us to hold individual members accountable next election if we don't know how they stand on an extremely important issue? I for one will not vote for you next election as a result of this.
Michelle Oct. 8, 2009, 1:12 a.m.
Meghan, arguing that anonymity promotes accountability is like arguing that sex promotes virginity.
How do you expect us to hold individual members accountable next election if we don't know how they stand on an extremely important issue? I for one will not vote for you next election as a result of this.
L Oct. 8, 2009, 2:25 a.m.
Ditto Michelle.
L Oct. 8, 2009, 2:25 a.m.
Ditto Michelle.
Mike B. Oct. 8, 2009, 5:22 a.m.
It's called accountability, Meghan. The students who elected you as representatives have the right to know where on the issue you stand; they have the right to be informed. The fact it is controversial makes an even higher rationale to make how each member voted public domain.
If a student representative cannot vote their conscience in the face of so-called pressure in the gallery, then they have no business being on the board. Simple as that. That is an unacceptable excuse for what was a major blow to transparency on a UVSS issue that seems to only grow with time.
Mike B. Oct. 8, 2009, 5:22 a.m.
It's called accountability, Meghan. The students who elected you as representatives have the right to know where on the issue you stand; they have the right to be informed. The fact it is controversial makes an even higher rationale to make how each member voted public domain.
If a student representative cannot vote their conscience in the face of so-called pressure in the gallery, then they have no business being on the board. Simple as that. That is an unacceptable excuse for what was a major blow to transparency on a UVSS issue that seems to only grow with time.
Andrew A Oct. 8, 2009, 5:47 a.m.
When you get elected to the UVSS board you are expected to take a leadership role on campus. Hiding behind a secret ballot is hardly showing leadership. The UVSS has tackled many difficult and controversial issues in the past, yet I am unaware of secret ballots ever needing to be used on these types of motions before.
The logic that secret ballots promote accountability is absurd. How can board members be accountable to students when noone knows for sure how any particular director voted?
Back in 2005, 600 students came to the AGM to debate and vote on the Society's stance on abortion. I am certain it was a far more heated atmosphere than the board meeting was, yet students managed to have their voices heard without needing to have a secret ballot vote.
Andrew A Oct. 8, 2009, 5:47 a.m.
When you get elected to the UVSS board you are expected to take a leadership role on campus. Hiding behind a secret ballot is hardly showing leadership. The UVSS has tackled many difficult and controversial issues in the past, yet I am unaware of secret ballots ever needing to be used on these types of motions before.
The logic that secret ballots promote accountability is absurd. How can board members be accountable to students when noone knows for sure how any particular director voted?
Back in 2005, 600 students came to the AGM to debate and vote on the Society's stance on abortion. I am certain it was a far more heated atmosphere than the board meeting was, yet students managed to have their voices heard without needing to have a secret ballot vote.
Andrew A Oct. 8, 2009, 6:03 a.m.
Straight from Meghan Shannon's election platform:
I am strong willed, highly motivated and see the UVSS as an opportunity to assist others and create changeStrong willed people do not need secret ballots.
Andrew A Oct. 8, 2009, 6:03 a.m.
Straight from Meghan Shannon's election platform:
I am strong willed, highly motivated and see the UVSS as an opportunity to assist others and create changeStrong willed people do not need secret ballots.
Louise Oct. 8, 2009, 10:27 a.m.
This is pretty typical of UVSS, they've always been doing stuff like this. The UVSS continously fails to represent students where it matters the most, clubs. Instead they blow huge sums on paying for an executive who would've volunteered at other universities and paying the CFS.
Invest in your students, not in your executive.
Louise Oct. 8, 2009, 10:27 a.m.
This is pretty typical of UVSS, they've always been doing stuff like this. The UVSS continously fails to represent students where it matters the most, clubs. Instead they blow huge sums on paying for an executive who would've volunteered at other universities and paying the CFS.
Invest in your students, not in your executive.
George A Oct. 8, 2009, 10:30 a.m.
One year the ESS got its act together, stormed the AGM and dissolved the UVSS till the next term. If only students were more organized they could actually get their clubs funded as well promote more accessible (aka fun) student activities instead of focusing on politics, ineffective lobbying, and ignoring the vast majority of students in order to favor the in-crowd.
UVSS has consistently alienated its membership from year to year and rarely does anything fun.
George A Oct. 8, 2009, 10:30 a.m.
One year the ESS got its act together, stormed the AGM and dissolved the UVSS till the next term. If only students were more organized they could actually get their clubs funded as well promote more accessible (aka fun) student activities instead of focusing on politics, ineffective lobbying, and ignoring the vast majority of students in order to favor the in-crowd.
UVSS has consistently alienated its membership from year to year and rarely does anything fun.
D Oct. 8, 2009, 12:31 p.m.
As i understand it, a ballot vote has to be passed by a majority vote of the board. Therefore, the board is accountable for the ballot vote decision.
D Oct. 8, 2009, 12:31 p.m.
As i understand it, a ballot vote has to be passed by a majority vote of the board. Therefore, the board is accountable for the ballot vote decision.
D Oct. 8, 2009, 12:55 p.m.
and if so, do we know who voted for the ballot vote and who didn't? And are we holding those people accountable for voting for a ballot vote?
D Oct. 8, 2009, 12:55 p.m.
and if so, do we know who voted for the ballot vote and who didn't? And are we holding those people accountable for voting for a ballot vote?
B Oct. 8, 2009, 1:50 p.m.
She felt
intimidatedand yet describes herself asstrong willed??? Have the courage of your convictions, Meghan! Stand up for what you believe in. Isn't that why the students voted for you??B Oct. 8, 2009, 1:50 p.m.
She felt
intimidatedand yet describes herself asstrong willed??? Have the courage of your convictions, Meghan! Stand up for what you believe in. Isn't that why the students voted for you??Matt O Oct. 8, 2009, 2:05 p.m.
D, to say that the whole board is accountable for the decision misses the reality of how we elect our student representatives. We vote for individual members to make up a board, not for competing boards. Since Meghan Shannon asked for a secret ballot, it makes it impossible to hold individual members accountable for how they voted.
The only thing we can do now is hold people (such as Meghan Shannon) accountable for being un-transparent.
Matt O Oct. 8, 2009, 2:05 p.m.
D, to say that the whole board is accountable for the decision misses the reality of how we elect our student representatives. We vote for individual members to make up a board, not for competing boards. Since Meghan Shannon asked for a secret ballot, it makes it impossible to hold individual members accountable for how they voted.
The only thing we can do now is hold people (such as Meghan Shannon) accountable for being un-transparent.
Matt O Oct. 8, 2009, 2:09 p.m.
D: Sorry, didn't mean to reply to your post but to the earlier post that stated that a secret ballot
[promotes] the accountability of the enitre (sic) board as a decision making body.Matt O Oct. 8, 2009, 2:09 p.m.
D: Sorry, didn't mean to reply to your post but to the earlier post that stated that a secret ballot
[promotes] the accountability of the enitre (sic) board as a decision making body.D Oct. 8, 2009, 2:38 p.m.
Then we hold meghan accountable for being un-transparent. BUT WE ALSO hold the majority of the board for being un-transparent as well.
The ballot vote gave members of the board the opportunity to vote their true sentiments and Meghan has to take on the responsibility of her conviction.
I hold the board responsible for denying funding to YPY. I hold the board responsible for the ballot vote. I hold the board responsible for being un-tansparent.
D Oct. 8, 2009, 2:38 p.m.
Then we hold meghan accountable for being un-transparent. BUT WE ALSO hold the majority of the board for being un-transparent as well.
The ballot vote gave members of the board the opportunity to vote their true sentiments and Meghan has to take on the responsibility of her conviction.
I hold the board responsible for denying funding to YPY. I hold the board responsible for the ballot vote. I hold the board responsible for being un-tansparent.
JC Oct. 8, 2009, 4:20 p.m.
Not sure how they arrived at the conclusion that YPY's actions are deemed as harassment of students...
JC Oct. 8, 2009, 4:20 p.m.
Not sure how they arrived at the conclusion that YPY's actions are deemed as harassment of students...
Anon Oct. 8, 2009, 4:21 p.m.
Despite the board's move against accountability, from my watching of the meeting this is how people voted.
Board members who voted against the secret ballot:
Kelsey Hannan, Nadim Adatia, Dylan Hardie and Nathan Warner.
(The vote happened quickly, but those are the names I know for sure voted against the secret ballot.)
In terms of the YPY vote, judging by the general comments of members there and from previous votes on the matter, I have the following proximation of how members voted:
Definitely voted in favour of funding (5 out of the 6 in favour):
Nathan Warner, Kelsey Hannan, Justine Levine (Access), Meghean Kerr and James Coccola.
Definitely voted against funding (8 out of the 10 against):
Christine Comrie, Tracy Ho (SOCC), Edward Pullman, Leah Staples, Brodie Metcalfe, Heather Mckenzie, Veronica Harrison and Dylan Hardie.
Undetermined (of these people, 1 in favour of funding, 2 against and 1 abstention):
Remy Hall, Nadim Adatia, Rajpreet Sall and Meghan Shannon.
Of those undetermined, my rough prediction is that Sall voted in favour, Adatia and Hall voted against, and Shannon abstained. But this cannot be confirmed.
The board can try to be unaccountable, but that doesn't stop us from still trying to hold them to account for their actions. Hope this helps.
Anon Oct. 8, 2009, 4:21 p.m.
Despite the board's move against accountability, from my watching of the meeting this is how people voted.
Board members who voted against the secret ballot:
Kelsey Hannan, Nadim Adatia, Dylan Hardie and Nathan Warner.
(The vote happened quickly, but those are the names I know for sure voted against the secret ballot.)
In terms of the YPY vote, judging by the general comments of members there and from previous votes on the matter, I have the following proximation of how members voted:
Definitely voted in favour of funding (5 out of the 6 in favour):
Nathan Warner, Kelsey Hannan, Justine Levine (Access), Meghean Kerr and James Coccola.
Definitely voted against funding (8 out of the 10 against):
Christine Comrie, Tracy Ho (SOCC), Edward Pullman, Leah Staples, Brodie Metcalfe, Heather Mckenzie, Veronica Harrison and Dylan Hardie.
Undetermined (of these people, 1 in favour of funding, 2 against and 1 abstention):
Remy Hall, Nadim Adatia, Rajpreet Sall and Meghan Shannon.
Of those undetermined, my rough prediction is that Sall voted in favour, Adatia and Hall voted against, and Shannon abstained. But this cannot be confirmed.
The board can try to be unaccountable, but that doesn't stop us from still trying to hold them to account for their actions. Hope this helps.
Nathan W Oct. 8, 2009, 5:58 p.m.
As Anon has stated I did vote against the secret ballot motion. I am strongly against the idea of hiding one of the most controversial decisions of this board behind a secret ballot. Board members are elected to represent students and come the next election, they are accountable to what they did or did not do while in office. If this is the way the board will act in the future it will e impossible for any student to hold their representatives accountable.
As far as YPY is concerned, I believe that there is a moral argument that can be made for both sides of the debate. The debate should be about if/when the rights of the fetus trumps the rights of the woman. The fact that we have active groups on both sides of this debate is great. A university, being a place where people should be open to new ideas, perspectives and thoughts, is the perfect place for this discussion to happen.
Having said that, I am strongly opposed to placing any laws of restrictions on access to abortions in our country and I support the decriminalization of abortion around the world. But I would never try to impose my belief on the issue on anyone. I believe in fair and open discussion and freedom of speech. This is why I so strongly support their right to be a club with full funding just like any other club on campus.
Nathan W Oct. 8, 2009, 5:58 p.m.
As Anon has stated I did vote against the secret ballot motion. I am strongly against the idea of hiding one of the most controversial decisions of this board behind a secret ballot. Board members are elected to represent students and come the next election, they are accountable to what they did or did not do while in office. If this is the way the board will act in the future it will e impossible for any student to hold their representatives accountable.
As far as YPY is concerned, I believe that there is a moral argument that can be made for both sides of the debate. The debate should be about if/when the rights of the fetus trumps the rights of the woman. The fact that we have active groups on both sides of this debate is great. A university, being a place where people should be open to new ideas, perspectives and thoughts, is the perfect place for this discussion to happen.
Having said that, I am strongly opposed to placing any laws of restrictions on access to abortions in our country and I support the decriminalization of abortion around the world. But I would never try to impose my belief on the issue on anyone. I believe in fair and open discussion and freedom of speech. This is why I so strongly support their right to be a club with full funding just like any other club on campus.
B Oct. 8, 2009, 6:26 p.m.
Very very well said Nathan. If only there were more board members like you. It's sad that so many are ruled by knee-jerk reactions. I applaud the fact that - while you have stated your position quite clearly - you aren't willing to muzzle the
oppositionmerely because you disagree with them.B Oct. 8, 2009, 6:26 p.m.
Very very well said Nathan. If only there were more board members like you. It's sad that so many are ruled by knee-jerk reactions. I applaud the fact that - while you have stated your position quite clearly - you aren't willing to muzzle the
oppositionmerely because you disagree with them.Curtis Oct. 8, 2009, 10:47 p.m.
Whats troubling for me is how people here define accountability?
If its such a concern to you, talk to your elected representatives, you have contact info for all of them on the uvss website.
I think many of you seem to equate accountability with being able to call people out in the martlet comment section. True accountability, for me anyway, is answering the questions of the membership directly when they are posed to you. This can happen privately or at the AGM. The fact that you guys would trust the minutes taken at board meetings for accountability is even more laughable.
Curtis Oct. 8, 2009, 10:47 p.m.
Whats troubling for me is how people here define accountability?
If its such a concern to you, talk to your elected representatives, you have contact info for all of them on the uvss website.
I think many of you seem to equate accountability with being able to call people out in the martlet comment section. True accountability, for me anyway, is answering the questions of the membership directly when they are posed to you. This can happen privately or at the AGM. The fact that you guys would trust the minutes taken at board meetings for accountability is even more laughable.
Sara P Oct. 8, 2009, 10:50 p.m.
Of those undetermined, my rough prediction is that Sall voted in favour, Adatia and Hall voted against, and Shannon abstained. But this cannot be confirmed.I would find it a little odd if she went through the effort to get a secret ballot just to abstain.
Sara P Oct. 8, 2009, 10:50 p.m.
Of those undetermined, my rough prediction is that Sall voted in favour, Adatia and Hall voted against, and Shannon abstained. But this cannot be confirmed.I would find it a little odd if she went through the effort to get a secret ballot just to abstain.
Andrew A Oct. 8, 2009, 11:05 p.m.
Curtis you pretty much read my mind.
What's unfortunate is that the method in how the board made the decision (secret ballot) has overshadowed the actual decision not to give YPY money.
Maybe everything that can be said on the issue was said last year and people are more concerned with this setting a precedence where every tough vote starts occurring via secret ballot.
I'll end with the following excerpt:
Director of Services Christine Comrie, who facilitates Clubs Council, said the board should never overturn the decision of Clubs Council which includes representatives of each club and is set up to allow clubs to decide how to spend the money that is dedicated to them.http://www.martlet.ca/article/4951-anti-abortion-group-wants-club-fundingAndrew A Oct. 8, 2009, 11:05 p.m.
Curtis you pretty much read my mind.
What's unfortunate is that the method in how the board made the decision (secret ballot) has overshadowed the actual decision not to give YPY money.
Maybe everything that can be said on the issue was said last year and people are more concerned with this setting a precedence where every tough vote starts occurring via secret ballot.
I'll end with the following excerpt:
Director of Services Christine Comrie, who facilitates Clubs Council, said the board should never overturn the decision of Clubs Council which includes representatives of each club and is set up to allow clubs to decide how to spend the money that is dedicated to them.http://www.martlet.ca/article/4951-anti-abortion-group-wants-club-fundingL. Oct. 8, 2009, 11:26 p.m.
The Clubs Council meeting was a gong show. It's absurd to believe that the vote that took place there reflected a completely educated, informed, and represented club population.
The board made the right decision, secret ballot or not.
L. Oct. 8, 2009, 11:26 p.m.
The Clubs Council meeting was a gong show. It's absurd to believe that the vote that took place there reflected a completely educated, informed, and represented club population.
The board made the right decision, secret ballot or not.
B. Oct. 8, 2009, 11:47 p.m.
There was a definite lack of information given to all of the people present at the Clubs Council meeting, which would explain why a number of people voted for giving YPY funding. This article also does a fairly poor job informing it's readers of what exactly went on at the UVSS meeting. There were at least a few groups deeply concerned with the idea of YPY bringing a speaker directly associated with the Genocide Awareness Project to campus, which is supposed to be a safe space for all students, and I believe one or two of the groups were so disturbed with this idea that they wrote letters to the board.
Though I disagree with the secret ballot vote, I think tearing Meghan Shannon apart is absurd.
I was extremely relieved with the board's decision to overturn the Clubs Council decision, and obviously think they made the right choice.
B. Oct. 8, 2009, 11:47 p.m.
There was a definite lack of information given to all of the people present at the Clubs Council meeting, which would explain why a number of people voted for giving YPY funding. This article also does a fairly poor job informing it's readers of what exactly went on at the UVSS meeting. There were at least a few groups deeply concerned with the idea of YPY bringing a speaker directly associated with the Genocide Awareness Project to campus, which is supposed to be a safe space for all students, and I believe one or two of the groups were so disturbed with this idea that they wrote letters to the board.
Though I disagree with the secret ballot vote, I think tearing Meghan Shannon apart is absurd.
I was extremely relieved with the board's decision to overturn the Clubs Council decision, and obviously think they made the right choice.
A Oct. 8, 2009, 11:52 p.m.
It's important to note that the UVSS didn't overturn the clubs decision for no reason. A number of people and clubs showed up at the UVSS meeting to request that the decision be overturned. They don't just decide things willy nilly.
A Oct. 8, 2009, 11:52 p.m.
It's important to note that the UVSS didn't overturn the clubs decision for no reason. A number of people and clubs showed up at the UVSS meeting to request that the decision be overturned. They don't just decide things willy nilly.
B Oct. 9, 2009, 2:18 a.m.
Curtis: I don't know why you're so troubled. The term
accountabilityis being used perfectly appropriately here. To be accountable for ones actions is to be answerable for them. How can you possibly be answerable for those actions if we don't know how you've acted? To vote in a secret ballot is to deflect accountability, so that one can abrogate any responsibility for the outcome of the decision. That is the only reason for a secret ballot. And it's not about whether these people are called out in the Martlet comment section -- if you think that, you've completely missed the point. It's the fact they have to be called out at all.Whether or not the UVSS had a valid reason for their decision, they owed it to the people who elected them to have the courage of their convictions and to vote openly. If they - as reports would have it - were intimidated by this prospect, they've no business running the UVSS. Imagine if MPs in Ottawa all voted by secret ballot!
B Oct. 9, 2009, 2:18 a.m.
Curtis: I don't know why you're so troubled. The term
accountabilityis being used perfectly appropriately here. To be accountable for ones actions is to be answerable for them. How can you possibly be answerable for those actions if we don't know how you've acted? To vote in a secret ballot is to deflect accountability, so that one can abrogate any responsibility for the outcome of the decision. That is the only reason for a secret ballot. And it's not about whether these people are called out in the Martlet comment section -- if you think that, you've completely missed the point. It's the fact they have to be called out at all.Whether or not the UVSS had a valid reason for their decision, they owed it to the people who elected them to have the courage of their convictions and to vote openly. If they - as reports would have it - were intimidated by this prospect, they've no business running the UVSS. Imagine if MPs in Ottawa all voted by secret ballot!
Curtis Oct. 9, 2009, 3:02 a.m.
MPs in Ottawa should vote by secret ballot, at least they could think for themselves rather than be forced across the aisle if they break party discipline.
B: you continue to misunderstand the difference between parliament and board models of government. The point of a board of directors model is to a) not have parties governing the behavior of members and b) use consensus based decision making.
These members of the board do not have constituents in the sense that members of our provincial legislature or federal parliament do. There is no geographic region with specific interests that elected them instead of others from the same area. Rather they are elected at large, perhaps the logic you suggest might apply if our system of governance used faculty representation (like the University Senate) but it does not. The group defined as constituents is essentially up to the individual.
As for the assertion that to be on the board one must be prepared to be intimidated is a narrow minded, patriarchal view of leadership and governance. Perhaps our elections should be public ballot as well? I mean, if you aren't strong enough to tell everyone how you voted, why should you be allowed to vote?
Right wing conservative groups like YPY, and their supporters have used intimidation in the past through their propaganda and the speakers they are trying to bring in, to assert that they might try to influence how a board votes through intimidation is not far-fetched. If you are so upset by not knowing how Meghan (or other board members) voted, it is easy to contact them, I suspect they will give a better account of their reasons to you than you would get from the minutes anyway.
If you want accountability, go to a meeting and listen and ask questions. Reading the minutes to see the results of a roll-call vote gives you not accountability, but simply a hit-list of who and who doesn't vote the way you'd like, not an account of their actual position.
Curtis Oct. 9, 2009, 3:02 a.m.
MPs in Ottawa should vote by secret ballot, at least they could think for themselves rather than be forced across the aisle if they break party discipline.
B: you continue to misunderstand the difference between parliament and board models of government. The point of a board of directors model is to a) not have parties governing the behavior of members and b) use consensus based decision making.
These members of the board do not have constituents in the sense that members of our provincial legislature or federal parliament do. There is no geographic region with specific interests that elected them instead of others from the same area. Rather they are elected at large, perhaps the logic you suggest might apply if our system of governance used faculty representation (like the University Senate) but it does not. The group defined as constituents is essentially up to the individual.
As for the assertion that to be on the board one must be prepared to be intimidated is a narrow minded, patriarchal view of leadership and governance. Perhaps our elections should be public ballot as well? I mean, if you aren't strong enough to tell everyone how you voted, why should you be allowed to vote?
Right wing conservative groups like YPY, and their supporters have used intimidation in the past through their propaganda and the speakers they are trying to bring in, to assert that they might try to influence how a board votes through intimidation is not far-fetched. If you are so upset by not knowing how Meghan (or other board members) voted, it is easy to contact them, I suspect they will give a better account of their reasons to you than you would get from the minutes anyway.
If you want accountability, go to a meeting and listen and ask questions. Reading the minutes to see the results of a roll-call vote gives you not accountability, but simply a hit-list of who and who doesn't vote the way you'd like, not an account of their actual position.
Curtis Oct. 9, 2009, 3:03 a.m.
Andrew; I agree, I thought of that quote from Christine immediately when this decision was made.
Curtis Oct. 9, 2009, 3:03 a.m.
Andrew; I agree, I thought of that quote from Christine immediately when this decision was made.
D Oct. 9, 2009, 3:11 a.m.
It's funny, because some of the people (including myself) have used acronyms for our names. Andrew A B B. JC (maybe not an acronym) L D
Where is our accountability when we attack others? Take a stand people... Attack individuals on the board with conviction. (I speak to myself as well).
It looks like we all felt strongly about the issue. I suggest that we all run next year so that if/when this issue comes up again we can call a roll call vote. I also suggest that we announce how we vote for the elections. Because i think we should say goodbye to secret ballots. Say goodbye to the opportunity to make sincere choices. Say goodbye to eliminating bias. Say hello to coercion and intimidation.
Finally.... Do you know how each individual votes on every issue that comes before the board? This isn't the only controversial issue that has come before a board... and i do believe that sometimes issues are just recorded as PASS/FAIL.
D Oct. 9, 2009, 3:11 a.m.
It's funny, because some of the people (including myself) have used acronyms for our names. Andrew A B B. JC (maybe not an acronym) L D
Where is our accountability when we attack others? Take a stand people... Attack individuals on the board with conviction. (I speak to myself as well).
It looks like we all felt strongly about the issue. I suggest that we all run next year so that if/when this issue comes up again we can call a roll call vote. I also suggest that we announce how we vote for the elections. Because i think we should say goodbye to secret ballots. Say goodbye to the opportunity to make sincere choices. Say goodbye to eliminating bias. Say hello to coercion and intimidation.
Finally.... Do you know how each individual votes on every issue that comes before the board? This isn't the only controversial issue that has come before a board... and i do believe that sometimes issues are just recorded as PASS/FAIL.
B Oct. 9, 2009, 3:53 a.m.
Curtis: The comment that MPs should vote secretly belies your ignorance. MPs can't vote by secret ballot. They have to be accountable (there's that magic work again) to the people who elected them to represent their interests. Thinking for themselves rather than voting across party lines is an admiral goal, but it's a by-product of the party system and won't be fixed by making all votes hidden to the public.
The fact that members of the board do not represent
geographical regionsis moot. They were elected to represent the students (regardless of the political system used to effect that representation). They cannot represent the students if they are going to make their decisions in private. As I said, a hidden ballot abrogates them of responsibility.As for your accusation that I claimed that
to be on the board one must be prepared to be intimidated, perhaps you should learn how to read before casting aspersions. What I actually said was that they have no business running the UVSS if they are going to be intimidated by the prospect of an open vote.B Oct. 9, 2009, 3:53 a.m.
Curtis: The comment that MPs should vote secretly belies your ignorance. MPs can't vote by secret ballot. They have to be accountable (there's that magic work again) to the people who elected them to represent their interests. Thinking for themselves rather than voting across party lines is an admiral goal, but it's a by-product of the party system and won't be fixed by making all votes hidden to the public.
The fact that members of the board do not represent
geographical regionsis moot. They were elected to represent the students (regardless of the political system used to effect that representation). They cannot represent the students if they are going to make their decisions in private. As I said, a hidden ballot abrogates them of responsibility.As for your accusation that I claimed that
to be on the board one must be prepared to be intimidated, perhaps you should learn how to read before casting aspersions. What I actually said was that they have no business running the UVSS if they are going to be intimidated by the prospect of an open vote.D Oct. 9, 2009, 4:16 a.m.
Alright, I would like to know how everyone in this forum would have voted had they got the chance and their full names beside the vote. I would also appreciate knowing who you voted for int he last election.
We don't need motivations... because from what i gather all of you know all sides of the issue and everyone's platform from the last election?
D Oct. 9, 2009, 4:16 a.m.
Alright, I would like to know how everyone in this forum would have voted had they got the chance and their full names beside the vote. I would also appreciate knowing who you voted for int he last election.
We don't need motivations... because from what i gather all of you know all sides of the issue and everyone's platform from the last election?
D Oct. 9, 2009, 4:18 a.m.
Aspersions:
Definition: an unfavorable or damaging remark.
Example:
perhaps you should learn how to read-BD Oct. 9, 2009, 4:18 a.m.
Aspersions:
Definition: an unfavorable or damaging remark.
Example:
perhaps you should learn how to read-BCurtis Oct. 9, 2009, 4:55 a.m.
D:
Some astute observers might already know but; I voted for myself in the last election, and lost; I voted to elect Meghan, as well as Kesley, Nathan, Dylan, Nadim, James, Remy, Rajpreet and some others who were not elected.
I would have voted to allow funding to go to YPY. However, I would have cautioned the Director of Services to use discretion when authorizing cheque requisitions for YPY's events to ensure that UVSS money was not funding the alleged harassment campaigns/events/speakers. For instance some of the events/campaigns around the Genocide Awareness Project could fall into that, but I also know YPY does other events and programs that are less contentious, and do not breech the issues raised by many who sought to deny them funding.
On the accountability issue, I hate to beat a horse, but if you're so fired up about it, contact your elected officials, I'm sure they'd be glad to explain to you how they voted, why they voted, and their view on the secret ballot. I'm certain you will find out lots, and if they do not provide you answers through those channels, you can bring it up in question period at a board meeting, or at the AGM next week that I assume you will be attending.
Curtis Oct. 9, 2009, 4:55 a.m.
D:
Some astute observers might already know but; I voted for myself in the last election, and lost; I voted to elect Meghan, as well as Kesley, Nathan, Dylan, Nadim, James, Remy, Rajpreet and some others who were not elected.
I would have voted to allow funding to go to YPY. However, I would have cautioned the Director of Services to use discretion when authorizing cheque requisitions for YPY's events to ensure that UVSS money was not funding the alleged harassment campaigns/events/speakers. For instance some of the events/campaigns around the Genocide Awareness Project could fall into that, but I also know YPY does other events and programs that are less contentious, and do not breech the issues raised by many who sought to deny them funding.
On the accountability issue, I hate to beat a horse, but if you're so fired up about it, contact your elected officials, I'm sure they'd be glad to explain to you how they voted, why they voted, and their view on the secret ballot. I'm certain you will find out lots, and if they do not provide you answers through those channels, you can bring it up in question period at a board meeting, or at the AGM next week that I assume you will be attending.
Anon Oct. 9, 2009, 5 a.m.
If were going to talk about intimidation at the meetings, then we should probably aim our attention to Students for Choice instead of YPY.
Their side was FAR more hostile at the meeting than the YPY members who were present in the gallery (who were rather mute during the proceedings it should be said).
Oh yeah, and if were going to talk about intimidation, then why don't we talk about the fact that one anti-funding board member interrupted a pro-funding board member by saying they were being
fucking patronizing. Or should we talk about other anti-funding people proclaiming their opposition with near tears to their eyes as if this was comparable to decades of human rights struggles?Gotta love the selective use of
intimidationandharassmentby the pro-choice people, it seems those terms only become relevant when we're talking about evil pro-life people. Since intimidation and harassment is about all Students for Choice has gotten itself up to lately, perhaps we should begin filing aharassmentclaim against them?Anon Oct. 9, 2009, 5 a.m.
If were going to talk about intimidation at the meetings, then we should probably aim our attention to Students for Choice instead of YPY.
Their side was FAR more hostile at the meeting than the YPY members who were present in the gallery (who were rather mute during the proceedings it should be said).
Oh yeah, and if were going to talk about intimidation, then why don't we talk about the fact that one anti-funding board member interrupted a pro-funding board member by saying they were being
fucking patronizing. Or should we talk about other anti-funding people proclaiming their opposition with near tears to their eyes as if this was comparable to decades of human rights struggles?Gotta love the selective use of
intimidationandharassmentby the pro-choice people, it seems those terms only become relevant when we're talking about evil pro-life people. Since intimidation and harassment is about all Students for Choice has gotten itself up to lately, perhaps we should begin filing aharassmentclaim against them?Andrew A Oct. 9, 2009, 6:28 a.m.
Haha well played Curtis. D kind of walked into that one. Some of us do try to do more than just post in a Martlet thread and have made efforts to get involved in the past and present, D.
I would have approved funding for precisely the reasons Nathan W gave.
It's not rocket science to figure out who I voted for (give or take a candidate), but I'm not going post it here for someone who just posts as 'D'.
Andrew A Oct. 9, 2009, 6:28 a.m.
Haha well played Curtis. D kind of walked into that one. Some of us do try to do more than just post in a Martlet thread and have made efforts to get involved in the past and present, D.
I would have approved funding for precisely the reasons Nathan W gave.
It's not rocket science to figure out who I voted for (give or take a candidate), but I'm not going post it here for someone who just posts as 'D'.
B Oct. 9, 2009, 11:44 a.m.
Curtis continues (by his own admission) to beat the dead horse of contacting the UVSS individually to find out how they voted. Even assuming that they'd be forthcoming with the information (which in some cases I doubt), the point is that we should not have to contact them. Had they been open with the voting process in the first place, hunting down individual members for information would not be necessary!
As for me, I also would have voted for funding - as with Andrew, exactly for the reasons that Nathan gave earlier. I was very impressed by his reasoned approach. An approach which, sadly, does not seem to be shared with the majority of his fellow boardmembers.
B Oct. 9, 2009, 11:44 a.m.
Curtis continues (by his own admission) to beat the dead horse of contacting the UVSS individually to find out how they voted. Even assuming that they'd be forthcoming with the information (which in some cases I doubt), the point is that we should not have to contact them. Had they been open with the voting process in the first place, hunting down individual members for information would not be necessary!
As for me, I also would have voted for funding - as with Andrew, exactly for the reasons that Nathan gave earlier. I was very impressed by his reasoned approach. An approach which, sadly, does not seem to be shared with the majority of his fellow boardmembers.
D Oct. 9, 2009, 12:42 p.m.
be accountable andrew?
Be accountable for who YOU voted for. Some of those people might be people who voted in favor of the ballot vote. It may not be rocket science, but because of the ballot vote... i cannot assume how you voted.
I appreciate you getting involved in the past.
Also, we don't know how meghan voted. And her use of
intimidationcan be attributed to either side of the issue.As to curtis... Thank-you. One person who finally spoke up and is accountable. I'm glad i voted for you in the last election.
D Oct. 9, 2009, 12:42 p.m.
be accountable andrew?
Be accountable for who YOU voted for. Some of those people might be people who voted in favor of the ballot vote. It may not be rocket science, but because of the ballot vote... i cannot assume how you voted.
I appreciate you getting involved in the past.
Also, we don't know how meghan voted. And her use of
intimidationcan be attributed to either side of the issue.As to curtis... Thank-you. One person who finally spoke up and is accountable. I'm glad i voted for you in the last election.
Jasmine Oct. 9, 2009, 2:21 p.m.
While I agree that the University is a place for new ideas and discussion, I am adamant on the fact that a debate on women's right to bodily integrity is not something my student dollars should be paying for. I would like to remind everyone here that YPY was granted club status, which means their right to exist as a club has been affirmed. But as one board member pointed out, funding is a privilege. Concern about YPY's practices has been forwarded by Students for Choice (not abortion), the Students of Color Collective and the Jewish Students Association. Nobody is
muzzlingYPY, and it is not clear that the same uproar would have occurred concerning their funding had their practices not been found so offensive to so many students.Let me point out that the right to choice is not a
newidea. I was concerned about some board members flippant treatment of the right to choice as if it were an idea to be settled in their bioethics class. I would like to remind everyone that the right to choice is a right to bodily integrity in Canada, which is human right. The right to bodily integrity is included in the Canadian Charter of Rights, and it is a right that women have been struggling for for a very, very long time.Would a board member feel comfortable saying there is a valid moral debate on both sides for other rights? Would board members feel comfortable allocating student dollars to fund clubs that attack equality rights, or the right to freedom of religion? You may say I am drawing too broad a comparison. I say it is a slippery slope when you begin setting some human rights above others. And moreover, I hold that denying YPY funding trespasses on no rights that I can think of. As a club they can still assemble, they can still debate whatever they want, even if no one takes them up on the offer.
And Nathan, I feel there is something incongruous about your impassioned defense of democracy and freedom of speech, when women have been historically excluded from the process of democracy due to their lack of choice on reproductive matters. When you speak about democracy, I would hope that you think very hard about who really gets included in that process in Canada today.
Jasmine Oct. 9, 2009, 2:21 p.m.
While I agree that the University is a place for new ideas and discussion, I am adamant on the fact that a debate on women's right to bodily integrity is not something my student dollars should be paying for. I would like to remind everyone here that YPY was granted club status, which means their right to exist as a club has been affirmed. But as one board member pointed out, funding is a privilege. Concern about YPY's practices has been forwarded by Students for Choice (not abortion), the Students of Color Collective and the Jewish Students Association. Nobody is
muzzlingYPY, and it is not clear that the same uproar would have occurred concerning their funding had their practices not been found so offensive to so many students.Let me point out that the right to choice is not a
newidea. I was concerned about some board members flippant treatment of the right to choice as if it were an idea to be settled in their bioethics class. I would like to remind everyone that the right to choice is a right to bodily integrity in Canada, which is human right. The right to bodily integrity is included in the Canadian Charter of Rights, and it is a right that women have been struggling for for a very, very long time.Would a board member feel comfortable saying there is a valid moral debate on both sides for other rights? Would board members feel comfortable allocating student dollars to fund clubs that attack equality rights, or the right to freedom of religion? You may say I am drawing too broad a comparison. I say it is a slippery slope when you begin setting some human rights above others. And moreover, I hold that denying YPY funding trespasses on no rights that I can think of. As a club they can still assemble, they can still debate whatever they want, even if no one takes them up on the offer.
And Nathan, I feel there is something incongruous about your impassioned defense of democracy and freedom of speech, when women have been historically excluded from the process of democracy due to their lack of choice on reproductive matters. When you speak about democracy, I would hope that you think very hard about who really gets included in that process in Canada today.
Anon Oct. 9, 2009, 4:13 p.m.
Let me point out that the right to choice is not anewidea. I was concerned about some board members flippant treatment of the right to choice as if it were an idea to be settled in their bioethics class. I would like to remind everyone that the right to choice is a right to bodily integrity in Canada, which is human right. The right to bodily integrity is included in the Canadian Charter of Rights, and it is a right that women have been struggling for for a very, very long time.Actually it's not a constitutional right or precedent setting matter. The Court ruling split three ways and thus the Morgentaler ruling isn't deemed precedent setting.
Anon Oct. 9, 2009, 4:13 p.m.
Let me point out that the right to choice is not anewidea. I was concerned about some board members flippant treatment of the right to choice as if it were an idea to be settled in their bioethics class. I would like to remind everyone that the right to choice is a right to bodily integrity in Canada, which is human right. The right to bodily integrity is included in the Canadian Charter of Rights, and it is a right that women have been struggling for for a very, very long time.Actually it's not a constitutional right or precedent setting matter. The Court ruling split three ways and thus the Morgentaler ruling isn't deemed precedent setting.
B Oct. 9, 2009, 4:36 p.m.
Unfortunately people like Jasime will never be convinced that anybody is correct except for themselves or that any opinion other than their own is
validand will refuse to even entertain any discussion on the matter - insisting, instead, on stifling any debate. They're fond of the wordrightas though it's something carved in stone. What about therightto make one's own mind up on an contentious issue without being told what to think?B Oct. 9, 2009, 4:36 p.m.
Unfortunately people like Jasime will never be convinced that anybody is correct except for themselves or that any opinion other than their own is
validand will refuse to even entertain any discussion on the matter - insisting, instead, on stifling any debate. They're fond of the wordrightas though it's something carved in stone. What about therightto make one's own mind up on an contentious issue without being told what to think?Catherine Oct. 9, 2009, 5:46 p.m.
First, a clarification: the article states that Stephanie Gray is from the Genocide Awareness Project. In fact, she is from the Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform, and the Genocide Awareness Project is one of many projects associated with this organization. That said, the Genocide Awareness Project is not what will be happening at UVic - Stephanie Gray is coming to represent the pro-life side in a formal debate.
Secondly, in regards to Jasmine's comment, I would argue that the abortion debate is most certainly a legitimate moral debate. The underlying question is whether or not a fetus is a human being and a person. If not, then there is nothing wrong with abortion. If a fetus is a human being and a person, however, it is not a case of taking away a woman's
bodily integrity, but of stipulating that my right to make choices about my body does not extend to choices that end the life of another human being.Finally, I would question the board's decision to deny YPY funding, allegedly on the grounds of harrassment, when the event in question has not even occurred yet. If the activities of any club are deemed to be harrassment, or break other policies, they can have funding removed. As far as I know, no other club has their activities scrutinized ahead of time and funding removed based on allegations of possible future harrassment.
Catherine Oct. 9, 2009, 5:46 p.m.
First, a clarification: the article states that Stephanie Gray is from the Genocide Awareness Project. In fact, she is from the Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform, and the Genocide Awareness Project is one of many projects associated with this organization. That said, the Genocide Awareness Project is not what will be happening at UVic - Stephanie Gray is coming to represent the pro-life side in a formal debate.
Secondly, in regards to Jasmine's comment, I would argue that the abortion debate is most certainly a legitimate moral debate. The underlying question is whether or not a fetus is a human being and a person. If not, then there is nothing wrong with abortion. If a fetus is a human being and a person, however, it is not a case of taking away a woman's
bodily integrity, but of stipulating that my right to make choices about my body does not extend to choices that end the life of another human being.Finally, I would question the board's decision to deny YPY funding, allegedly on the grounds of harrassment, when the event in question has not even occurred yet. If the activities of any club are deemed to be harrassment, or break other policies, they can have funding removed. As far as I know, no other club has their activities scrutinized ahead of time and funding removed based on allegations of possible future harrassment.
Jasmine Oct. 9, 2009, 6:56 p.m.
Anon, you are right about the case. I admit that in expressing my opinion that the right to choice is an issue of bodily integrity and security of person, which is included in the charter, I made it sound like the right to choice was itself was explicitly laid out in the charter. I was clumsy in trying to express that I do not see the right to choose as separate from a right to bodily integrity or freedom of security of person.
Jasmine Oct. 9, 2009, 6:56 p.m.
Anon, you are right about the case. I admit that in expressing my opinion that the right to choice is an issue of bodily integrity and security of person, which is included in the charter, I made it sound like the right to choice was itself was explicitly laid out in the charter. I was clumsy in trying to express that I do not see the right to choose as separate from a right to bodily integrity or freedom of security of person.
B Oct. 9, 2009, 7:45 p.m.
Jasmine: you may not see the distinction, but you have to allow for the fact that others might. That's what living in a democracy is all about.
B Oct. 9, 2009, 7:45 p.m.
Jasmine: you may not see the distinction, but you have to allow for the fact that others might. That's what living in a democracy is all about.
a_student Oct. 10, 2009, 4:43 a.m.
I am very pro-choice.
I am also FOR funding YPY.
Imagine that.
The UVSS board is acting like complete children with this matter. The rude language, harassment, interruptions, it's completely pathetic. Grow up.
a_student Oct. 10, 2009, 4:43 a.m.
I am very pro-choice.
I am also FOR funding YPY.
Imagine that.
The UVSS board is acting like complete children with this matter. The rude language, harassment, interruptions, it's completely pathetic. Grow up.
Andrew A Oct. 10, 2009, 8:20 a.m.
D, I'll be accountable for who I voted for as soon as you'll be accountable for asking the question.
Some voted in favour of the secret ballot and some voted against. Meanwhile, some weren't elected. There is only so much that can be said in a 200-300 word platform, thus leaving a lot of assumptions to be made about candidates. Every year issues come up that are completely unforeseen. Secret ballot voting is one of them. I only really get truly disappointed when board members misrepresent themselves or go against their stated promises.
I would like to remind everyone here that YPY was granted club statushttp://www.canadianchristianity.com/cgi-bin/bc.cgi?bc/bccn/0300/freespeech
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/1999/dec/99121003.html
http://www.canadianchristianity.com/bc/bccn/1208/i01uvic.html
A little history since few if any of us were students back in 1999. The UVSS used to deny YPY club status. As one of the articles indicates, YPY only has club status because they appealed to the BC Human Rights Tribunal.
I'm guessing the UVSS has also learned something from the experience of UBC-Okanagan. UBC-O ended up spending $45 000 in legal fees trying to deny their pro life club $800 in funding.
Andrew A Oct. 10, 2009, 8:20 a.m.
D, I'll be accountable for who I voted for as soon as you'll be accountable for asking the question.
Some voted in favour of the secret ballot and some voted against. Meanwhile, some weren't elected. There is only so much that can be said in a 200-300 word platform, thus leaving a lot of assumptions to be made about candidates. Every year issues come up that are completely unforeseen. Secret ballot voting is one of them. I only really get truly disappointed when board members misrepresent themselves or go against their stated promises.
I would like to remind everyone here that YPY was granted club statushttp://www.canadianchristianity.com/cgi-bin/bc.cgi?bc/bccn/0300/freespeech
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/1999/dec/99121003.html
http://www.canadianchristianity.com/bc/bccn/1208/i01uvic.html
A little history since few if any of us were students back in 1999. The UVSS used to deny YPY club status. As one of the articles indicates, YPY only has club status because they appealed to the BC Human Rights Tribunal.
I'm guessing the UVSS has also learned something from the experience of UBC-Okanagan. UBC-O ended up spending $45 000 in legal fees trying to deny their pro life club $800 in funding.
D Oct. 10, 2009, 2:15 p.m.
ANDREW A:
I only really get truly disappointed when board members misrepresent themselves or go against their stated promises.I doubt anyone promised in their election platforms ANYTHING specifically in regards to ballot voting. You even admit that secret ballot voting is unforseen.
No one promised you that there would never be a ballot vote.
Now you're going to come back with
people promised accountability.I'll be accountable for who I voted for as soon as you'll be accountable for asking the question.You want everyone else to be accountable.... and only then you'll be accountable. It's like playing rock paper scissors and you want someone else to go first so that you can choose your best response.
CATHERINE:
Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform, and the Genocide Awareness Project is one of many projects associated with this organizationIt is not okay to compare the holocaust to abortions. Simply.... NOT OKAY. If i were a memeber of YPY i would do some deep inner reflection why even YPY would want to support someone like stephanie gray. Being pro-life is one thing.... But for the YPY group to fund or even contemplate funding a group (Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform) that compares abortions to the holocaust is wrong.
B:
Unfortunately people like Jasime will never be convinced that anybody is correct except for themselves or that any opinion other than their own isvalidand will refuse to even entertain any discussion on the matter - insisting, instead, on stifling any debate.REALLY? you just described yourself. You described all of us on here. None of us are being convinced by others.
We ALL keep repeating the same arguments in hopes that someone will say
oh you are right, i was wrong, good job.D Oct. 10, 2009, 2:15 p.m.
ANDREW A:
I only really get truly disappointed when board members misrepresent themselves or go against their stated promises.I doubt anyone promised in their election platforms ANYTHING specifically in regards to ballot voting. You even admit that secret ballot voting is unforseen.
No one promised you that there would never be a ballot vote.
Now you're going to come back with
people promised accountability.I'll be accountable for who I voted for as soon as you'll be accountable for asking the question.You want everyone else to be accountable.... and only then you'll be accountable. It's like playing rock paper scissors and you want someone else to go first so that you can choose your best response.
CATHERINE:
Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform, and the Genocide Awareness Project is one of many projects associated with this organizationIt is not okay to compare the holocaust to abortions. Simply.... NOT OKAY. If i were a memeber of YPY i would do some deep inner reflection why even YPY would want to support someone like stephanie gray. Being pro-life is one thing.... But for the YPY group to fund or even contemplate funding a group (Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform) that compares abortions to the holocaust is wrong.
B:
Unfortunately people like Jasime will never be convinced that anybody is correct except for themselves or that any opinion other than their own isvalidand will refuse to even entertain any discussion on the matter - insisting, instead, on stifling any debate.REALLY? you just described yourself. You described all of us on here. None of us are being convinced by others.
We ALL keep repeating the same arguments in hopes that someone will say
oh you are right, i was wrong, good job.angry student Oct. 10, 2009, 3:54 p.m.
D:
The point here is that we have one group of pro-choice people saying that abortion is not a negotiable topic and another recognizing that it is a legitimate debate.
I'm sorry, but there is NO political topic on campus that is
non-negotiable.Even eugenics and climate change can and should be debated--if you are so sure you're right, then LET the debate happen and prove the other side wrong.As for the rights argument, here is a crash course in rights by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association that Catherine should give a CLOSE reading to when she says that YPY takes away
women's rights:... to whatever extent any organization operating on campus advocates the enactment of laws, they could welltake away [some] people's rights.In urging additional taxes on corporations, the New Democratic Party wouldtake awaythe rights of certain investors. In promoting more effective human rights laws, many minority groups and their allies wouldtake awaycertain rights of employers and landlords. In promoting the expansion or contraction of medicare, advocates wouldtake away` the rights of either medical consumers or providers, as the case may be.Indeed, it's hard to imagine a current conflict that is not susceptible to such an analysis. On many campuses, for example, there are severe controversies regarding the Middle East. Each side would probably
take awaysome rights from either Israelis or Palestinians. On the basis of this analysis, therefore, the student leaders who would restrict the anti-abortion groups would have to eliminate virtually all campus debates.`angry student Oct. 10, 2009, 3:54 p.m.
D:
The point here is that we have one group of pro-choice people saying that abortion is not a negotiable topic and another recognizing that it is a legitimate debate.
I'm sorry, but there is NO political topic on campus that is
non-negotiable.Even eugenics and climate change can and should be debated--if you are so sure you're right, then LET the debate happen and prove the other side wrong.As for the rights argument, here is a crash course in rights by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association that Catherine should give a CLOSE reading to when she says that YPY takes away
women's rights:... to whatever extent any organization operating on campus advocates the enactment of laws, they could welltake away [some] people's rights.In urging additional taxes on corporations, the New Democratic Party wouldtake awaythe rights of certain investors. In promoting more effective human rights laws, many minority groups and their allies wouldtake awaycertain rights of employers and landlords. In promoting the expansion or contraction of medicare, advocates wouldtake away` the rights of either medical consumers or providers, as the case may be.Indeed, it's hard to imagine a current conflict that is not susceptible to such an analysis. On many campuses, for example, there are severe controversies regarding the Middle East. Each side would probably
take awaysome rights from either Israelis or Palestinians. On the basis of this analysis, therefore, the student leaders who would restrict the anti-abortion groups would have to eliminate virtually all campus debates.`Andrew A Oct. 10, 2009, 7:19 p.m.
D, you're making far too much out of that statement. I am not saying anyone went against their promises since this was something unforeseen. I do feel Meghan misrepresented herself as
strong willed, however.When board members are asked questions at board meetings and AGMs, they are given the courtesy of knowing who is addressing the questions to them. I have no problem revealing who I voted for, but not to someone who posts under some one letter name on a Martlet thread. There is no 'choosing my best response' seeing as who I voted for does not change.
Andrew A Oct. 10, 2009, 7:19 p.m.
D, you're making far too much out of that statement. I am not saying anyone went against their promises since this was something unforeseen. I do feel Meghan misrepresented herself as
strong willed, however.When board members are asked questions at board meetings and AGMs, they are given the courtesy of knowing who is addressing the questions to them. I have no problem revealing who I voted for, but not to someone who posts under some one letter name on a Martlet thread. There is no 'choosing my best response' seeing as who I voted for does not change.
D Oct. 10, 2009, 7:40 p.m.
I'm sorry for being such a douche to everyone.
D Oct. 10, 2009, 7:40 p.m.
I'm sorry for being such a douche to everyone.
Catherine Oct. 10, 2009, 7:41 p.m.
It's ok D. We all have our moments.
Catherine Oct. 10, 2009, 7:41 p.m.
It's ok D. We all have our moments.
B Oct. 10, 2009, 7:42 p.m.
True that.
B Oct. 10, 2009, 7:42 p.m.
True that.
D Oct. 10, 2009, 8:42 p.m.
hahahaha I didn't write that. But i've upset someone.
D Oct. 10, 2009, 8:42 p.m.
hahahaha I didn't write that. But i've upset someone.
D Oct. 10, 2009, 8:44 p.m.
Stop solely blaming meghan for the ballot vote. the whole board voted on it.
the end.
D Oct. 10, 2009, 8:44 p.m.
Stop solely blaming meghan for the ballot vote. the whole board voted on it.
the end.
B Oct. 10, 2009, 9:40 p.m.
D:
REALLY? you just described yourself. You described all of us on here. None of us are being convinced by others.The difference is I'm not trying to shove my opinion down anyone's throat, tell anyone how to think, or stifling any debate. Jasmine was.
B Oct. 10, 2009, 9:40 p.m.
D:
REALLY? you just described yourself. You described all of us on here. None of us are being convinced by others.The difference is I'm not trying to shove my opinion down anyone's throat, tell anyone how to think, or stifling any debate. Jasmine was.
C Oct. 10, 2009, 9:50 p.m.
Now you're sounding like Meghan, making the whole board responsible for the ballot vote.
C Oct. 10, 2009, 9:50 p.m.
Now you're sounding like Meghan, making the whole board responsible for the ballot vote.
Andrew Allen Oct. 10, 2009, 10:12 p.m.
I voted for team FAST ! Now tell me who you are.
Andrew Allen Oct. 10, 2009, 10:12 p.m.
I voted for team FAST ! Now tell me who you are.
B Oct. 10, 2009, 10:23 p.m.
Nobody's blaming Meghan for the board vote - she's only one person. Whichever way she voted (some people here feel she abstained), she'll have to live with the consequences of that. What she is being blamed for is proposing that the ballot be secret because - if this article is accurate - she was too
intimidatedto have everyone know how she was voting. For someone who bills herself asstrong willed, this is a very odd action.B Oct. 10, 2009, 10:23 p.m.
Nobody's blaming Meghan for the board vote - she's only one person. Whichever way she voted (some people here feel she abstained), she'll have to live with the consequences of that. What she is being blamed for is proposing that the ballot be secret because - if this article is accurate - she was too
intimidatedto have everyone know how she was voting. For someone who bills herself asstrong willed, this is a very odd action.Andrew A Oct. 11, 2009, 2:56 a.m.
Hahaha. I knew that was coming.
Andrew A Oct. 11, 2009, 2:56 a.m.
Hahaha. I knew that was coming.
B Oct. 11, 2009, 3:04 a.m.
That's what she said!
B Oct. 11, 2009, 3:04 a.m.
That's what she said!
John Newcomb Oct. 11, 2009, 4:23 a.m.
You guys need to stop arguing about abortion and start talking about the important issues. You know, like how we should build a resource-recovery Sewage Treatment plant on the McKinnon Gym parking lot!
John Newcomb Oct. 11, 2009, 4:23 a.m.
You guys need to stop arguing about abortion and start talking about the important issues. You know, like how we should build a resource-recovery Sewage Treatment plant on the McKinnon Gym parking lot!
Matt O Oct. 11, 2009, 5:28 p.m.
OK, time for The Martlet to bring in a registration system and force people to start using their real names.
Matt O Oct. 11, 2009, 5:28 p.m.
OK, time for The Martlet to bring in a registration system and force people to start using their real names.
Eye on the UVSS Oct. 11, 2009, 6:58 p.m.
For a much more extended look at the YPY funding debate and the secret vote see my post:
http://eyeontheuvss.blogspot.com/2009/10/funding-denial-shrouded-in-secrecy.html
Eye on the UVSS Oct. 11, 2009, 6:58 p.m.
For a much more extended look at the YPY funding debate and the secret vote see my post:
http://eyeontheuvss.blogspot.com/2009/10/funding-denial-shrouded-in-secrecy.html
B Oct. 11, 2009, 7:33 p.m.
Thanks for that Eye on UVSS
I feel pressure from every which way, and I feel intimidated to make decisions on which way I should vote,said Shannon.I feel that as a board, as a majority vote, we are making a decision for the Board...and [a record of] each individual decision is just not needed.What a pathetic way to shun your responsibility as an elected representative.
Nyah nyah, you can't blame me - it was the Board's fault!B Oct. 11, 2009, 7:33 p.m.
Thanks for that Eye on UVSS
I feel pressure from every which way, and I feel intimidated to make decisions on which way I should vote,said Shannon.I feel that as a board, as a majority vote, we are making a decision for the Board...and [a record of] each individual decision is just not needed.What a pathetic way to shun your responsibility as an elected representative.
Nyah nyah, you can't blame me - it was the Board's fault!D Oct. 12, 2009, 6:41 p.m.
B... Seriously? Don't call people pathetic.
D Oct. 12, 2009, 6:41 p.m.
B... Seriously? Don't call people pathetic.
B Oct. 12, 2009, 11:01 p.m.
I didn't - I called the action pathetic. But if the shoe fits...
B Oct. 12, 2009, 11:01 p.m.
I didn't - I called the action pathetic. But if the shoe fits...
Matt O Oct. 13, 2009, 4:33 a.m.
I just wanted to let everyone know that I really really love Jack Layton's mustache. I generally vote based on who I feel has the best mustache. Unfortunately, that left me no choice other than Remy Hall's impersonation of Sidney Crosby in the finals.
Matt O Oct. 13, 2009, 4:33 a.m.
I just wanted to let everyone know that I really really love Jack Layton's mustache. I generally vote based on who I feel has the best mustache. Unfortunately, that left me no choice other than Remy Hall's impersonation of Sidney Crosby in the finals.
AD Oct. 13, 2009, 7:47 p.m.
As a conservative minded student, I ask why is no one questioning funding of groups that seek to promote a certain political view?
If someone wants to take a prolife or prochoice postion, let them. Why effectively tax students to pay for it? If students wanted such agendas advanced they can donate money and organize.
Sorry, I know UVIC does not work like this. We have groups whose funding was approved for all time before most students currently here were born.
The UVSS should stick to matters they can change. And if the some people want to do
lobbyingfor their own agendas, do not use my student fees.AD Oct. 13, 2009, 7:47 p.m.
As a conservative minded student, I ask why is no one questioning funding of groups that seek to promote a certain political view?
If someone wants to take a prolife or prochoice postion, let them. Why effectively tax students to pay for it? If students wanted such agendas advanced they can donate money and organize.
Sorry, I know UVIC does not work like this. We have groups whose funding was approved for all time before most students currently here were born.
The UVSS should stick to matters they can change. And if the some people want to do
lobbyingfor their own agendas, do not use my student fees.concerned regular Martlet reader Oct. 13, 2009, 8:13 p.m.
i've always found it concerning that the Martler affords Mr. Foster so much room in their paper considering his city-wide reputation for being a busy gadfly with controversial opinions. Affording the odd opinion piece is one thing, but having to read his slanted
reportingon a regular basis calls the integrity of the Martlet into question.In the case of this article, David has a track record of taking a vocal and controversial position on abortion. I need not look any further than the title to find his subtle tilting of the issue at work.
As a regular reader i hope the editorial staff of the Martlet will think twice about assigning any space in their paper to an individual with a very recent history of getting very emotionally involved with issues students expect to be approached with the upmost delicacy and journalistic professionalism.
concerned regular Martlet reader Oct. 13, 2009, 8:13 p.m.
i've always found it concerning that the Martler affords Mr. Foster so much room in their paper considering his city-wide reputation for being a busy gadfly with controversial opinions. Affording the odd opinion piece is one thing, but having to read his slanted
reportingon a regular basis calls the integrity of the Martlet into question.In the case of this article, David has a track record of taking a vocal and controversial position on abortion. I need not look any further than the title to find his subtle tilting of the issue at work.
As a regular reader i hope the editorial staff of the Martlet will think twice about assigning any space in their paper to an individual with a very recent history of getting very emotionally involved with issues students expect to be approached with the upmost delicacy and journalistic professionalism.
David Foster Oct. 13, 2009, 8:49 p.m.
I would like to clarify that the headline of this piece was chosen by the news editor not by myself.
David Foster Oct. 13, 2009, 8:49 p.m.
I would like to clarify that the headline of this piece was chosen by the news editor not by myself.
José Barrios Oct. 13, 2009, 10:08 p.m.
Concerned regular Martlet reader,
I find it intriguing that you accuse David Foster of being a slanted reporter as I fail to see a single case in this article where such rude attributions are deemed.
It is clear to me, and anyone that has actually read the article, that he is simply reporting the facts of the meeting. I know because I was there and so was the Editor-In-Chief and the News-Editor-In-Chief whom later reviewed and published his article.
José Barrios Oct. 13, 2009, 10:08 p.m.
Concerned regular Martlet reader,
I find it intriguing that you accuse David Foster of being a slanted reporter as I fail to see a single case in this article where such rude attributions are deemed.
It is clear to me, and anyone that has actually read the article, that he is simply reporting the facts of the meeting. I know because I was there and so was the Editor-In-Chief and the News-Editor-In-Chief whom later reviewed and published his article.
Kailey Oct. 13, 2009, 11:18 p.m.
Dear concerned regular Martlet reader,
It is very rare for a writer to choose the headline of their article. As David explained, he did not choose it.
As per your
concernon the amount of writing David does for the Martlet - the Martlet operates thanks to the efforts of amazing volunteer writers. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the Martlet.I am sure you would be most welcome to volunteer your time and write an article for the Martlet as well.
Kailey Oct. 13, 2009, 11:18 p.m.
Dear concerned regular Martlet reader,
It is very rare for a writer to choose the headline of their article. As David explained, he did not choose it.
As per your
concernon the amount of writing David does for the Martlet - the Martlet operates thanks to the efforts of amazing volunteer writers. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the Martlet.I am sure you would be most welcome to volunteer your time and write an article for the Martlet as well.
B Oct. 14, 2009, 1:11 a.m.
I want to echo José's post -- while the Martlet has the propensity to be rife with slanted articles, this one seemed wholly objective. I can only conclude that the
concerned regular Martlet readerhas a bias of his or her own and is upset that anyone would deign to think or feel contrary to it to the point where they are reading things into articles that aren't there. As Kailey so aptly put it, they are free to submit an article of their own.B Oct. 14, 2009, 1:11 a.m.
I want to echo José's post -- while the Martlet has the propensity to be rife with slanted articles, this one seemed wholly objective. I can only conclude that the
concerned regular Martlet readerhas a bias of his or her own and is upset that anyone would deign to think or feel contrary to it to the point where they are reading things into articles that aren't there. As Kailey so aptly put it, they are free to submit an article of their own.Captain Obvious Oct. 14, 2009, 1:22 a.m.
Did anyone else notice right away that
concerned regular Martlet readerwrites exactly how Edward Pullman talks?Captain Obvious Oct. 14, 2009, 1:22 a.m.
Did anyone else notice right away that
concerned regular Martlet readerwrites exactly how Edward Pullman talks?Rob Flemming Oct. 14, 2009, 2:36 a.m.
Sigh. Edward, you embarrass me.
Rob Flemming Oct. 14, 2009, 2:36 a.m.
Sigh. Edward, you embarrass me.
Jeremy Oct. 14, 2009, 1:08 p.m.
Okay, so for anyone still interested in debating the issue of abortion, I would like to invite you to a debate jointly hosted by Youth Protecting Youth UVic and the Philosophy Students Association. It will involve a Philosophy professor from UVic debating with Stephanie Grey. Again, as the UVSS failed to understand, Stephanie Grey is NOT coming to give a presentation on GAP, but to participate in a debate on abortion. It's on Wednesday, October 21st at 3:30 PM in DSB C103. As
angry studentpointed out above, it is utterly ridiculous to say that any issue, especially abortion, is non-negotiable. We want to keep the discussion going.Jeremy Oct. 14, 2009, 1:08 p.m.
Okay, so for anyone still interested in debating the issue of abortion, I would like to invite you to a debate jointly hosted by Youth Protecting Youth UVic and the Philosophy Students Association. It will involve a Philosophy professor from UVic debating with Stephanie Grey. Again, as the UVSS failed to understand, Stephanie Grey is NOT coming to give a presentation on GAP, but to participate in a debate on abortion. It's on Wednesday, October 21st at 3:30 PM in DSB C103. As
angry studentpointed out above, it is utterly ridiculous to say that any issue, especially abortion, is non-negotiable. We want to keep the discussion going.Packer Oct. 14, 2009, 2:27 p.m.
This debate has nothing to do with abortion. It is about freedom of speech, and a students freedom to associate themselves with any group they want, and get treated equally, regardless of the political feelings of the people running the UVSS.
I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it- Evelyn Beatrice HallPacker Oct. 14, 2009, 2:27 p.m.
This debate has nothing to do with abortion. It is about freedom of speech, and a students freedom to associate themselves with any group they want, and get treated equally, regardless of the political feelings of the people running the UVSS.
I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it- Evelyn Beatrice HallSheldon Oct. 14, 2009, 7:11 p.m.
I don't know why people are hiding behind strange aliases, or making fun of people.
People do disagree with each other, but resorting to name calling is rather petty.
Can't there be civil discourse?
Sheldon Oct. 14, 2009, 7:11 p.m.
I don't know why people are hiding behind strange aliases, or making fun of people.
People do disagree with each other, but resorting to name calling is rather petty.
Can't there be civil discourse?
L. Oct. 14, 2009, 7:24 p.m.
Whether or not the article was 'slanted' by it's author is debatable, but it is accessible knowledge that that Mr. Foster does have strong and vocal opinions on the subject of YPY.
I wouldn't go as far to say that the article was biased. But I certainly believe there was a few very important facts missing from the article and these missing facts happened to support the boards decision to deny funding.
Motivated omission or editing and space constraints? I'm not completely sure.
L. Oct. 14, 2009, 7:24 p.m.
Whether or not the article was 'slanted' by it's author is debatable, but it is accessible knowledge that that Mr. Foster does have strong and vocal opinions on the subject of YPY.
I wouldn't go as far to say that the article was biased. But I certainly believe there was a few very important facts missing from the article and these missing facts happened to support the boards decision to deny funding.
Motivated omission or editing and space constraints? I'm not completely sure.
lolz Oct. 14, 2009, 8:01 p.m.
You're expecting civil discourse on the internet, Sheldon?
lolz Oct. 14, 2009, 8:01 p.m.
You're expecting civil discourse on the internet, Sheldon?
Jeremy Oct. 15, 2009, 12:30 a.m.
Packer, I definitely realize that the debate in this forum and concerning the UVSS oppression of YPY is about freedom of speech.
However, it is also quite clear (at least it should be) that the motivating factor behind this denial of free speech is the club's support for the pro-life cause and the defense of the human being from the beginning of life, at conception. The club YPY exists to defend the choice for life in the matter of abortion, and it is precisely this that the UVSS disagree with and feel that it is within their jurisdiction to deny the club its funding. Every semester this underlying reason has been carefully wrapped in something else: one semester it was about the posters, another semester it was about Stephanie Gray, and on and on the list goes. This arguments are simply brought to the forefront to cover up the underlying argument of not agreeing with the pro-life stance. For some reason, there exists the idea among our UVSS that having the UVSS maintain their prochoice stance in the matter of abortion, and having a pro-life club on campus are incompatible and impossible to both occur. I also simply wanted to invite as many people as possible to this debate, as this opportunity doesn't happen everyday.
Jeremy Oct. 15, 2009, 12:30 a.m.
Packer, I definitely realize that the debate in this forum and concerning the UVSS oppression of YPY is about freedom of speech.
However, it is also quite clear (at least it should be) that the motivating factor behind this denial of free speech is the club's support for the pro-life cause and the defense of the human being from the beginning of life, at conception. The club YPY exists to defend the choice for life in the matter of abortion, and it is precisely this that the UVSS disagree with and feel that it is within their jurisdiction to deny the club its funding. Every semester this underlying reason has been carefully wrapped in something else: one semester it was about the posters, another semester it was about Stephanie Gray, and on and on the list goes. This arguments are simply brought to the forefront to cover up the underlying argument of not agreeing with the pro-life stance. For some reason, there exists the idea among our UVSS that having the UVSS maintain their prochoice stance in the matter of abortion, and having a pro-life club on campus are incompatible and impossible to both occur. I also simply wanted to invite as many people as possible to this debate, as this opportunity doesn't happen everyday.
concerned regular Martlet reader Oct. 15, 2009, 3:41 a.m.
Kailey - thanks for your response. i sympathize with the Martlet's talented volunteer labour shortage. I have been encouraging my partner to write for the Martlet. I'm not much of a writer myself(thick grammar police file), so i will stick to comments (-: but I thank you for highlighting the open invitation. i respect and cherish that policy.
my concern does reach beyond the title. Like most journalistic slants, the nature of bias exists more with the framing and absence of context then with the context in play. the rebuttal comments are handed to the pro-YPY side of this debate on the two focus points. to David's credit, his angling of the issue is performed with some sophistication, but in knowing his position it's clear to me why so little space and focus was given to the many arguments for why YPY is denied funding year after year. Perhaps a mention of past AGM support of the board's position would have fit in appropriately.
My concern, however, has more to do with the history of emotional involvement on the writer's part. I know this isn't the New York Times, but i don't think requesting that the Martlet choose less embedded writers to cover news reporting is too much to ask. Is it not a pillar of respectable journalism to insure its practitioners must maintain an independence from those subjects they cover?
If such a pillar is to be maintained by the Martlet, then i think it goes without saying that having David cover any UVSS reporting is ethically questionable given his long track record of partisan involvement and current politically loaded blog
eye on the uvss.concerned regular Martlet reader Oct. 15, 2009, 3:41 a.m.
Kailey - thanks for your response. i sympathize with the Martlet's talented volunteer labour shortage. I have been encouraging my partner to write for the Martlet. I'm not much of a writer myself(thick grammar police file), so i will stick to comments (-: but I thank you for highlighting the open invitation. i respect and cherish that policy.
my concern does reach beyond the title. Like most journalistic slants, the nature of bias exists more with the framing and absence of context then with the context in play. the rebuttal comments are handed to the pro-YPY side of this debate on the two focus points. to David's credit, his angling of the issue is performed with some sophistication, but in knowing his position it's clear to me why so little space and focus was given to the many arguments for why YPY is denied funding year after year. Perhaps a mention of past AGM support of the board's position would have fit in appropriately.
My concern, however, has more to do with the history of emotional involvement on the writer's part. I know this isn't the New York Times, but i don't think requesting that the Martlet choose less embedded writers to cover news reporting is too much to ask. Is it not a pillar of respectable journalism to insure its practitioners must maintain an independence from those subjects they cover?
If such a pillar is to be maintained by the Martlet, then i think it goes without saying that having David cover any UVSS reporting is ethically questionable given his long track record of partisan involvement and current politically loaded blog
eye on the uvss.B Oct. 15, 2009, 3:52 a.m.
Concerned Martlet Reader: I don't know that I agree with everything you say, but I'm puzzled why you would consider yourself a bad writer. You seem to handle yourself quite eloquently. Maybe you should submit a piece to the Martlet and let them be the judge of whether your stuff is worthy of them or not?
B Oct. 15, 2009, 3:52 a.m.
Concerned Martlet Reader: I don't know that I agree with everything you say, but I'm puzzled why you would consider yourself a bad writer. You seem to handle yourself quite eloquently. Maybe you should submit a piece to the Martlet and let them be the judge of whether your stuff is worthy of them or not?
concerned regular Martlet reader Oct. 15, 2009, 3:54 a.m.
L- I believe we are on the same page with our concerns. I'm glad someone else has publicly noted this rather obvious conflict of interest. We part on the meaning of bias as my interpretation includes calculated omissions and imbalanced, sloppy reporting.
Captain - For the record my name is not Edward Pullman, but i sure would like your linguistics degree if you believe such a deconstruction and subsequent association is possible from a comment as short as mine.
Rob Flemming- are you by chance related to Rob FLEMING? neighboring irish tribe perhaps? (-;concerned regular Martlet reader Oct. 15, 2009, 3:54 a.m.
L- I believe we are on the same page with our concerns. I'm glad someone else has publicly noted this rather obvious conflict of interest. We part on the meaning of bias as my interpretation includes calculated omissions and imbalanced, sloppy reporting.
Captain - For the record my name is not Edward Pullman, but i sure would like your linguistics degree if you believe such a deconstruction and subsequent association is possible from a comment as short as mine.
Rob Flemming- are you by chance related to Rob FLEMING? neighboring irish tribe perhaps? (-;still concerned but flattered Martlet reader Oct. 15, 2009, 4 a.m.
b- thank you, but again i will flag my grammar police file and long history of battling the criterion of
short and to the pointstill concerned but flattered Martlet reader Oct. 15, 2009, 4 a.m.
b- thank you, but again i will flag my grammar police file and long history of battling the criterion of
short and to the pointKailey Oct. 15, 2009, 1:04 p.m.
Dear Martlet reader,
I would be more than happy to correct your grammatical errors in anything you are interested in submitting :-)
The Martlet does have a conflict of interest policy, but I forget exactly what it is. I'll look it up for you.
Kailey Oct. 15, 2009, 1:04 p.m.
Dear Martlet reader,
I would be more than happy to correct your grammatical errors in anything you are interested in submitting :-)
The Martlet does have a conflict of interest policy, but I forget exactly what it is. I'll look it up for you.
Kailey Oct. 15, 2009, 1:08 p.m.
`Bylaw Twelve – Conflict of Interest
So it's a little subjective in this case.
Kailey Oct. 15, 2009, 1:08 p.m.
`Bylaw Twelve – Conflict of Interest
So it's a little subjective in this case.
Martlet reader with a growing concern Oct. 16, 2009, 6:05 a.m.
kailey, thank you for the bylaws. certainly subjectivity plays a roll in all human interpretation, but i think this case is crystal clear. i encourage you to read them again and then reflect on Mr. Fosters many involvements on campus.
as a writer, who i assume takes the standard ethics of journalism seriously, do you not agree its important for a reporter to not be emotionally and politically involved/active with a particular side of a story when you write under the banner and appearance of being unbiased and impartial?
don't you agree Martlet readers expect and trust that the editors of the paper are choosing writers that have the clearest head on the subject matter at hand?
Martlet reader with a growing concern Oct. 16, 2009, 6:05 a.m.
kailey, thank you for the bylaws. certainly subjectivity plays a roll in all human interpretation, but i think this case is crystal clear. i encourage you to read them again and then reflect on Mr. Fosters many involvements on campus.
as a writer, who i assume takes the standard ethics of journalism seriously, do you not agree its important for a reporter to not be emotionally and politically involved/active with a particular side of a story when you write under the banner and appearance of being unbiased and impartial?
don't you agree Martlet readers expect and trust that the editors of the paper are choosing writers that have the clearest head on the subject matter at hand?
B Oct. 16, 2009, 11:52 a.m.
Martlet reader: I think you're fooling yourself. In my experience, the Martlet has never had a mandate to be particularly
objective. They report the news from a students' perspective and - as such - reflect whatever biases the writer in question has. Take a look at recent articles extolling the virtues of Elizabeth May and the Green Party, hailing her in such glowing terms you'd think she and her party was the only viable choice in the next election.Do readers expect to be given clear-headed reporting? I'm not sure about that. I think it's more important to them (in general) that the Martlet relects - in some measure - their own thinking on various issues. Perhaps this is why you're so upset. Were the story subtley biased, but biased the other way on the issue (supporting the UVSS in their decision), would you be so vehement in your condemnation?
B Oct. 16, 2009, 11:52 a.m.
Martlet reader: I think you're fooling yourself. In my experience, the Martlet has never had a mandate to be particularly
objective. They report the news from a students' perspective and - as such - reflect whatever biases the writer in question has. Take a look at recent articles extolling the virtues of Elizabeth May and the Green Party, hailing her in such glowing terms you'd think she and her party was the only viable choice in the next election.Do readers expect to be given clear-headed reporting? I'm not sure about that. I think it's more important to them (in general) that the Martlet relects - in some measure - their own thinking on various issues. Perhaps this is why you're so upset. Were the story subtley biased, but biased the other way on the issue (supporting the UVSS in their decision), would you be so vehement in your condemnation?
concerned regular Martlet reader Oct. 17, 2009, 6:26 a.m.
B, without getting into the slippery epistemic territory about objectivity and its rather impossible nature, let us just agree that it's a useful principled ideal (real or not) that functions in such a way that quality journalistic reporting will strive to emulate its meaning.
What i believe you are referring to in regards to Liz May is an opinion column. The Martlet, like most papers, is broken down to accommodate and distinguish space for both types of journalism. In the case of Mr. Foster, his articles fall into the
newsheading above, as opposed to theopinioncategory.i'm merely claiming that having David report NEWS is misleading to students because his journalistic objectivity and subsequent integrity is compromised by his personal investment and emotional leanings on uvss matters.
It's not appropriate for journalists that take themselves seriously to be engaging and participating in backroom and front stage politics by day and then play the independent journalist by night. This is commonsense.
Do readers expect to be given clear-headed reporting?granted expectations are lower for a university publication that relies on voluntary contributions, but none the less, The Martlet does strive to be a respectable publication that offers a balance of diverse views taking place on campus. so in so many words, yes. i'm sure the editorial board would agree.
my issue is not ideological or partisan so much as it is principled. It's true i'm not a fan of Mr. Foster's work (both in the day and by night), but that's really beside the point. i'm not holding him to a double standard, as i would be just as irritated if say a uvss board member that i favored all of a sudden started writing
NEWSarticles about the meeting they were involved in last night. The reason for this is students wouldn't be getting a fair read at issues in play just i feel they aren't right now. It's also not fair to the other talented writers who take time out of their busy student life to do honest, independent research to heighten the discourse on campus. David's conflict of interest taints their hard work for those students who are in touch enough to know what he's up to in the day.concerned regular Martlet reader Oct. 17, 2009, 6:26 a.m.
B, without getting into the slippery epistemic territory about objectivity and its rather impossible nature, let us just agree that it's a useful principled ideal (real or not) that functions in such a way that quality journalistic reporting will strive to emulate its meaning.
What i believe you are referring to in regards to Liz May is an opinion column. The Martlet, like most papers, is broken down to accommodate and distinguish space for both types of journalism. In the case of Mr. Foster, his articles fall into the
newsheading above, as opposed to theopinioncategory.i'm merely claiming that having David report NEWS is misleading to students because his journalistic objectivity and subsequent integrity is compromised by his personal investment and emotional leanings on uvss matters.
It's not appropriate for journalists that take themselves seriously to be engaging and participating in backroom and front stage politics by day and then play the independent journalist by night. This is commonsense.
Do readers expect to be given clear-headed reporting?granted expectations are lower for a university publication that relies on voluntary contributions, but none the less, The Martlet does strive to be a respectable publication that offers a balance of diverse views taking place on campus. so in so many words, yes. i'm sure the editorial board would agree.
my issue is not ideological or partisan so much as it is principled. It's true i'm not a fan of Mr. Foster's work (both in the day and by night), but that's really beside the point. i'm not holding him to a double standard, as i would be just as irritated if say a uvss board member that i favored all of a sudden started writing
NEWSarticles about the meeting they were involved in last night. The reason for this is students wouldn't be getting a fair read at issues in play just i feel they aren't right now. It's also not fair to the other talented writers who take time out of their busy student life to do honest, independent research to heighten the discourse on campus. David's conflict of interest taints their hard work for those students who are in touch enough to know what he's up to in the day.B Oct. 17, 2009, 5:21 p.m.
Please give me a little credit. I know the difference between an opinion piece and something that purports to be
news. The recent Elizabeth May columns were in the Civics section. Then again, one could argue that the bulk of the Martlet is an opinion piece as most articles will reflect the particular bias of the author. To expect any different is to not really understand the way student newspapers work.B Oct. 17, 2009, 5:21 p.m.
Please give me a little credit. I know the difference between an opinion piece and something that purports to be
news. The recent Elizabeth May columns were in the Civics section. Then again, one could argue that the bulk of the Martlet is an opinion piece as most articles will reflect the particular bias of the author. To expect any different is to not really understand the way student newspapers work.James Martel Oct. 29, 2009, 1:18 p.m.
About 1/2 of Canadians are pro-life, so why can't students who oppose abortion just have their club?
If the pro-choice position is so right, then why don't they allow free debate on campus?
Why try to censor ideas by shutting down pro-life clubs. I thought universities were about ideas.
James Martel Oct. 29, 2009, 1:18 p.m.
About 1/2 of Canadians are pro-life, so why can't students who oppose abortion just have their club?
If the pro-choice position is so right, then why don't they allow free debate on campus?
Why try to censor ideas by shutting down pro-life clubs. I thought universities were about ideas.
you know Nov. 13, 2009, 11:51 p.m.
If a student representative cannot vote their conscience in the face of so-called pressure in the gallery, then they have no business being on the board. Simple as that.On the contrary, they have every reason to be there. I love it how most of this
discussionhas taken Meaghan's decision to have a roll call vote completely out of context; it definitely serves as an example of the sexism and paternalism that is structuring discussion surrounding her choice to have a roll call vote.It would be amazing if half of you people showed up to board meetings on a regular basis. Then we might actually have representation from our members there.. not just a few members sitting back with their computers ranting about what they
thinkand what istrue.It is very pathetic.
you know Nov. 13, 2009, 11:51 p.m.
If a student representative cannot vote their conscience in the face of so-called pressure in the gallery, then they have no business being on the board. Simple as that.On the contrary, they have every reason to be there. I love it how most of this
discussionhas taken Meaghan's decision to have a roll call vote completely out of context; it definitely serves as an example of the sexism and paternalism that is structuring discussion surrounding her choice to have a roll call vote.It would be amazing if half of you people showed up to board meetings on a regular basis. Then we might actually have representation from our members there.. not just a few members sitting back with their computers ranting about what they
thinkand what istrue.It is very pathetic.