The Liberals have had two totally unsuited teachers as leader, why would they consider another one, especially one of considerably lesser stature? One who has demonstrated his unsuitability to be an MP, let alone PM, with his foul-mouthed outburst on the floor of the house. People like Garneau and Findlay bring a large measure of intelligence, experience, and new ideals to the morally bankrupt Liberals. One must hope that they renew with brains rather than seeking glory in a name, not particularly loved by many. If the Liberals fail there is a real danger of the NDP actually becoming the government; then we [will] become like Greece is today.
— puzzled2 (from web)
Well, the way to respond to a point of view you find objectionable is definitely organized thuggery. Can anyone imagine what this institution would be like if anyone who could put together a mob was allowed to dictate what could or couldn’t be discussed here?
I’m unsurprised to find Danielle Sandhu, who has never been legitimately elected to represent any one for any reason shouting and yelling that she represents the students of U of T. Maybe one day she will find the courage to replicate the assault and destruction of property that she advocated as UTSU president and finally be removed from this campus.
— Rishi Maharaj (from web)
…some of the comments made by Warren Farrell are pretty horrific: date fraud? He doesn’t seem to have his head screwed on. Definitely not a great protest, but I can also understand the level of outrage that lead to the protester’s reactionary behaviour. Reading some of the misinformed and anti-women comments on this site is pretty upsetting too. However it is a relief to hear [some] speak respectfully and coherently on the subject.
— Hanna (from web)
…’Being Sexual’, as you’d term it, is convoluted victim blaming.
Your attempt to justify misogyny and rape culture is saddening to say the least and the notion that some perception of ‘body language’ gives one the right to ignore direct and absolute verbal instruction is indeed an endorsement of rape. Members of CAFE and folks like yourself are just bigots wearing the mask of equity, misusing statistics and language to weak and pitiful ends…
— Brad Evoy (from web)
The disapproval of the agenda signifies a move towards reform perhaps. It is important now that students voice their opinion about the issues that need to be addressed so that we may constructively discuss them in the next general members’ meeting. The turnout at the AGM was much better than previous year as stated in this article. I’m glad this was the case. I love seeing participation rates of UTSU members increase like this. Cheers.
— Christopher Balette (from web)
‘It’s privilege’? Let’s talk about privilege:
Having the financial liquidity to run against a heavily-funded platform in the UTSU Elections, something very few students have. Student that do not run on the CFS platform have very little chance of winning. They are comparably overburdened financially and procedurally and when they try and address the problem, their efforts are stymied.
I was ‘privileged’ enough to have the time to attend the AGM, but the lack of accessibility to basic voting on campus is the reason there is a turnout problem on campus. If the Union’s representatives really want to hear the voice of its members, it will welcome this idea at the table.”
— Shannon Nieve (from web)
I find it offensive to have well-organized, thoroughly discussed perspectives which happen to be in opposition of the current UTSU mandate and electoral system be dismissed as the result of our lack of awareness of our own ‘privilege’ or ‘misunderstanding.’ To claim such is to label us too stupid to appreciate the complexities of this system and develop any legitimate opinions of our own about it. Over 300 students did not crowd into that room because we thought it might be fun to cause a political mess in accordance of our own blissful ignorance. Despite the fact that the 30 Board Directors and 6 executives combined to provided as many as 396 votes in favour of their stance (due to a proxy system that is an absolute affront to democratic voting in every way), opposition still succeeded in toppling an agenda which portrayed a complete disregard for student concerns. We did that even though dozens of our supporters were forced to leave the event and forfeit hundreds more votes in our favour because they didn’t have the ‘privilege’ of sitting around until 9.30 to vote on the agenda. We are not stupid rabble-rousers who are doing nothing more than procrastinating our essays, and it’s terribly inappropriate for the executive to insinuate that the only reason any reasonable, intelligent person at U of T would disagree with them would be because we’re confused or misguided. If that is how you feel, executive, then it is you who is ‘misunderstanding.’
— Aimmee Queneville
See, this is partially due to a cadre of active, yet spiteful members of the Union who neither understand the key aspects of these organizations (like the need, fundamentally, to address matters like an audit) nor care to. It is high time to smash the hyper-partisanship of all Union and student organizations by ending slate campaigning AND curbing the misuse of proxies by all sides of this discussion…
—Concerned Student (from web)