Although it has been awhile, I hope my readership doesn't think I've completely abandoned my blog! Anyhow, I'm back and have much to talk about and many issues to address.
I will start with something that I have never done before on this blog: I will be speaking in favour (although not entirely) of a recent Canadian Federation of Students' campaign on Copyright reform.
Here's a new campaign video posted to CFS's YouTube page concerning the issue of Copyright legislation:
I must point out that the demonizing of big corporations is (not surprisingly) exaggerated and overblown and the concluding statement of the video "But, the battle has just begun! Students know the importance of fair copyright and it's up to us to lead the fight!" uses inciting language that is typical of most CFS campaigns use.
However, although the tactics are the same, I have to admit that I can finally agree with the THIS ISSUE.
In a document submitted to the government entitled Striking the Balance - Submission to the Copyright Consultations (September 2009), the CFS proposed 6 key recommendations:
1. Expand the definition of fair-dealing to be more flexible and inclusive.
2. Regulate the use of technological protection measures so that they do not interfere with users’ legitimate attempts to use copyrighted works.
3. Eliminate Crown copyright.
4. Strictly limit statutory damages.
5. Enhance moral rights to protect creators.
6. Establish a “notice and notice” system of Internet copyright enforcement.
To conclude, it's ISSUES SUCH AS THIS ONE THAT ACTUALLY AFFECT STUDENTS ON A DAILY BASIS THAT THE CANADIAN FEDERATION OF STUDENTS SHOULD BE WORKING ON. On the other hand, it is unacceptable for the CFS to claim to represent OVER 600 000 STUDENTS ACROSS CANADA when it chooses to take a stance on such divisive issues as the Israeli/Palestinian conflict (please refer to these articles 1, 2, 3) and abortion (please refer to these articles 1, 2, 3, 4). It's also quite obvious the CFS is VERY FAR FROM BEING A DEMOCRATIC BODY (please refer to these articles 1, 2, 3, 4) and APT AT WASTING STUDENTS' MONEY ON RIDICULOUS LEGAL FEES AGAINST ITS OWN MEMBER STUDENT UNIONS (please refer to these articles 1, 2, 3, 4).
To the possibility of some sort of positive change of the CFS, I won't be holding my breath.
Brandon,
ReplyDeleteI'm glad to see that you're not always CFS-hating and finally appreciating some of the hard work that they're doing.
I just want to point out a few things that caught me off guard:
1. Your mention of abortion. YOU'RE A MAN! You have no right to even give an opinion on this issue seeing as you will never be in a situation where you may have to have an abortion. And if ever you get pregnant, please let me know.
2. You said that the CFS is "far from being a democratic body". That's untrue. The CFS is the most democratic organization in this country (even more so than our government). I'm not sure if you know how the AGM's work, but it's a total of 4-5 days at looking at motions and getting representation from every minority group before actually taking a vote.
Just because things don't always go your way, it doesn't mean that it's wrong.
It saddens me to see uninformed critiques.
Dear anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI'm actually not surprised that you would post such a thing without leaving your name.
Brandon's main argument was that the CFS doesn't focus on issues that he defines as student issues as often as he'd like it to.
Although you may disagree on what defines a student issue, to make such a blanket statement that him being a man clearly restricts him from mentioning abortion or having an opinion on it is really only indicative of some severe kind of closed-mindedness.
Additionally, to call the CFS democratic debases the very definition of the term.
I wouldn't be surprised if you're one of the lucky few that have been able to attend one of their AGM's, but for regular students, the real members of the CFS (Not "members" as defined by its constitution), the chance of attending is slim.
Additionally, the voice of 30,000 plus uOttawa students has the same vote as the University of Windsor Organization of Part-Time Students (which I'm gonna guess is severely less than 30,000 students) as well as many other similar size institutions.
Perhaps if you would be willing to put your name beside you comments in the future, a good discussion could be had? Food for thought..
Peter Flynn
Hello Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, although I allow anonymous readers to comment on my postings which is something I believed would allow constructive debate without necessarily having to identify the author of such and such a comment. However, I feel compelled to tell you (whoever you may be) that I also believe that, in many cases, anonymity is a sign that a person is afraid/worried about the possible repercussion that would come if they did in fact identify themselves and make the same exact comment. However, this is only my opinion. I have never been afraid to voice/write my opinions, whether they are controversial or not, while also associating my name with those same opinions so I could be scrutinized by whoever wanted to object or comment in favour and/or against my opinions. Anonymity, in most cases, is a sign of fear. Anyhow, in response to your comment, here are my thoughts I have never been a “CFS-hater” as you described my past opinions/comments about the CFS. However, I have had and continue to have legitimate concerns about the way the CFS works and about some of its “procedures” and “practices”.
Secondly, although I will most certainly never get pregnant, I personally do not agree with you when you say that, as a man, I have no right to have an opinion on abortion. And if you personally think that MEN don’t have the right to have an opinion on such a subject, then I’m sure you would agree with me when I say that the CFS is far less legitimate when taking stances on such controversial subjects because the CFS isn’t exactly a “female-only” organization. And to add to your statement, it obviously takes two to tango and when the situation arises that a female gets pregnant and decides to have an abortion, the male can be just as psychologically affected by that decision as the female. Therefore, I strongly dispute your way of looking at the whole issue.
Finally, I would definitely have to disagree with you when you say that “the CFS is the most democratic organization in this country”. There are a number of “procedures” and “practices” that these AGM’s follow that aren’t exactly democratic. I need not look further than the barring of the CFS’s membership (so, anyone who isn’t signed in as a member of a delegation) from these semi-annual general meetings. However, this unfair practice isn’t only reserved to individual CFS members who may be interested in attending; the general public and even MEDIA AT LARGE (at the exception of ONE CUP JOURNALIST which happens to be our very own Emma Godmere) are also banned from attending. Now, I’m not sure what you yourself consider to be a “democratic organization”, but the examples I have just referred to definitely doesn’t fall under my definition of “democracy”. So, don’t try to say that the CFS is more democratic than our Canadian Government because that is insulting our national institution. That is just the beginning of how I consider the CFS to be undemocratic. When you decide to join an organization, you shouldn’t be forced to remain a member for a minimum period of time. I will simply list a few lines from Titus Gregory’s excellent report entitled Solidarity for their Own Good: Self-Determination and the Canadian Federation of Students (please follow this link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/29379517/Solidarity-for-Their-Own-Good-Self-Determination-and-the-Canadian-Federation-of-Students, p. 55):
(cont.)
• First, the CFS National Executive is required to make a decision to schedule a referendum within 90 days of receipt of a valid petition requesting such a referendum. This decision must be made “in consultation with the member local,” though there is no requirement whatsoever that the National Executive promptly inform the local students’ union of the chosen dates.
ReplyDelete• Second, the referendum itself must be scheduled “not less than 60 days and not more than 90 days following” the scheduling decision. This gives the CFS a four-month window of time in which to schedule a referendum, assuming all other restrictions have been adhered to.
• Third, no disaffiliation vote can be held between April 15 and September 15, or between December 15 and January 15.
• Fourth, “there shall no more than two (2) referendums on continued membership in any three-month period.”
• Fifth, no referendum can be held unless the students’ union remits all outstanding membership dues to the CFS six weeks prior to the first day of voting.
• Sixth, once a disaffiliation referendum is held, a second such referendum cannot be held until five years later (or three years in the case of college students’ unions).
• Seventh, a newly affiliated member of the CFS cannot hold a disaffiliation referendum until five years later (or three years in the case of college students’ unions).
I highly recommend that you go through this report (even if it’s only a quick run-through) because this is an extremely well researched document with strong arguments that in fact lend much credibility to my claim that the CFS is anti-democratic.
Furthermore, I think that it would be important for me to point out that I am not the first (and most definitely won’t be the last) to have raised these concerns. Just look at the number of member locals who wanted to hold de-federation referendums during the 09/10 academic year. Now, I’m not in any way saying they all unanimously shared these exact same concerns. However, I do think it is cause for concern when 13 member locals all attempt to de-federate in the same year. Any rational person that looks at those numbers would be quick to conclude that there must be SOMETHING WRONG with such an organization.
I hope that not only my initial posting, but also this response to your comment and finally the articles/documents I have referenced will make you realize that my comments/concerns are in fact “informed critiques”.
Thanks for taking the time to read!