SFUO: Where's the evidence

Damn, time is flying. I felt compelled to write the following letter and submit it to The Fulcrum. I was lucky enough to have it published in this weeks edition (P.S. Sex insert is EXCELLENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!):

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SFUO: Where’s the evidence?


DEAR MEMBERS OF the Student Federation of the University of Ottawa (SFUO) executive,

I would like to address the aftermath of the sit-in that took place in the SFUO office on Monday, March 7, 2011.

First of all, I would just like to point out how foolish we have been made to look on national television. While being interviewed both by Radio-Canada, our vp communications, Paige Galette, made an over-the-top claim that some SFUO employees were being held hostage by the protestors. It’s a good thing that, at one point in that clip, the reporter made it very clear that anyone who was still inside the SFUO office were there willingly.

Furthermore, it is my understanding that some SFUO employees have been disciplined for having participated in or for having “encouraged” this protest. This is extremely troublesome. In one case, an employee’s termination letter has been posted to uOLeaks.com and the following accusations were cited to justify such a dismissal: “…as a result of your participation in the blockade and vandalism of the SFUO offices… your services will no longer be required by 1848”. Alright, well for one thing, participating in a legal protest is not criminal. But, the accusation of vandalism is much more damning and, if proven, would definitely be grounds for this dismissal.

What is absolutely astonishing with this whole situation is that, as far as I know (and I stand to be respectfully corrected), there exists no evidence that Mr. Witwer (the terminated SFUO employee) ever vandalized anything. If no evidence has been provided, then there exist absolutely no grounds to punish him for having participated in a legal protest.

I look forward to having this evidence, if it does in fact exist, provided to the student media. Students deserve to know and the SFUO has a duty to explain the reasons why these decisions are being made. If the evidence does not exist, then I would expect that Mr. Witwer (contract or no contract) and other SFUO employees, who have been penalized for their participation in a legal protest, would be immediately reinstated and that a formal, public apology be issued as soon as possible by the SFUO.

Brandon Clim
Fourth-year political science student

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What I find to be terribly unfortunate with this whole situation is the following: there exists a culture of fear that the SFUO has instated in its own employees (talk about a safe space, eh?!). Knowing many people who are, in way or another, employed by the SFUO, I was quite shocked to hear them tell me that, despite their support for the protest that took place yesterday (Tuesday March 15th 2011), they would not/could not be seen anywhere near the premises. They told me they relied on the income from that job and could not afford the chance of being fired or suspended.

How ridiculous does this sound to you? Is it fair that SFUO employees are so concerned about losing their jobs that they refrain from participating in a peaceful, legal demonstration against the regime for which employs them? Is that a safe space? Look, this problem hasn't just popped up out of nowhere... Remember this article published in La Rotonde back in November 2010.

I may be dreaming in colours to think that I might get an answer... Phoque, a guy can't even call certain members of the SFUO executive without getting their voicemails day in and day out never mind actually getting a formal, written response regarding the (thus far) baseless accusations of vadalism.

I look forward to any sort of response and will gladly post anything that put forth if and when something does come out of this.