Friday, March 7, 2008
By-election campaign: Austin Menyasz furious
According to my sources, Austin Menyasz was not amused by a comment made by Renaud-Philippe Garner during the debate. During phase two of the debate, where candidates were allowed to ask each other questions, Garner asked Haldenby what he thought about "Ethics" committees that would overlook situations like the one PIDSSA encountered this year.
Earlier this year, the Political students association (PIDSSA) encountered many problems at the executive level. Its President, Austin Menyasz, was facing an impeachment process. PIDSSA constitution dictated a 2/3 majority to impeach a member of the executive. 180 people voted, thus making 120 the magic number. It turned out that 112 students voted to impeach him, 8 short.
In today's debate, Garner used this example to justify an ethics committee, following it with a comparison on ethnic cleansing/genocide. I am paraphrasing, but he said something like "It's like if we say a world leader killed 10 000, not 15 000." There were many laughs and it was drowned out, but it was something along those lines.
Menyasz will be launching an official complaint.
Zoom Productions has put up the video of the debates, but they split it up in two parts, and the incident in question happened during the second part. Turns out Zoom was only able to put the first part on its website. It should be up in the next day.
Please do not post comments regarding your personal views on Austin Menyasz. They will most likely be deleted. You can comment on the situation at hand.
UPDATE 18h20: I have been told that a request for an official complaint form has been submitted.
UPDATE 19h42: VIDEO IS UP! The people at Zoom Productions were kind enough to let me in their office tonight. Great staff over at Zoom. Through rain and snow we trekked on and we got this clip just a few minutes ago. Special thanks to Tito and Simon Préfontaine for getting me this excerpt from the debate. Check our Zoom Productions for more great videos. (Zoom has its own YouTube page where this clip can also be found. Unfortunately, right now, it is still uploading on the YouTube servers)
UPDATE 19h47: I have just been told that Austin Menyasz has sent an official complaint and it has been received by the Elections Office. More to come.
UPDATE SATURDAY 16h22: I have just realised that many of our visitors are still using Internet Explorer. To you, I apologise. Many of the features of this blog, such as Podcasts and Video, might not be available to you. In this post, for instance, there is a great video from the Vimeo website. It does not appear if you are using Internet Explorer. Here's a great solution.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
54 comments:
On ne compare pas les pommes aux oranges.
Oh wait, yes we do!
So, what exactly is the complaint going to be about?
Renaud made 2 comparisons in which numbers shouldn't be used to judge. He never said Austin was a world leader committing genocide. It was clearly two separate examples.
Wassim,
Je ne veux pas te le dire, parce que ta tête va enfler. Mais je ne peux m'empêcher. Bravo. Tu es le baron officiel des médias de l'Université d'Ottawa.
Humm, JB? Trop tard. ;)
I'm not going to comment directly on the clip (at least not yet), but:
Well done to all our student journalists on this whole project.
You are the 'netroots' of uOttawa.
I'm so impressed of how well you have worked together to bring together all forms of new media to benefit our students. Furthermore, as a communication student (and a journalism graduate), I feel that this is a fantastic example of how the internet SHOULD be used on campus.
well, im not so sure if what he said at all qualifies as hate speech, it seems to fall under that persistent category of, what's that called again, FREE speech?
i hardly think that making a characterization like that falls under free speech. i'm pretty sure that free speech doesn't cover slander, which is why slander laws exist... just saying so, cause i'm studying it!
Explain how it is slander then please? Since you're the expert.
I hardly think you could characterize the defamation of character that would obviously be incurred by the comparison with a genocidal leader... and seeing as its spoken, that makes it slander. Do you understand? Its not fair to a person's character, and if you are arguing that it is I would imagine that you might have some sort of grudge...
Can anyone honestly believe that it wasn't what he was referring to when he made that remark?
Well he never said who he was talking about
Let see it could be someone else...?
I was very blunt who the comment was being made against, and seeing that the bulk of the students in attendance are the ones who are informed on the issue, and a good deal of them PIDSSA menbers. So I would agree with the comment made that it was slander, and not overly honourable seeing that the one it was made against wasn't there to defend himself.
That being said, I, along with others sitting right up front for the debate laughed our asses off at the comment. Poor taste, but funny.
Honestly, I can... honestly.
Anyone who disagrees with your point must harbor a grudge against Austin?
Guess the logical fallacy on that one and you win a prize.
But leaving your fallacies aside: it is clear to many that he was not comparing Austin to a genocidal world leader, but making a point about how arbitrary values can conflict with principles, values, and common sense.
And if you didn't see this... you probably don't hold a grudge against me... I hope.
I think that it should be offensive to just about anyone who knows anything about genocides. To the many people who have died in genocide. Perhaps he should apologize, if not to Austin on the basis that it was tasteless, he should at least apologize to the people he has offended who do not find genocide to be a very acceptable parallel to draw.
It is absolutely disgusting to make such a comparison.
It was a completely inappropriate comment, and anyone who doesn't understand that needs to get their head out of the pettiness of student politics for a moment and realize how offensive it is to draw a comparison between genocide and PIDSSA.
As this question revolves around a comment I made, I am prepared to explain and defend the point of view I hold.
First, I did not name anyone. The facts concerning this case are public information, which I myself followed in our very own La Rotonde.
Secondly, I did not use the term "genocide". This term has a very specific definition, and I choose my words carefully. I invite you to research the legal and internationally recognized definition. Here is one link : http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/gendef.htm
Thirdly, it is a widely spread practice to use strong, and sometimes provocative, images in order to prove a point. My point was that numbers cannot justify or redeem unethical behaviour. Values have no price and no magical number. The comparison with world leaders did not entail any particular historical event. Instead, I wanted to highlight the flawed perception that a certain amount of unethical behaviour is acceptable and that past that limitation, it becomes unacceptable. It is always unacceptable. Otherwise the term unethical would be meaningless.
In conclusion, I stand by my comment and hold that ethical behaviour cannot be measured in numbers.
Post scriptum
Thank you Eliz for reminding us of the importance of free speech. I will answer your own questions later today.
I would argue the statement above this one is exactly petty politics in itself (the one before RPG's just now).
Here is the proof: from the video clip presented, indicate the time the word 'genocide' was mentioned. It wasn't said, yet a few comments on here have already stated that that was the comparison. Saying he made a comparison between the PIDSSA and genocide simply isn't at all factual, and is only serving to straw man his argument or misrepresenting what was said.
All you 'it was offensive' crowd are quick to point out that anyone who disagrees with you is _____ (insert bad thing) when many rationally and clear thinking individuals can see the example provided and not think it's offensive.
It's your right to be offended... I just think what you believe the comparison being drawn was simply isn't the case.
"All you 'it was offensive' crowd are quick to point out that anyone who disagrees with you is _____ (insert bad thing) when many rationally and clear thinking individuals can see the example provided and not think it's offensive."
You just made the exact same fallacy that you are denouncing Nick. You are drawing that anyone who uses one incorrect fallacy should be discredited and as such all those who are offended by it are not clear thinking or rational individuals.
I don't understand what we're debating about.
Genocide or not, it is a tad absurd to talk about a small-time student politician who almost gets impeached for being lazy/incompetent and a World Leader that kills 15000 people.
Assuming it is not slander, it is certainly irresponsible and disrespectful to the small-time student politician.
Basically: Those who are not offended are logical, thinking beings. And those who are offended are irrational and cannot draw proper conclusions from obvious inferences.
Touche, Nick.
re: RPG's response.
First point: you don't need to name anyone; the connection you made should have offended *any* association president on campus whose federated body put forward an impeachment motion that fell just short of a constitutionally outlined two-thirds threshold for removal at a general assembly, and remained as president.
Second point: perhaps everyone should agree that the situation you described more accurately refers to a "mass-murdering world leader" or perhaps a "rampage killer"; both are still a pretty serious crime against humanity, so none of the impact of comparing a homicidal maniac with a local volunteer should be lost.
Third point: sure, you used some provocative rhetoric, and I think you proved your point to the audience present; a group of involved students, likely very familiar with the affairs of the SFUO, it's federated bodies, and it's volunteers. You took a controversial subject that you could be confident everyone present would be familiar with, without having to spend time on historical details. The speech was about the ethics of numbers, but it now seems that at least a few people (judging by comments on this blog alone) are finding a problem where you infer that someone acting completely within the letters of a constitution is comparable with a hypothetical world leader clearly and indisputably in violation of laws crafted to prevent the most despicable crimes.
Killing one person is illegal. Killing one person is wrong. Killing 15,000 people is illegal, and wrong.
Defending oneself during an impeachment proceeding is not illegal, and not forbidden under the constitution of the association involved.
Is it wrong? Who knows; that's probably for the person involved to consider.
The question for the campaign: Why do associations need constitutions if the SFUO president is supposed to be the final ruler on issues of "ethics"?
Yeah, I'd like to point out that slanderous material is only slanderous if it is untrue or not public knowledge. I don't know that there is anyone implicated in student affairs on campus who didn't know how he only managed to stay in office by a mere eight votes... you know? I knew.
@Ryan:
I completely agree. Good job Wassim!
So you argue that it is true that Austin killed 10,000 people?
Matt - I can only ask you re-read my statement, and not read more into what I actually said.
Logically speaking, simply because I state that "many rationally and clear thinking individuals can see the example provided and not think it's offensive"... it does not entail that those who think it is offensive are not.
It isn't a fallacy.
You may infer that's what I said, but your inference would be incorrect.
Just like he didn't use the word genocide, I didn't say "And those who are offended are irrational and cannot draw proper conclusions from obvious inferences" like you said I did.
Anyone who uses a fallacy, as a person, is not discredited. THe point they are trying to make re: their fallacy is however (at least logically).
I think it's funny that people in PIDSSA actually think that people know Austin and that other students even care about this make-belief controversy.
Quite honestly, nobody cares.
Maybe people shouldn't care about PIDSSA, cause I know I dont, but people should care about a SFUO candidate that is saying things like that.
I think that it’s a great way to get some votes. Even if some don't know the PIDSSA President, the people in Poli. Sci. etc do and they may turn out to vote for someone who is willing to address issues such as ethics.
We all know that politics students are a little twisted about the whole PIDSSA thing and the crap-shoot of a year that we've had... they turned out in numbers to vote at the impeachment...maybe they will again... if they're jaded enough ('common they're in POL, of course they're jaded enough)
RPG's got my vote.
Austin needs to relax. Obviously Renaud wasn't comparing him to a murdered. I am sure the audience, just like myself, have understood his comments to bring a little perspective and insight into the ethical challenges facing student politics. Sure, the comments might be taken out of context or might have seemed somewhat exaggerate but I hardly think it is worth filing a complaint, and what's more, it seems to me Austin's still feeling those 198 votes weighting down on his 'mandate'. Sure, no one likes to be made an example of, but, when the shoe fits...
108, not 198. my apologies.
The example may have been fair... but the characterization was not. Its hard to defend that.
Is it just me, or is this attracting more attention than the actual candidates?
Yes it is.
It's blown out of proportion.
"I think it's funny that people in PIDSSA actually think that people know Austin and that other students even care about this make-belief controversy."
LOL. How true.
Seriously though, I know there are students at UOttawa who are refugees from mass killings and genocides that were invoked in this discussion. For an over-excited SFUO candidate to belittle their pain and reference such atrocities to make a non-sensical point is irresponsible and, to me, quite vile. The PIDSSA obsessed need to take a deep breath and sim-simma.
I'm going to have to agree, its blown out of proportions. But he should apologize for the remark. It was completely awful. To say it was distasteful is a huge understatement.
I don't know Austin, but if someone said that referencing me I'd want an apology too!
Obviously if Austin takes offense, RPG should say that he's sorry for the remark.
Let's not compare this to a *real* political scandal (ie: fraud, manipulating election results etc).
Wow...You know a subject is touchy when everyone is staying anonymous to debate it.
*backs away slowly*
I think it is unfortunate that he used those words, even if it is freedom of speech. Granted, it is his right to say it, but will he continue to make these types of references as president?
I'm sure he'll have a PR team around with him everywhere he goes after this.
There were better examples that he could have used for his committee, yet he chose a dead issue
RPG
If you don't want to apologize to Austin regarding your matter, then thats your decision. But I do beleive you do owe the executives of PIDSSA and all members of PIDSSA an apology.
Since you were not at the G.A. and most likely have not been following with the aftermath of the impeachment process then you wouldn't know that a majority have been turned away by the procedures.
Yes, a majority were turned away by the fact the president chose to remain president even with a 60% for impeachment. But, a larger majority (1st 3rd and 4th year students of PIDSSA) were absolutely disgusted with the attitude and the way some of the executives presented themselves during the General Assembly. They felt the executives presented themselves in a childish manner and it turned em away.
Since September some of the executives such as myself, have been trying to bury the issue and move on so we can re-engage our members back into our association. But we have been overpowered because of the comments such as yours and by a certain group of students who actively involved in the impeachment procedures against the president.
I also Question your idea of ethics committee but that will be asked in the other group
Awaiting your reply
Ramy Sonbl
VP Social
AÉÉPID-PIDSSA
(Im doing this as anonymous since it won't let me put in a name)
No, I'm pretty sure its Austin that he owes the apology too... and the university community at large...
virginie: it doesn't necessarily means it's touchy, just that people don't really have the courage to openly state their points.
(and as university students, in a place where freedom of speech and critical thinking should be valued, why anyone would be afraid to openly state what they think is hardly understandable to me, unless someone is being two-faced.)
on the subject matter of the post, I disagree with RPG that using provocative images generally helps a point. I think being clear generally helps, in that case, couldn't he have just said that if a student union executive is alleged of serious ethical breaches, there should be an inquiry and possible sanctions, no matter how many students in his association still support him? (because unethical activities remain unethical even if 38% of people support them).
On the subject of people being two-faced, I wouldn't be especially surprised, but that's completely besides the point.
I concur that it was a terrible comparison. However, I'm fairly certain that he didn't mean to compare Austin to a world leader committing genocide. He was comparing numerical thresholds (How many murdered people consists a genocide? vs. How many people need to vote in favor of an impeachement for it to be valid.)
Austin has the right to have his complaint heard, but at the same time I still think this guy wasn't totally in the wrong.
I don't think he was comparing Austin to a world leader commiting genocide (although, as much as I don't like Austin I totally understand why he'd personally be upset and offended), but it was just an irresponsible, shady, and stupid thing to do... we're talking about PIDSSA here, which is of no 'real' importance in the world (calm down PIDSSA-ers, it's true), and to act like it is COMPARABLE-- and that's why Renaud was doing, he was COMPARING-- to something so horrific is wrong. And he ended up sounding stupid and frantic, anyway.
and the great majority of students who know of PIDSSA, Austin and this controversy were baffled and insulted! Rah! (no sarcasm.. ahem).
austin as a world leader??? bahahahahahaha, could anyone honestly not joke about the comparison???
For non-PIDSSAs, the impeachment WAS due to a real scandal, and the PIDSSA executive acted correctly according to their positions to bring the situation to light and let us, their constituents, know what austin had been up to all summer. When someone is signing cheques to themselves without following any proper authorization procedures, getting paid double (once from PIDSSA, once from the SFUO), ignoring their executive and causing mass division amongst an otherwise cohesive association...well, how much character does that person have left to be defamed?
Dont draw the other PIDSSA execs into this, former or current. They have NOTHING to do with it Ramy, and this is just stirring up old trouble once again. If Austin takes issue with being used as an example of poor ethics, (despite I and many others honestly thinking he kinda deserved it), then let that be his problem, and STOP dragging up the past!
oh come ON, Austin is making a big mistake confronting this statement. its really bad press for him, especially since he's running for VP social of PIDSSA in the hopes of cultivating a new base from which he wants to get elected to the fed on (anyone remember "awesome austin"? ).
his strategy says, " i need people who dont know how terrible i am at this stuff to get on the fed exec" but his complaint says "lets open this up to more than just the two hundred or so people who saw it".
not, in fact, the best strategist. who do you think rescued him from impeachment? mostly the first years this year who thought he was "awesome austin".cultivate but exacerbate?
strange.
(not slander, if you think it through)
actually, he only got paid once... i guess you weren't listening at the debate hearing, you know when dean said he returned the difference when the sfuo wrote the cheque for too much money... hm.
if the scandal that you are talking about is the cheques, then thats what the complete joke is. so don't misrepresent the situation because you don't like. and i make that inference from your opening line... the only scandal that i saw was that he wasn't around to help balance the books he had screwed up the year before...
THAT is petty politics. kinda lying too...
hey chelsea, as a student who was a member of the PSSA last year i can remember that you weren't very good either... i found that you didn't do all that much, and that the ball was kinda poorly advertised and the theme wasn't appropriate for a semi-formal. so i'm just saying i wouldn't comment about not being good at stuff you're elected to do.
also, didn't you get fired from the CSD?
(thats not slander, if you read it.)
Hey anonymous, well, I appreciate the feedback.
Lets see what points you address.
I didn't do all that much:
upon resuming office in october, most of my efforts to synchronize my platform into the financial situation of the PSSA were met with, "oh, next meeting/month we will have a financial update".
In short, it is difficult to do much at all when none of the audits had passed (for the entire time I was in office). Not having knowledge of the financial situation kind of puts things on hold, yes? I mean, I could have just gone on and spent irresponsibly, but I committed to the semi-formal and the formal as the main locations of my portfolios moneys.
I would have loved to do more, but it is not responsible to spend money you are not sure your student association has.
Im just guessing that you dont know how associations work, but without the money, few portfolios can organize the ideas of their platforms. Money comes first, not last.
the ball was poorly advertised:
I was never the VP Communications anglo, or franco. You can take up your concerns over the advertisement of the events with them.
The theme for the semi-formal: do you mean the roaring 20s jazz semi-formal, or the end of year ball? Either way, I'm sorry we have different aesthetic tastes. I tried to pick themes that didn't require students to spend inordinate amounts of money that they dont have. The 20s was simple: a feather on the head and some fake pearls will do, suspenders are cheap.
The end of year ball was not really themed at all. There was a bit of a throw back to a hawaiian theme, but not really. You could come as you are. Themes are a bizzare way of controlling how people dress. However, the music both times was fantastic! Live big band, and Soul Jazz Orchestra! WOO!
Also, no I was the interim service coordinator (the boss) AND the campaigns coordinator at CSD after the first coordinator left. I didnt apply for the position because I thought the centre needed someone who could commit to a couple years of improvements and continuity, and I am done my degree at the end of the year. So, instead of being the boss, AND the campaigns coordinator, now I am just the campaigns coordinator.
In other words, no, I wasn't fired.
And it is slander (the CSD "firing") because it certainly isn't common knowledge. Here I am, in the office right now. Most people know I work here. I have no idea where you heard I was fired, but writing it down as such is, in fact, slander.
Besides, I'm not so sure why you think bringing up my own record at all defends austins. I mean, attacking my history doesn't justify his. That is not a real argument. But hey, thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify that Austin really messed up the PSSA when I was VP social.
from what i understand of this situation, austin was a bad finance. as a result you are incapable of even planning an event without a budget? i see that as being a fallacy, as i am a member of a club on campus and we plan our events first and then seek out funding.
you were just as lazy as everyone else on that executive. there was not one redeeming person there, except catherine taylor in the summer who i was happy to be a guide for. i can't help but feel bad for anyone who was in the association that year. a year where you had nobody who wanted to be president, reluctant fillers for other positions as well, and then a first year was convinced to run for a position he was completely unqualified to assume. some of the fault is certainly his, but christ did anyone help him? where was greg all year? from what i understood, not present. did anyone lead that association? the constant finger pointing that that year left continued to the next year, and still exists (and seems to be appearing all over campus in the various interactions we have with executives).
i think that you should be just as ashamed as austin for his mistakes. the fact that you seem incapable to admit you didn't do much (and neither did anyone else) is a testament to it. nobody attended the 'roaring 20s' event, which was in hull correct? a vp social should be out getting people interested. and, the end of the year ball only happened because he lent money to the association (isn't that what the whole impeachment thing was about?)... and sure, it was his fault, but at least he did that much out of goodwill. so, you each had redeeming moments, but it was a very disappointing year overall (and you can blame whoever you want).
so how about you bury the hatchet for the sake of everyone? i am tired of poison that was seeping in from that year (realistically since kiavash and tristen had their spat) and remains pervasive. i'm sure i'm not the only one that feels that way. the vp comm is just lucky that not many people remember what a failure that year was and his responsibility. at least now we get regular emails and updates even though few of us care.
move on, and get over it. and if austin is reading this too, he should just own up to his shortcomings and get over it as well. can't you all just move on with your lives and admit you all made mistakes? i know the students would appreciate it.
Hi Lauren,
Well, I do believe that clubs are different from student associations. This rests on the premise that unlike clubs, you are responsible for pre-existing donations by your members for events, planification, and so forth.
Clubs, as I have been actively involved in as well, are not responsible in such a way, since they do not have funding per-student-per-association in the same way.
As such, yes, it is pretty much impossible to plan an event as you would like to, given that you do not have any idea how much money you have available to you. It is my view that as contributing members to such funds, it is the executives responsibility to spend those dollars in that fiscal year on those students who contributed.
The fact that PIDSSA had, through a lot of smoke and mirrors, a 10, 000 surplus is, let me CAPS this one, COMPLETELY IRRESPONSIBLE to the students in 4th year who contributed those funds but would not reap any kind of benefits from whatsoever. Linda S, who planned a graduation event, attended multiple executive meetings to apply/request funding for a grad ball. Consistently, austin had to tell her that the financial situation was ambiguous, we didnt know if we could contribute. She said, quite frankly, it has been a couple months, and the answer has stayed the same. She voiced her concern over the legitimacy of the spending of that year, since her ball was completely warranted, but her requests had to be forced out of the budget on the account of austins, well, austinism (re: dont do much)
I wouldnt so much toss around the word fallacy. What you were talking about was merely a differentiation of thresholds and memberships, not fallacies. And in this conversation, you aren't the only one who is part of a club. I have been part of the same processes you have been, none of this is unfamiliar to me.
There is a fundamental difference between being lazy and being fiscally responsible in the face of financial ambiguity.
If you are urging me that spending amounts that we were unsure we had is a good idea, I do hope you never run for a student association, or at best, you take the time to understand how irresponsible a position that is in the first place.
On a final note, austin did not fund the ball out of his own Goodwill, but the simple fact that should there be no end-of-year ball, people would truly have to question the financial situation of the former PSSA. Can you imagine? Students asking, hey, wheres the big party at the end of the year? And me saying, well, austin hasnt finished a single audit, but he's running for president next year, wish him luck... do you see this as good will or mere political consequence?
I suppose I see it more on the latter than the former. He would have truly looked more foolish than he already does, without "financing" an end of year ball.
Who was helping him? Well, if you look into it to confirm my assertions, you will find that Greg was present at more meetings than Austin. Austin had plenty of excuses; the same ones he uses now: School trumps involvement. Work trumps this and that. if you look into instances where he used such excuses, there are people willing to say, off the record, that they were there when austin wrote such emails detailing why he was not present; many of the reasons for which were not, simply put, true. Not all, but the guy had an arsenal of reasons why he couldnt be VP finance. When it comes down to it, from my experiences, you do not have enough reasons to justify not being VP finance from October until May. No series of reasons can justify this.
And, yes, many of us had slip ups here and there.
But let me tell you one thing. One reason why I still fully and completely do not forgive and forget:
I didn't run just for fun. I didn't run coz my friends said I should. I had a load of ideas. I stayed away from student associations and the student federation because it was the exact same thing every year.
I ran because I wanted to change things. I ran because I wanted to put out my ideas, to do things differently.
Imagine your whole cumulative critique being stepped on by the inconsistency and buffoonery of one executive member.
Everything you ran on, everything you thought you could do, and you never had any idea how much money there was to do it. You never knew if your ideas would cost future generations of PIDSSA'ers there own events decadence. I was willing to put myself out there, but I was not willing to be complicit in the mismanagement of a student associations funds.
For this, I will never "get over it". Imagine working up the courage to run for something, only to run into utter financial mismanagement. You want to be remembered for your different ideas and approaches, but you will be only remembered for what you didnt do, because of what someone else didnt do.
I know, far beyond what advice you can impart to me, that students do appreciate the fact that I did not put PIDSSA into debt. Not for want of ideas, but for lack of clarity.
Post a Comment