Should students pay the legal fees of Tamil protester?
Student unions give money to fund legal defense of UTSU executive director. Should they?
This is the question being raised as Toronto area students’ union consider a request from the president of the University of Toronto Students’ Union to assist in covering the legal costs of Angela Regnier, who participated in the blockade of a major Toronto highway on Mother’s Day.
Regnier was protesting the Sri Lankan government’s offensives against the Tamil Tigers, which resulted in civilians being caught in the middle. On May 10, Tamil protesters marched onto Toronto’s Gardiner Expressway and shut down this vital artery of the city’s transit grid. The protesters placed women and children in front of themselves in order to prevent police from ending their blockade.
Three people were charged with mischief and “interference with property” including Angela Regnier. Regnier works as Executive Director of the University of Toronto Students’ Union, a position she took soon after ending her terms as National Deputy Chairperson of the Canadian Federation of Students.
The University of Toronto – Mississauga student newspaper The Medium reports UTSU president Sandy Hudson has requested other student unions to assist Regnier in covering her legal costs stemming from her decision to participate in the blockade.
UTSU president Hudson claims the donations are to “support the constitutional rights of individuals to demonstrate peacefully and participate in civil disobedience.”
The University of Toronto – Mississauga Students Union voted to give $1,000 to Regnier’s legal costs.
The question I ask, should students be funding the legal defense of Regnier in this case?
It depends if she was at the blockade officially representing the University of Toronto Students’ Union engaged in an act of “civil disobedience” authorized by the students of the University of Toronto. If she was there as Executive Director of UTSU, the answer is yes; the students of the University of Toronto should be footing the bill. If Regnier was there as a private citizen, I do not see it has the responsibility of students to pay her fees.
What do you think?
Joey, thank you for letting me know when it’s an appropriate time to label racism. I’m always waiting for a white person to provide me with those guidelines.
I think it’s perfectly on topic to discuss how racism is informing people’s opinions on this matter. The fact that someone is arguing against this allocation of funds by invoking the word “pan-national” shows that race is at play in this discussion.
Firstly…
@Sam
There is no need for feeling that Jeff was being racist here. at a time like this, especially with people fearing the economic recession, people are very careful about where their money is being spent. Jeff’s post did not hit me with a racist tone at all, and I would responded if I felt there was one.
In my view, I think he meant…that he didn’t support the idea of the student union (one group comprised of students from many different cultural backgrounds), raising money to try and resolve every issue that arises in the world…
It would be more appropriate to use the word “racism” when we see ignorant people look at our protest, and start posting nonsense about “terrorists in Toronto”:, and make other similar ignorant comments…
@ Jeff and Erin
I am a 3rd year student at the University of Waterloo, and also carefully watch how my union spends the 250 dollars I pay every term to my student unions/federations. However…
If the student union did not have the funds, would they have really cut funding for one of their more vital programs to allocate this money for this cause? I doubt they have really put the need for assisting Regnier above their duty to look out for the student population that they represent…
On a larger scale, at the federal level, governments democratically decide whether to assist a developing/war-torn/recovering country; how to assist them, and how much they are able to assist. They don’t collect extra money from Canadian citizens for this effort, but they re-allocate money and send money for these causes.
This is not done because of a responsiblity, duty, etc., but the decision is made based on the moral values of the politicians, and hopefully, also in the values of the people they have been elected to represent. However, they do not cut funding for necessary programs to do this effort; the population often gets worked up because they do not know where the money is coming from, and start reacting as if they are about to pay increased taxes, etc. for the government’s decision. It is not as simple as that… and I’m sure this is the same case that can be seen in the union’s decision.
Sam, you know nothing about me. Among other things, I spent last summer working for a legal aid labour law clinic, which informed an extremely well-received blog on this very site. And then you turn around and suggest I know nothing the world of employment.
I genuinely won’t dignify your accusations with a direct reply. You don’t deserve one. If you wanted to engage me (or anyone) on the subject of racism you are welcome to do so. If and when you begin that dialogue civilly, I may reply. But to begin any dialogue with “what you are really saying is X” is frankly offensive. I know how to express myself. I know how to say what I intend to say, when when I intend to say something I’ll say it.
Your approach to this subject matter is aggressive, incendiary, and counter-productive. It violates the very first rule of dialogue that you would learn in any anti-oppression workshop (should you bother to attend one) where you would learn to speak for yourself rather than other people.
In my comments I wrote about what I believe. I did not presume to ascribe motives to other people, or to tell anyone else what they were “really” saying or thinking. Until you learn to do the same, I don’t believe I have a lot to learn from you.
Sam,
Why are you trying to disguise the issue at hand, like Joey mentioned—Should student unions be funding the legal defense of the UTSU Executive Director?
Take away all other factors…anything Jeff mentioned and that is the main issue.
Student Unions thinking they have the right to give student dollars to someone who gets arrested for illegally protesting.
disgusting!
Go ahead, call me racist too. Whatever helps you shift attention away from the real issue at hand.
By the way I’m a person of colour and I still think this is outrageous.
Why don’t these “student leaders” donate from their own pockets? They sure make enough money. UTSU execs make nearly $30,000.00. Surely they can afford to make a donation without taking it from students.
The UTM student union recently raised their own salaries to $20,000.00 (just like real politicians!) It angers me that they took money from students when they make so much already.
It was clearly their personal relationships with Regnier that motivated this donation. I read that the President of UTMSU said the executive director of UTSU was targeted.
RIGHT…. OUT OF ALL THOSE PEOPLE their good friend happened to be targeted. Bad excuse. Try again!
Jeff, I didn’t post here to “engage” with you on the subject of racism. I posted here to highlight the way in which racism has informed your opinion on this matter.
Perhaps you think that your attendance at an anti-oppression workshop has certified you as a non-racist white person, but most people realize that our society is racist and people often replicate racism without realizing it.
So please don’t react defensively when I point out how your comments are problematic.
Until you clarify what you meant by saying that legal defense offered to a person arrested IN TORONTO is making the student union “pan-national”, I stand by my assertion that the comment is racist.
Sam,
your tactics to distract readers from the issue at hand are pathetic.
If you want to post about the issue at hand go ahead but please stop attacking Jeff. He made valid points. Obviously it got under your skin. Grow up!
@Sam. Oh, I get it now. My mistake was posting as myself, with a photo, which allows you to identify my race, gender, etc. and then make accusations stemming from them. Obviously you find your anonymity comforting, which spares you from the possibility that you will be attacked on the basis of your race, gender, etc.
Allow me to repeat myself. You are in no position to demand justification from me. In fact, you seem alone in the offence you’ve taken, and were even called out by the very person I was replying to when I posted.
Merely making inflammatory accusations does not entitle you to the moral highground. If someone wishes to ask, in some civil fashion, for clarification from me I may offer it. But truly, you said it all, when you specified that you don’t want to engage. Those who care about ignorance in this world do want to engage. You simply want to accuse. So if it’s any wonder why I can’t be bothered responding – there you go. People who simply want to accuse can never be adequately placated.
Jeff, I’d be willing to give you the benefit of the doubt if you would just answer Sam’s question.
This wasn’t a donation given to the Tamil cause, the Tamil Tigers, or any group campaigning on an international issue. This was a donation given to legal defence for someone arrested at a demonstration in Toronto. Why did you describe that as making the student union “pan-national”?
Hey, a civil request! Thanks for asking, Fernanda. In fact, I have the bulk of my answer prepared for you, in a very concise 1,800 words or so. I wrote a blog about it last night for this very site:
http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2009/07/02/the-limits-of-an-elected-students-mandate/
I believe student unions frequently exceed their mandates on all kinds of issues, both international and more local. I believe it’s a real problem. Describing why student unions shouldn’t try to correct every social ill in the world took quite a few words (as you’ll see) and so the best way I could illustrate why unions aren’t positioned to do that effectively or appropriately (and esp. without damaging what they -can- do best) was to describe that at pan-national. It was a word chosen for a quick comment. It isn’t vital to my point, and in my blog article I managed to make due without it.
The fact remains that every justification for funding Ms. Regnier’s legal costs comes down, in large part, to the rationale that what’s going on in Sri Lanka (or the Tamil homeland, if you prefer) is very important and therefore the protests themselves are very important and therefore what Ms. Regnier was doing is very important. No one is seriously trying to claim she was acting on union business. And as many have pointed out, student leaders can and have gotten in legal trouble before – up to and including those recently dragged out of Simcoe Hall. No one is suggesting that unions should fund everyone’s legal defences. The argument, in this case, is that the cause is really important.
And that, from my perspective, is an impossibly deep rabbit hole. There are hundreds if not thousands of compelling, humanitarian causes around the world, and some in Canada as well. Arguments about which of them are important enough to prompt the intervention of students’ unions in Canada (or the legal defence of those who go out and protest those causes on their own time) would be endless and fruitless. I simply don’t believe unions should go there at all as a blanket policy. And I did protest the invasion of Iraq when I was an elected student, btw, only I did it on my own time and didn’t expect the union’s funding if it somehow went wrong.
If anyone doubts that these arguments -are- based fundamentally on the importance of the Tamil cause, just pause for a moment and read the first 30 comments on this thread. Again, I don’t for a moment dispute the importance of the cause. I simply believe that was never the question. So I wrote an extremely long blog to explain why.
Thank you for the civil question, and I apologize for my role in allowing this absurd name-calling squabble to disrupt the discussion.
Yeah, sorry Jeff but that sounds pretty racist. Legal defence for a Tamil protest in Toronto is “pan-national”? Would you say that about legal defence for a tuition fee protest?
Okay, see, this is why I don’t bother. The fact that the protest was located in Toronto is, for my point, entirely irrelevant. You know how many protests are located in Toronto? There are probably three occurring right now.
If you bothered to read my blog you’d already have the answer to your question regarding tuition fees. I consider tuition fees squarely within the mandate of a students’ union and therefore, yes, a different circumstance.
I hope the reasonable people of this world, reading this discussion, will appreciate and excuse me for no longer replying to anonymous people who call me a racist as their opening line. If there was any truth to your point I might not find it as offensive as I do – but in fact it is a deeply offensive thing to say and it boggles my mind that some people throw the word so readily.
Yes, it is possible to support a cause and still believe that not every organization in the world should wade into it. If I were approached as an individual to donate to Ms. Regnier’s defense I might even reach for my wallet. But I don’t believe that students’ unions are positioned to take on issues of this nature, and I find it truly regrettable that people who want to advocate for their opposing view find it easier to call me offensive things rather than simply appreciate that I might disagree in good conscience.
Wow, it seems the discussion has gone on quite a tangential discussion.
I’m going to comment on the central question – should student unions be providing these funds to Ms. Regnier?
Some posters have claimed support for the initiative, noting solidarity for human rights everywhere and the right to free protest. If this were the case, should the unions not be raising funds for the defense of ALL the arrested protestors? Instead, they are supporting “one of their own,” a paid staffer (not a student, thanks to others for correcting as well). This appears to be a conflict of interest, or at the very least self-righteous in-group favouritism. Some commenters have claimed these unions are donating to the cause “of their own free will.” But when the individual is so intricately tied into the union, the question must arise of whether these actions are in support of a vague principle, or whether that rhetoric masks a decision made based on their personal relationship. (On a sidenote, it’s amazing how UTSU likes to have it both ways – CFS union execs from other students who campaign for the incumbents are “supporting their friends”; but they’re not supporting Ms. Regnier as a friend, but on the basis of the principle of free speech)
Others have mentioned that she is representing students, the union, themselves, etc. This is mistaken. In no way did the U.T.S.U. authorize Ms. Regnier to represent the Union at such an event (if they did, I’d love to see the minutes). This status cannot be granted after the event – rather, the Union could only condone her actions (Which I also believe it has not done). She was there as an individual, and thus should not be able to access the resources at her disposal because of her proximity to power.
I further detest the entitlement of impunity that protestors such as Ms. Regnier have assumed. As has been noted above, civil disobedience requires an assumption of responsibility for violating a (presumably unjust) law, and a willingness to take the consequences. Those with their hands on the reins of power shouldn’t assume they can do whatever they want on the grounds that students can pay for their “get out of jail free” card.
The other arrested protester is having their legal defence covered by their campus trade union. Why no outrage over that? Looks like you guys just have an axe to grind with this organization and this individual. Sad.
Actually, if that was my trade union I’d be pissed.
So if your union isn’t there to defend you, what are you paying dues for?
Angela is not a student. It is not HER student union because she is full-time staff. She does not pay a student fee toward the student union. She is on their payroll however, as full-time staff.
Erin Alvarez, do you pay a student fee toward this student union? If not, why do you have any say on this issue? Why don’t you let the people who were actually elected by the student union membership to make the decision? It’s called democracy.
Dear P,
Why do you target Erin? There have been a wealth of comments on this article, not all of them from people who pay dues towards this union. Is it because you disagree with something Erin said?
Calling Erin out specifically is dishonest.
I think it’s pretty obvious why I addressed the question to Erin, but I’ll make it clear.
Erin is arguing against a decision made by the democratically elected representatives of the student union. Erin is using the argument that only people who pay fees to the student union can receive its support, even if the union democratically decides to make a donation.
I am asking if Erin is a member of the student union, because it would be highly undemocratic for someone who is not a member and does not pay fees to the organization to tell other people what they are allowed to do with their money.
I don’t agree. I don’t think there’s anything democratic or un(democratic) about criticising how a student union (or really anyone!) spends their money. It might be a social faux pas, but it’s hardly undemocratic to say, “Wow that was a poor use of funds. I don’t think that you should be spending money on that.”
Not being a member of the union is hardly a reason to keep one’s mouth shut. You’re poised over a very slippery slope when you say that.
It’s one thing to say “this is a poor way to spend your funds.” That’s up for debate.
What Erin has argued, however, is that the student unions don’t even have “the right” to donate to this legal defense fund.
That’s why I think it’s pertinent to question whether Erin is a member of the student union. If you’re not a member, you don’t have the right to tell the students of the University of Toronto what they’re allowed to do with their own money.
“The student union should not contribute towards her legal fees”
is not equivalent to
“The student union can not contribute towards her legal fees”
The first is an opinion, and, just as anyone can have an opinion on, say, the Catholic Church, anyone can have an opinion on whether a student union should cover the legal costs of one of its employees.
The latter is a statement of fact which:
- is obviously not true.
- no one is seriously arguing, I think.
@ P
I am a student who does pay to the student union. I mentioned I was an undergrad earlier. Why so angry?
@ Sean Maguire
Erin Alvarez posted here: “Student Unions thinking they have the right to give student dollars to someone who gets arrested for illegally protesting. disgusting!”
If that’s not saying student unions don’t have the right to make this donation, what is it saying?
Erin, it’s pathetic to keep trying to attribute anger to people who simply question your rationale. It’s the internet. Unless someone is typing in all caps, you’re just projecting your own emotions on others.
Also, I couldn’t find your name in the UofT student lookup. Did you make up your name or your student status?
@ PaulR
I will make it clear that I am NOT a a member of the UTSU. I’ve actually never been to Toronto, but I am a member of another undergraduate student union in this province. I won’t tell you which one though, in case you try to run a background check on someone posting on the Macleans blog.
I agree with the comments of Erin and others, that student unions should not be in the business of providing legal defense money for private actions of their own staff members UNLESS the actions were clearly directed and endorsed by the union, or were directly related to a cause which is clearly educational in scope.
While there may be situations where there are legal defence funds at many universities or student unions for use by their members regardless of what kind of legal troubles they get in, I personally find it extremely troubling that student money is being spent in this particular instance. While I recognize that the UTSU council has democratically voted to provide this money, I highly doubt that the council was impartial in this matter due to their personal friendship with the staff member. In fact, with no knowledge of this union or how it operates, I would suspect that this motion was created or strongly endorsed by full time executive members, who unduly influence voting councillors, as happens in just about every student union across this country.
If a staff member was arrested and charged tomorrow in the aftermath of a rally in support of the traditional definition of marriage, would that staff member see the same legal defence fund contribution? I would suspect not.
I don’t expect my employer to help me out with legal bills for something I do on private time. And I certainly don’t want my student union to be spending time and MY money on social causes which do not relate to the purpose of their existence.
Of course no one “expects” their employer to help out with legal bills. But your employer is perfectly within their rights to democratically decide that they want to assist with legal defense if the actions of the employee are consistent with the political objectives of the organization.
The student union took a public position against the human rights violations in Sri Lanka, so attending this demonstration was consistent with the objectives of the organization.
If the Executive Director of Greenpeace was arrested at a demonstration on an issue Greenpeace had endorsed, do you think it would be inappropriate if the board decided to donate to his/her legal defense fund?
How creepy of you to look me up! Erin is my middle name. I am definitely a student at u of T! you’re a creep!
and before you ask me for my gender, sexual orientation, race, student number, residence room number or anything else to reveal my identity i think you should try to understand why me or other students have problems with this. It’s just a forum… relax! People are allowed to give their opinions, too bad if it upsets you so much that you had to look me up…time to change my security settings
If you’re going to call for the impeachment of student union executives and use someone else’s name to make accusations against them, at least have the sign with your real name.
Sure thing, PaulR. That must be your full name.
My last name isn’t listed because I’m not calling for impeachment of student union executives.
Let’s get back to the topic please.
I’m a bit surprised by the emotional detours the discussions have taken. I did not see events in Sri Lanka as the issue, I was focused on the paying of legal expenses for the UTSU executive director.
People are correct to state that the UTSU is well within its ability (the term often used is rights) to fund the legal defense of their executive director. The question is should they being doing so.
The question I’m asking know, after some great comments, is if it is fair for them to fund her legal defense without funding the legal defenses of their own members?
Let’s do our best to not get too emotional (I don’t say “let’s not be emotional, because we are human) about the issue and focus on the questions being posed.
I blog not so much to express/report on issues, I truly blog in order to explore the issues I write about.
There are other places on the internet for mindless chatter and emotional bickering, this is not one of them.
Are there any members who have been rejected by UTSU for funding legal defense? As far as I’m aware, UTSU has contributed to legal defense for its own members for a variety of reasons over the years.
Joey, unless you can come up with a case of someone approaching UTSU and being rejected, I think you should rephrase your question so it does not assert that the student union does not fund “the legal defenses of their own members”.
PaulR, the UofT 14 who occupied Simcoe did not get money from UTSU for legal defense. That’s just of the top of my head. They got pro bono legal support and OIPRG helped fund raise for them.
@PaulR
You make a good point, the phrasing of the questions does open the impression that you point to.
It is clear that the UTSU will now have to create a legal defense fund policy. Since they are funding the defense of a UTSU insider, the question arises if the UTSU Executive/Council can turn down a request from one of their own members.
Which is an absolute question, and the answer is, of course they can. However, they will be open to accusations of insider favouritism.
Joey, that’s not what policies are intended for. Policies are created to provide guidelines in the absence of directives from those with decision-making power in each individual circumstance.
For items that occur frequently, such as space booking requests, a policy is necessary to ensure that groups are treated equitably when the elected representatives don’t have the time to debate every single request. For items that occur infrequently, a policy is not necessary because there is likely enough time for the issue to be debated by the decision-making body. And wouldn’t you rather have these types of political decisions made by the elected representatives, rather than by bureaucrats interpreting a policy?
You’re being far too limiting on the definition of a policy, PaulR. Policies are also useful to ensure continuity within an organization, and to make the organization’s likely actions predictable and accountable to outsiders. As you mention, equitable treatment is another benefit of a policy – it helps assure all groups that procedure and agreed-upon, transparent standards are the benchmark, not personal relationships. And as a former elected student representative, I can assure you that policies are helpful for more than simply bureaucrats.
On a different note, PaulR, you seem to have provided further justification for why student organizations shouldn’t get involved in issues beyond their mandate. By your reasoning, because the Union condemned the situation in Sri Lanka it is justified in funding an Executive who was charged at the rally (which still doesn’t explain why other unions would contribute funding, but that’s a different story). But where does this end? Should the union be contributing funds directly to Tamil organizations to help alleviate suffering? Should they as a Union blockade St. George Street? Maybe fund union representatives to go to Sri Lanka to directly alleviate suffering? It’s a slippery slope, my friend, which is why I concur with Jeff Rybak’s recommendation to leave these non-pertinent issues the hell enough alone.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html
I wish I could get arrested, get fined, then go to my work and ask them to cover the legal costs.
I have written about the expanding scope of student “unions” and the CFS a couple of times. If the students are fighting for the direct rights of students on campus, as in a sit-in or a legitimate rally on campus, then that would be a suitable reason to cover some legal costs.
This had nothing to do with the students of the University of Toronto.
Ken, you have also written that the CFS should be “apolitical”, so you would argue against a student union donating to any cause whatsoever.
You also argue that student unions and the CFS become more like trade unions like PSAC by providing benefits to its members.
I’m not going to rehash all the CFS member services since you’re probably aware of them and simply choose to forget, but you’re painfully mistaken if you think that PSAC doesn’t participate in political action.
PSAC advocates on a broad range of political issues, not just those that are strictly related to the workplace. See here: http://www.psac.com/issues/index-e.shtml
PSAC even has a Social Justice Fund for international work and humanitarian assistance, going far beyond any donation from a student union or the CFS for international issues: http://www.psac-sjf.org
One Thing I can say about PSAC is at least it spends the vast majority of its time and resources fighting for and representing its membership. I would assume that the CFS is doing the same but, when ever I hear about it in the news (campus and other media) I hear about it either having an internal fight over reform or they have passed a motion that angers a good portion of the students it represents. Other than the ritual once yearly mass protest, how often do you hear about the CFS tackling Education issues in the news?
I will admit that it may be that fact that the media is most likely ignoring what the CFS is doing. If this is the case maybe the CFS should focus more on the education aspect of its mandate and try to achieve substantial victories (Tuition reductions) before it runs around taking on other non-education issues.
PSAC can look into other issues because it has mostly managed to gain the victories it originally set out to achieve. The CFS has yet to do this. It should focus only on education issues tell it achieves its major objective. Once the objective is reached, I am sure students will entertain the idea of supporting other causes. For the time being there are other organizations on campus that interested students can go to (i.e. OPIRG, Campus Clubs, NGOs) if they are interested in other national and international issues.
How have you come to the conclusion that PSAC has “managed to gain the victories it originally set out to achieve”? With more and more of the federal public service being privatized and contracted out, I don’t know how you can make that argument. I’d say the privatization of the public service is just as much a setback for PSAC as tuition fee increases are for the CFS.
I think you’re grasping at straws to justify why trade unions can take on international issues but student unions shouldn’t.
I don’t think I am grasping at straws at all. Unions were formed to ensure better working conditions (Safe workplace, 40 hour work week, vacation and sick leave etc.) for their members and in my opinion I think they have achieved that. Now the trade unions must fight to ensure that they maintain what they have which In my opinion takes much less resources. Unions now have a surplus of resources and can use them to achieve other objectives as directed by their membership.
If the privatization of the public service is a big issue and a huge set back for PSAC maybe they should take a look at its priorities and adjust its resources accordingly. It’s basic organizational theory, you always have to evaluate and adjust. If you have achieved your original mandate you must come up with a new one or risk fading away. If the environment you were operating in changes you must adapt or risk fading away. PSAC’s environment and mandate has changed from what it was at its founding, its progression into non-labour issues is its attempt to stay relevant with its members and in its environment.
The CFS on the other hand has mostly failed to achieve its mandate. It has, in my opinion, taken on so many causes in an attempt to be relevant to everyone that it has alienated many students it represents. Brining the focus back to education, directing all its resources to that end would make the CFS a better more focused organization that could achieve some significant results for its members.
I will never argue that an organization cannot take on issues beyond its original mandate. What I am arguing is, should they go beyond their original mandate and what circumstances should exist before they do? Why should a student union or the CFS take on other social justice issues when they have yet to achieve their major goals and when there are other organizations (OPIRG, Campus Clubs, Other NGOs) on campus that an interested student can turn to?
Privatization of the public sector is pretty much a fear mongering stance used by the unions to garner more support, and it usually doesn’t work (which is why you rarely hear about it). AND, when it does become a factor, as with the CFIA, PSAC (and other unions involved) focus their attention on it. A question to ask yourself is: would the Canadian Public Service be a strong without Unions such as PSAC or CUPE? Or to phrase it a different way, if the unions did not exist, what would the public sector look like? Now pose that question in regards to students and the CFS.
But this article is in regards to whether or not the Students should have to foot the legal bill for something a staff member did on her own time. Which is a big no.
Thanks for the link, PaulR. I particularly found the first example interesting, since it’s a claim UTSU has made repeatedly (“We have to stop the tuition increase! The next thing you know, they’ll be charging $40,000 a semester!”).
My term was a little trite. I stand by what I said, but perhaps it would be better rephrased as “blurring the lines of appropriateness.” The fact is, you claimed they were within their right to take this action, as it aligns with their political objectives. But so many actions can be justified by their “political objectives” (again, not even getting into the issue above of whether this is an appropriate political objective for a student union) – so where will the line be drawn? And on what grounds will they be able to justify it?
Craig, please show us this supposed claim that the UTSU makes “repeatedly”, about tuition fees increasing to $40,000 a semester. For some reason I think you’re making it up.
Again, I’ve allowed my haste to get in the way of clarity of language – my apologies. I should have clarified that it’s the TYPE of fear-mongering claim that UTSU often makes (sometimes as part of CFS campaigns). This rhetoric was invoked during the annual tutition fee raise in 2008 for sure, as well as during their plebscite on the Towards 2030 plan held last fall (arguing that tuition would skyrocket to U.S. private college levels, despite an entirely different vision being outlined in the document). While I’m sure you’re aware many campaign web materials are removed following the end of the campaign, I was able to find an allusion to their obscurist fear-mongering tactics in the comments of Rob Steiner, in this Varsity article: http://thevarsity.ca/article/3516.
If you’re finished attacking me on tangential issues, PaulR/”P”, I’d like to refocus the debate on the central issue that you seem to prefer to elude: is it appropriate for the Union to fund Ms. Regnier’s legal fees? And where can they draw the line?
–
Also, here’s a link to a Varsity article that was just published on the situation: http://thevarsity.ca/article/19424-student-unions-donate-to-protestor-s. Enjoy!
No student unions should not fund full-time employees when they decide to do somethingi illegal
If you MUST then do a fundrasiser don’t just take it out of students pockets.
These are the same people protesting for tuition decrease? If it wasn’t being wasted on someone’s legal fees maybe I would attend one of their meetings or protests.
Back to the main point, NO student unions should focus on STUDENTS because without them who would they “represent”?
I think that more students should speak up…would it really make a difference though? tsk tsk! Critcize the U of T Admin….and politicians …yet they pull this stuff.
@Everyone
THIS THREAD IS CERTIFIED AWESOME!
Someone accused Jeff Rybek of being a racist because he is white, PaulR is internet stalking people, there are glorious uses of fishing metaphors, and someone else is attempting to justify why trade unions should observe international events yet student unions shouldn’t.
…only at MacLeans On Campus
Steve,
I feel honoured that I get mentioned twice on your astonishment.
I have to admit this conversation has gone on for a long time and has shifted focus many times. I am surprised Godwin’s Law has yet to take effect. I thought we were close when people started throwing around accusations of racism.