Jeffrey Aho

Well, here we are again. Another referendum for CKMS was held and they lost 2005 to 2460. Unsurprisingly, there was an uproar of contempt for student opinion from the CKMS camp. They didn’t get it last time and they don’t get it now.

The first reactionary comments were on the voter turnout (~18%), which sounds low, but in reality is higher than average. Frankly, I was surprised that it made quorum in the first place, and even more at this large of turnout. Of course they point out that the difference was 455 votes, as if increasing voter turnout would close the gap for them (it wouldn’t). This was an unquestionable defeat for CKMS.

Next came the attacks on their opponents. First the CKMS Pres says their opponents “don’t care about culture”. Then the anonymous commentary. Several of them complain that it was only $2.50 and was refundable. They are missing the point; here were the concerns I raised during the campaign. Despite what Davenport expected, I did not, nor did I ever have the intention of bringing money into this. Money wasn’t the issue, as demonstrated by the approval of millions of dollars for a Health Services expansion compared to the $100K a year for CKMS.

CKMS continued to hide behind the concept of campus radio and ignored the specific criticism. I made it clear that it was a problem with them and not the idea of campus radio. You may slap on a new name, but the underlying problems continued to exist. I believe this was in large part due to not swapping out the old CKMS guard from their government. The reality was that it was still controlled by a few community members and a couple of dedicated, but stuck in the old mindset, students. This was clear by their low student membership numbers.

Take for example the Treasurer who presided over the largest loss of revenue in the station’s history; they elevated her to Vice-President and put her as Chair of their Policy Committee. Having the most ardent supporter of the last station manager in such a position does not lead to real change. Her hard line stance to refuse to accept that it might just be a problem with the station is clear in her commentary. If you look at the comments in the same article, we have another CKMS board member expressing how opponents are “delusional” and he clings again to the claim that this was about campus radio and not CKMS.

Next we can look at another board member who expresses the same fallacy. Clearly it can’t be opposition to them because they are campus radio – this is an attack on independent media! This sense of entitlement unfortunately wasn’t shaken after the last referendum. The commentary extends to other media who, in my opinion, didn’t even look into the issue and just supported them because they were media. Of course the NCRA doesn’t deviate from this position either.

In light of all this, it is clear that they still would have failed if I had run no campaign at all, which wouldn’t have have been much of a change from what I actually did. I was sick for most of the campaign, which limited me to only one late campaign debate that I believe really didn’t sway anyone. It was just CKMS fanboys asking irrelevant questions. I had no website, no posters, no buttons, no class talks. I spent $0; a reduction from my last campaign. I’m flattered if they believe my opening comments in the debate (later posted on the Feds website) changed the course of the referendum, but it’s much more likely that I did not change the inevitable course to failure they set themselves on.

Not all of this can be placed on them though. Feds Executive and Council are the ones that allowed this to happen at this time, which had campaigning during midterms. If Council was going to call it, they should have done it 2 terms ago when the failed petition was submitted. Their feet dragging pushed CKMS into the current corner and imminent eviction, where if it was done in the Winter and it failed they’d have the Fall to have tried again. Instead it was left to Feds’s board to dictate what they wanted and Council rubber stamped it with no debate on a crappy referendum question.

If I was CKMS, right after the last referendum I would have laid off the staff immediately, not spent a fortune on legal battles, put in an entirely new board, put in motion reforms, and last Fall began collecting 3000 signatures for a petition to hold a referendum during the Feds February election. That would have ensured a buffer and allowed them to run the referendum on their own terms, not on Feds’s misguided agreement and wording. CKMS themselves admitted in the debate that they hated the agreement yet they signed it because Feds forced it upon them. Some independent media they were agreeing to.

There has been a little side debate about criticism, with Davenport and a columnist discussing their thoughts on some of my actions. The columnist is a stalwart CKMS supporter who wasted my time at the debate by not asking questions during the question period about any of my actual stances. Oddly, he claims that my criticism is not pragmatic, which is an interesting notion as usually I’m the one criticizing a normative position for lack of pragmatism. I presented what I continue to believe is a feasible alternative and just because no actions are taking place right now doesn’t make it is infeasible.

My roommate asked why CKMS doesn’t host a panel on the hot engineering topic of PDEng and invite the PDEng Director and opponents to an on-air discussion. Before such an event they could advertise “PDEng Debate Sunday on CKMS”. This is an example of campus engagement that doesn’t exist. Their biggest asset is their original programming, yet they don’t make use of it. They needed to be unconventional. They needed to take risks. Instead they were submissive and unimaginative, like their name: Sound-FM. If campus radio is to succeed at UW in the future then it needs to reform, not rebrand.

It’s been a while, but I’m still in Waterloo puttering away at my minor. Two topics: Canadian Election and Hate Speech/Crimes.

I’m glad that it looks like we won’t be having an election this Fall. My reason is not the common one being thrown around, that we are in a recession. I’d like to note that it appears that the recession ended in June. I don’t want an election because I want the Liberal party to spend more time developing policy. Furthermore, I would like to see the House reorganized as is being proposed, as it will be more reflective of demographics and fairer representation.

This doesn’t mean that I support the current government. I am outraged at the $56+ billion deficit (caused partly by the stupid populist move to lower the GST – BTW, I’m pro HST). I’m not against deficits in bad times, but this is due to mismanagement. I’m upset that the government has ruled out introducing carbon taxes. I’m upset at Harper’s attacks on our judicial system. Ignatieff had a great speech in the House that I think everyone should watch.

The other topic that I want to talk on is about hate speech. I have in the past been supportive of laws against speech that advocates violence. I now am opposed to it. First, I’d like to note that just because a law is constitutional, doesn’t mean that we should have it. I note that as Hate Speech laws are constitutional as a result of R. v. Keegstra. I personally side with Chief Justice McLachlin’s dissent (a Justice that Canadians should be proud to have), but the reality is that the law is constitutional now.

To me it comes down to the idea that your actions and not your thoughts/speech are which should be punished. The reality is that the current laws are not used for cases where an individual is advocating violence, but when they say things which people are offended. The Human Rights Tribunals/Commissions are being used to silence thoughts people don’t like. An example was the Mark Steyn case, while ultimately dismissed, demonstrates the problems with the law. I read Steyn’s book, and while I found it to be garbage, it was not hate speech.

There are numerous other examples of cases resulting from section 13.1 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. It should be abolished. Similarly, I disagree with hate crime legislation. It effectively also punishes beliefs such as racism and homonegativity, which are not – and should not – be illegal. There are statutes to deal with the crimes, including assault and organizing violence. While I find attacks like the one last month in TBay abhorrent, their beliefs are not what matters, only their actions and intent to harm.

Currently Listening to: I Gotta Feeling – Black Eyed Peas

Random Wikipedia Link: Panopticism

Midterms start Monday so I feel the need to get out some thoughts and clear my mind. These days I generally just share links directly with friends I think will be interested, usually via Facebook (though Levi and Rajan tend to email me links). If I think a lot of other people will be interested, then I will post it to Reddit. While I visit Reddit daily, I find that I rarely comment anymore. The community has gotten so large that I’m overwhelmed by the comments. It seems as well that since they introduced their sub-reddits anything I do post gets buried. This means I rarely do get to share the posts/topics.

Some topics: 1) Follow up from the Indian Act in my last post – the Government is not challenging the court ruling, but the plantiff is. Looks like this issue is going to continue to drag on. 2) Ontario opened their adoption records – I find the event interesting but didn’t know of it until a friend mentioned it. 3) Here’s a link to Balsille’s website supporting the move of the Phoenix Coyotes to Hamilton. I hope this works out in Balsille’s favour – the matter is being worked out in court.

I was quite pleased to see the Governor General participate in a Inuit ceremony that involved gutting and eating part of a raw seal heart. It both aids to promote a part of Canadian culture and also acknowledges the importance the seal hunt plays in Eastern Canada. Of course many ‘animal rights’ groups were upset – maybe instead they can focus on their own scandals instead.

GM’s Oshawa truck plant, where I worked on my last co-op, has closed. GM went into bankrupcy protection and an arrangement has been made for the CAW, and US and Canadian governments to hold part ownership. I was opposed to the bailouts and supported bankruptcy proceedings last year. With the expectation that the new money the government provides not to be paid back, along with the previous bailout money, one needs to ask if the government cost per auto and auto related job saved is worth that amount. I heard an estimate that it is $1.5 million per job. I don’t think it’s worth it.

There is also new estimates that the Federal deficit will rise to $50 billion this year. I expected, as well as accepted, a deficit this year but I was willing to accept maybe half that amount. The deficit wouldn’t have been so high if the government didn’t stupidly reduce GST. On a side note, I don’t understand the provincial Progressive Conservative’s stance against PST/GST harmonization. Everything I’ve read on the topic supports it economically.

Somehow I was thinking last week and an old court case came to mind about a printer opposing printing material for a LGBT group. I believe I had a discussion a few years ago with Mike about it where I supported the LGBT group. I just wanted to tell people (mainly Mike) that I have changed my position. I support the printer’s choice to discriminate. If people want to act stupidly and lose business, that’s their choice. I also support the public’s ability to call them out on their discrimination even if the negative press harms them. It’s a risk they have if they make that choice.

Though not really related, that case came to mind when I read about a case of child custody by white-supremacists. Well it may sound impersonal, I consider young children to essentially be chattel of their parents – they are responsible for them and also hold rights to teach them their beliefs. While I find the material these children are subjected to to be appalling, there are many things taught to children that I disagree with (e.g. religion) yet don’t think should be banned. Considering the situation, I think I would draw the line at teaching them material that makes them want to harm other people, in this case teaching them that they should harm black people.

Now there is a continuing debate about what exactly ‘hate speech’ is. I tend to side more on the side of free speech until the extreme of speech that specifically calls for harm to a group of people. If people want to be racist and teach their children to be racist, I believe that is their right, but what these parents have done is incited belief to harm racial minorities, and that is over the line. By this reasoning, the parents are guilty of hate speech, and given the goal to both punish people for their crime and prevent it in the future, removing the children from custody does seem like a fitting solution. One of my core beliefs is in tolerance (thought not acceptance), and instilling a belief to harm black people in children, of course, is not at all tolerant.

Currently Listening to: Loud sound from X-Men 3 playing upstairs

Random Wikipedia Article: Blood libel