Despite elections races not officially starting for another 3 months, Facebook groups for potential Feds Exec have started to pop up. In order to fuel unsolicited speculation, I give you a list of potential Feds Exec candidates.
President:
Justin Williams – Current ES Councillor, Feds Director, Past FOC, and general socialist proselytizer, Justin is a (very) early leader in the race to be the next Feds President. A supportive Facebook group already has several councillors as members as well as 3 of the 4 other Feds non-exec directors.
Renjie Butalid – Senator-at-large and past Feds VP AF, Renjie will be completing his degree and could be a star candidate if he decides to run. Part of the Jenjie Hentalid duo that held the Feds together earlier this year, Renjie’s record could bring him a second election win.
Steve Hayle – Arts Senator, Student Governor, and Past Feds Councillor and Board Member, Steve has a long history with Feds that gives him the experience to run Feds.
VP Admin-Finance:
Aaron Stauch – Senator and Coordinator for CRT, Aaron seems keen on running for a Feds Exec position. It’s still unclear what position he’s interested in (Maybe Education), but for the last 9 months he’s had Feds2008.com registered (as well as .ca).
VP Education:
Andres Fuentes Martinez - Andres is a political powerhouse with strong connections to the Liberal Party (He’s been UW President of the UW Young Liberals for 2 years), great for lobbying. Former SJU Student’s Council Vice-Pres, he seems connected to Williams, who has created a Facebook group.
Chris Neal – SJU Councillor, Feds Director, SJU Student’s Council VP, and committee whore, Chris will be a strong candidate for the position he’s been building up to for the past few years. (EAC, OUSA delegate, etc.)
VP Internal:
Dan DesRosiers – Past Service Coordinator and small business owner, Dan has a long history of involvement at UW and in the community.
Andrew Falcao – Past SciSoc President, Feds Councillor and Director as well as Arts Commissioner, Andrew has many connections to clubs and services and has been a tireless volunteer to many causes.
I’m sure there are other people considering a run, but I’ve only heard so many rumours given that I’m not on campus this term. So far it looks like it will be an interesting campaign.
Currently Listening to: Don’t Stop Believing – Journey
Random Wikipedia Article: LOLCODE
Back when I used to be active in competitive debating I attended a lecture at LU on case construction. One of the concepts that I still recall is that of pairs of philosophical concepts which generally are opposites during debate. An example would be Justice vs. Mercy while the one I want to talk about in a very specific context is Freedom vs. Security.
The topic in which I want to discuss this dual with is that of Involuntary Admission, specifically in the case of possible harm to self. Suicide ceased to a crime in Canada in 1961, and within the Canadian Criminal Code the only mention of it is the criminalization of assisted suicide or counselling someone to commit suicide. What distresses me is that within the Ontario Mental Health Act (OMHA) there are provisions for involuntary admission on the basis of self harm.
I suspect that the vast majority of people believe that such a provision is reasonable, so I pose the question: Is it acceptable to hold someone against their will for something they have not done but on the suspicion that they may commit a legal act? I am taking issue here only with self harm as the act is legal while harm of another person is not. They are entirely separate cases. Harm of another person comes down to the security of the public over the freedom of a patient (another debate altogether), while in the case of potential self harm the claim is that security of the patient trumps the freedom of the patient.
Under the OMHA, revised in 2000 with “Brian’s Law“, physicians have the ability to hold a patient involuntarily for 3 days without appeal by just filling out a form, with the provisions for longer times with additional forms (though requiring another doctor). It is worth noting that the patient can refuse treatment during that time, so this can literally result in a patient being held in a locked down facility for having not committed any crime. An issue like this is about freedom of choice. We don’t lock people up for wanting to have an abortion, a self inflicted amputation of sorts (and I don’t suggest we do), but we do for the mentally ill. Such a law could impede assessment and treatment as a voluntary patient may sanitize his response in fear of being processed as an involuntary patient.
Some people may argue that such a patient cannot make decisions of freedom due to their mental illness. I would note then that such an individual is allowed under law to make decisions regarding their treatment. Why not allow the same of their freedom? A person with mental illness, even with suicide ideation, is still frequently capable of making rational decisions. There is a big difference between voluntary admission and involuntary admission in terms of freedoms for a patient. It is completely rational for a patient to want to perseve their freedoms while seeking treatment. To me, it is one who gives up their freedoms willingly who is irrational.
Currently Listening to: Lay All Your Love On Me – ABBA
Random Wikipedia Article: Sola fide
Tomorrow is the Ontario General Election and Electoral Reform Referendum. I encourage you to get out and vote.
I will be voting in the Oshawa riding because it’s my current residence. I will be voting for Jerry Ouellette and against MMP. I’ve decided to endorse the Progressive Conservative candidate because in this riding it seems that the race is between the PCs and the NDP (Sid Ryan) (Third is Liberal Faelyne Templer). As well, it seems that Mr. Ouellette is the most experienced, and has vowed to vote against faith-based school funding. I will note that CAW president, Buzz Hargrove has said that there is no reason to vote NDP.
Polls are now indicating that the Liberals will get a majority.