December 1, 2009
News
'A week in hell'
Concordia delegation, faced with harassment and intimidation, walks out of CFS meeting along with six others
by Justin Giovannetti
The Voting Members of the Concordia Delegation PHOTO CLARE RASPOPOW
Physically and mentally exhausted, the eight voting members of Concordia University's delegation to the Canadian Federation of Students' Annual General Meeting
returned to Montreal frustrated.
One of them admitted to crying on their kitchen floor the evening before, while another admitted to lingering paranoia from being followed by CFS staff during the four-day AGM. The toll of the caucus, held from Nov. 25 to 28, was clearly visible.
“When we finally got home it felt like we had endured a week of beating,” said Stephanie Siriwardhana, the Concordia Student Union VP Clubs and Promotions.
“It was a week in hell,” said Lex Gill, who had coordinated a successful petition earlier in the year to hold a referendum to leave the CFS. “The only way I can describe this experience is Orwellian. Had we spent another week there we would have left saying that Big Brother is great.”
The trouble with the Concordia delegation began when they arrived at their hotel. They were told by Dave Molenhuis, the CFS national treasurer, that they would need to sign a legal agreement whereby they agreed not to criticize the CFS. The claim was quickly dropped after a legal letter was produced.
CSU President Amine Dabchy, who headed the Concordia delegation, claimed the CFS harassed the group as an intimidation tactic.
“Every time we had a discussion with another delegate, a CFS staffer followed us around and listened to our conversations,” Dabchy said. “Three members of my delegation were crying during the AGM because they felt oppressed and that their safety was at risk.”
The Concordia delegation also had a hard time getting legislation passed during the four days they were at the caucus.
A reform package put forward by McGill's Post-Graduate Students' Society called for the overhaul of the CFS' financial disclosure system, the sale of the CFS’ services-providing component and the disclosure of the federation’s past and present legal proceedings. It was voted on omnibus and rejected.
“We were in shock, it was clear that there was an attempt at the plenary to vote down everything that Quebec proposed,” said Dabchy.
The worst moment for the Concordia delegation was when the sixth motion on the agenda—nationally dubbed as “motion six” and referred by some as motion 20—was discussed. The motion, introduced by Carleton University’s Post-Graduate Students’ Society, proposed that the minimum percentage of student signatures required to initiate a referendum to leave the CFS be raised from 10 per cent to 20 per cent. Referendums would also be limited to once every five years and only four referendums in total could take place per year.
“The coincidence is that when it was our turn to talk about motion six, someone pulled the fire alarm,” said Dabchy.
“It was just the icing on the cake,” said Andrew Haig, the treasurer of the CFS Quebec component. “When motion six came up again they called the question [and moved on] immediately, preventing all debate on the most contentious issue of the whole meeting.”
Despite receiving only 44 votes—two per cent shy of the 66 per cent required for approval—the motion passed. The chair ruled that the six abstentions did not count as voting members, despite a voting member being defined by the CFS' own bylaws as a delegation present in the room.
“I still can't believe how CFS would betray their principals in such an obvious way,” said Dabchy. “It's an attack on the democratic process. The rules were not followed.”
Along with seven other delegations from across Canada, the Concordia delegation left the CFS AGM after motion six passed. They were booed by other students as they left the conference hall.
CFS National Chairperson Katherine Giroux-Bougard denied that the Concordia delegation was singled out.
“Three hundred delegates were discussing their positions on 90 motions and we tried to make it as welcoming a space for debate as possible,” she said.
Giroux-Bougard added that she was not insulted the Concordia delegation left the room.
“I haven't had a discussion with them since, so I haven't had any feedback on how they were feeling,” she continued. “All I can say is that there are often intense meetings with a lot of debate and late nights.”
Giroux-Bougard has yet to speak with the Concordia delegates.
Calling the vote an “eye-opening experience,” the CSU president was adamant that the referendum to leave the CFS—to be held sometime next year at a date to be determined by the national lobby group—would now receive his administration's support.
“By acting that way, the CFS national executive has disenfranchised half a million students across the country,” said Dabchy. “At the beginning, my executive was neutral; we were not pushing for defederation. But now I can't see how we can stay or why we should stay. After this motion has passed, being in the CFS would be a contract of slavery.”
When asked how she personally felt about motion six, which more than doubled the requirements for schools to leave the CFS, Giroux-Bougard instead pointed to the legislative process.
“Any student union is allowed to bring forward a motion and those motions are included on the agenda and discussed at the general meeting,” she said. “All motions were debated during committees, during planning groups and finally in closing plenary. So, there was a decision by the plenary as a whole to adopt the motion you were referring to.”
Amidst pressure from CFS supporters to reform the organization internally, Dabchy and the other delegates said it was not a viable alternative.
“It is clear that we can't stay in the CFS anymore, students are not being represented,” said Dabchy. “We thought that we could reform the organization from the inside, but seeing how our reform package was taken apart, that would be impossible.”
When the Concordia delegates were asked if the weekend produced any favourable results, the general agreement was that the “tandoori chicken was good.”
The Link Volume 30 Issue 25
Comments
I smell smoke! Must be William's pants on fire.
William (if that is your real name),
I don't think you have any business commenting on a meeting you were not present at. How do I know you weren't present? Well, your comment is full of 'mistruths' (nicest word I could think of):
1) fire alarm pulled AFTER we spoke to motion 6? Actually, a LIE. I personally was at the mic waiting to speak against the motion when the alarm was pulled. Me! I was the first to speak after we came back inside. The alarm was pulled right as I was taking a breath to speak and you'd have known this if you were there (it was pretty obvious) but of course you weren't there, which leads to the question, whose battle are you fighting here?
2) "insulting delegates"? Funny you say this when I was personally insulted and intimidated many times over by a member of the National Executive, but never once reciprocated those actions in any way. An eye for an eye makes the world blind, William. Prove a specific example where a member of the CSU delegation insulted a delegate (other than saying their claims were defamatory because they sure as hell were) instead of making reckless and false claims. Oh wait, you can't- because the CSU delegation behaved with grace and courage under the circumstances.
3) filibustering? I guess this is subjective. Can you filibuster a sinking ship? I personally think the different chairs of meetings were out of order more times than addressed but kept my mouth shut because there was no point. And multiple points of privilege were called because of the flagrant culture of attack on Quebec's delegations. This is maybe a legitimate complaint in that a lot of points were called, but really not enough to be grounds for your almost hormonal rage...
4) arrogant and harrassing? I think that if you look at the context of our presence there, where everyone knew to watch out for us before we arrived (and I found out from an Ontario delegate that CFS-O staffers were showing people pictures of Concordia delegates "to watch out for us," calling us ridiculous names like 'The Player Haters' (for the record I don't hate the player, I hate the game)) I think that it is hard to believe we could have even been justifiably arrogant. I myself had my entire self-esteem shattered a couple times, so maybe my confusion and sadness came off as arrogance... but that's doubtful. I personally envied those who managed to keep their cool in that situation.
5) for the VERY LAST TIME it was not a delegate from Concordia, or even Quebec, who suggested the omnibus defeat of every one of our motions. He was from Ontario. Of course, I know this, because I WAS THERE and you were obviously not.
Your comments are more one-sided and unfortunately not at all as accurate as this article. Next time William (if that is your real name), you should research your own facts better before ejaculating mindlessly all over the internet.
Yours,
Beisan Zubi
Who elected Beisan Zubi?
I don't think you have any business representing Concordia students.
Why is the CSU attacking other student unions?
Half of the CSU delegation had already signed an open letter months ago condemning the CFS, so don't give me this crap about the meeting being an "eye-opening experience". It's obvious they went into this meeting with the intention of attacking people, not "reforming" the organization.
And to claim that people pulled the fire alarm to stop them from speaking is ludicrous. Everyone knew the majority of delegates were in support of Motion 6, and it was only a matter of time before people voted in support of it. That's why the CSU delegation filibustered every motion, trying to prevent a vote on Motion 6.
The only people who benefited from the fire alarm being pulled were the CSU delegates and their six friends, who put forward a motion afterward trying to adjourn the meeting, right in the middle of the vote on Motion 6!
The CSU's only allies at this meeting was the delegation from the McGill Post-Graduate Student Society, made up of delegates who weren't even McGill students - flown in from British Columbia and Ontario.
The fact that only six "students" out of a meeting of hundreds of delegates walked out with the CSU shows how much they alienated everyone else across the province and the country.
The CSU needs to stop trying to divide the student movement and start working cooperatively with other people.
I can't even begin to reply to this message,
But you've made a glaring factual error: it wasn't six "students" that walked out -- it was six entire unions.
Thanks.
Totally one-sided
This entire article is completely one-sided. If anyone really wants to know what happened from that meeting i suggest you do not ask only one delegations perspective on how things went.
The week certainly was a week a hell... for everyone but the CSU delegates and McGill Grads. Not only did the McGill Post-Grads waste valuable student dollars on sending a delegation of everyone BUT McGill Grads (including Dean Tester, who is a member of the Carleton Undergraduate body, who did nothing but harass delegates with Twitter updates and lobbying delegates for the so-called "reform package") but both the PGSS and CSU harassed, threatened delegates with lawsuits, including the Chair of the Canadian Federation of Students, pulled the fire alarm AFTER they spoke to the "dreaded motion 6" and filibustered the ENTIRE meeting.
I know for a fact that delegates from across the country stayed up in the Organization, Services and Policy committee to give EACH motion in that committee its due until 6:30 am in the morning. When a delegate from Concordia tried to move a motion to submit all the remaining motions omnibus to be defeated NOBODY, not ONE delegate seconded the motion, despite the time (of around 5am), no delegate would support a motion to end debate. Thoroughly, delegates gave principled and reasoned responses to the so-called reform and suprise suprise, even PASSED some of those reforms.
The entire meeting was filled with delegates from Quebec making a mockery of the entire process, insulting delegates, hurling accusations at National Executive members (while they were giving their speech to run for national executive no less) - intimidating delegates with several insinuations AND outright threats of lawsuits.
The delegates worst crime in my opinion was filibustering the entire meeting. There was a coordinated attempt to ensure that the delegates for the November AGM would not finish its work as they students from CSU and PGSS both are aware, the CFS AGM MUST end at 11:30 pm on the final day because we believe in simultaneous translation into both French and English. The delegates abused their ability to call points of order, personal privaledge, etc, when MANY were completely out of order, and was entirely used as a stall tactic. This is when the fire alarm was pulled and when delegates finally got back, there were more stall tactics.
It even got to the point that when the dreaded motion 6 did pass with the supermajority support - delegates from McGill Grads were heard remarking "i just want to fuck with people" and tried to call "order of the day" as they left the room to attempt to stop ALL business from being accomplished.
Give me a freakin' break here, these delegates were far from innocent students just wanting reform, the CFS is completely amenable to a process of reform. These delegates went about this in an arrogant, harassing manner, that no delegate from anywhere across this great country appreciated.
A Pack of Lies
Reading this reply made me so angry as to how much of a CFS hack you are. I mean I'm from B.C. and I've experienced firsthand how undemocratic the CFS is. When the executive want to get a bill through, despite protest, they will use the dirtiest tactics imaginable. I wasn't at the AGM, but similar tactics were used in provincial meetings. Why would the Quebec delegates make a mockery of the CFS? Because the CFS has made a mockery of the democratic process. And motion 6? Are you fucking serious? Not only did it get legitimately voted down (it's very clear that abstentions are voting members, very fucking clear), but it's also just a thinly veiled attempt at "president for life" status; basically the current CFS regime is just trying to extend its term limit. If you don't want contentious delegations at your hack parties, then you should just let them the fuck go.