A good ol’-fashion’ lynchin’
By Matthew De Marchi, Non-member of the SFU Apathy club
That truly was an incredible collective “circle jerk” guised as an SGM on Wednesday. A friend overheard someone label it a “Nuremburg Rally” and the hyperbole seemed deliciously fitting, with all the mudslinging going on as of late.
It started off with arm-banded brownshirts walking around as “security guards.” Their goal of obvious speaker intimidation was felt by more than one speaker on the “no” side, with two of the largest standing 10 feet in front of the microphones with crossed arms and fanatical stares. Worse yet were the hecklers who continually peppered speakers who already had to contend with standing in front of 700 rabid lynchers out for any young brotha’s blood.
And when you wanted to talk and be a voice of dissent amongst 700 people, they simply wouldn’t let you. They constantly wouldn’t allow members who wanted to speak claiming some sort of gagging law under Robert’s Rules of Order, which I hadn’t even known existed until some lady came running up to me and spat in my face that I should follow those rules. In fact, they used those rules that were intended on encouraging and regulating debate to absolutely end all discussion and curtail all dissenting opinion — so much for caring for the average student. Does the average student know what Robert’s Rules of Order are? No. Were average students allowed to voice their opinion? No. Sounds a lot like SFU.
When concerns were brought up about the biased background of the ‘security guards’ tallying votes, the ‘neutral’ chair shirked it off and said she’d get to those concerns after the counting of the first impeachment votes. Of course, those concerns were never addressed. To make absolutely certain they couldn’t be voiced again, the next SDU member was literally sprinting up to the mic so that no other dissenting voice could bring up the question of impartiality and vote taking.
The clear highlight of the SGM was the usual rhetoric from Clement Apaak — that the board was “anti-union.” This could have been the silliest thing I heard to date on the subject. Just in brief political discussions with most of this Board, I learnt quite quickly their pro-union tendencies. This leads me to believe that Apaak has never talked politics to any of these people and stresses the fact that all of this was blown way out of proportion before any real information of the dismissal came to surface. I myself am very much a unionist, but quite frankly it’s people like the SDU and their supporters that give unions a bad name. Are all union employees untouchable, no matter the infraction? Members which clearly breach trust and knowingly compromise negotiations reflect badly on the union itself. Union members should be held accountable if the accusations are fair and justified. And Clement Apaak, if “supporting Shawn Hunsdale” last election was the “biggest mistake of your life,” then man, you must be the second coming of Jebus.
Well, enjoy this reign of terror, SFU, we really brought it on ourselves. Now, according to prominent SDU members, if this impeachment succeeds, the Forum (yes, the very one that impeached the current SFSS Board) gets to appoint a new governing body. This appears too good to be true for all those members of the SDU that lost last election. They obviously didn’t like the last Board, so they get to appoint their own. And people actually thought there was no underhanded political motivation to this impeachment?! I can’t wait to see the patronage appointments coming up. Where’s the democracy in appointing a consulate to rule over students? I’ve seen this before — and that society ended up on the guillotine.
Unfortunately for the SDU and their members thirsting for power and authority, I did a little information check. According to the constitution and bylaws of the Simon Fraser Student Society, Bylaw 8(8) reads: “Notwithstanding the provisions of 8(6) [Forum’s ability to appoint] a member of the board removed from office in accordance with bylaw 16(2) [impeachment] shall be replaced by way of election or by appointment of ordinary resolution to serve during the balance of the term.” It looks like the road to power for the group and their supporters who lost last election may have to go up against those they have impeached — who, last election, if you may remember, trounced the opposition with a record number of votes in a regular election.
So out with it, right? What exactly is the point of this diatribe?
The SFU Apathy ‘Club.’ The ‘Club’ is in quotations because it really isn’t a club — it’s just an uncorrelated group of people with a commonality. In fact, it’s the largest group on campus: the completely apolitical. A club specifically designed for us that no longer or never gave a fuck. The non-membership scheme is quite simple, the club consists of all of us who refuse to give any credence whatsoever to SFU politics. By voting in the next election, you’re just sanctioning this kind of partisan, special interest, undemocratic bullshit. I’m personally really hoping MSO Glyn Lewis signs up for non-membership; he’s devoted far to much of his unpaid, personal time over the past two and a half years trying to entertain students with events. To the rest of the Board: it just isn’t worth it. Just become an anonymous student up on this miserable campus, lowering their head and quickening their step whenever she/he recognises someone and fears they may attempt to converse with you.
I plan on running for president next election under the Apathy slate, only my votes are from people who won’t vote. And I’ll kill the opposition. In fact, I out and out guarantee victory.
[ The opinions presented here are the author's, and do not necessarily reflect those of The Peak. This space is here for the exchange of ideas and opinions. Articles should be 1000-1200 words. For more information, call our Features Editor at 291-4630 or e-mail peak_features(at)mail(dot)peak(dot)sfu(dot)ca. Say anything, the last word is yours! ]