Who got elected onto the union? (2 Viewers)

[Xayma]

I'm not 100% sure but I think a fair bit of food was free.

In any case it would've still been subsidised and hence have cost the union.

 

[withoutaface]

I emailed Rose Jackson asking her why free food was being provided a few weeks ago, other than the obvious "to inflate crowd figures" reason. She never replied.

 

[Phanatical]

wikiwiki is absolutely right, in that students should be able to form groups to represent their interests. This is a mentality that I agree with, and to an extent the SRC agrees with.

The issue is that the SRC believes in supporting certain groups over others. For example, the Greens on Campus receive student funding, yet the Liberal Society doesn't. The Cross-Campus Women's Network receives student funding, yet the Australian Intervarsity Male Rights Association doesn't.

It's a sad testament to the failure of the SRC, when more money goes towards promoting an evil cult like Falun Gong, than representing students at the Conservatorium.

 

[Xayma]

It's a sad testament to the failure of the SRC, when more money goes towards promoting an evil cult like Falun Gong, than representing students at the Conservatorium.

The cult status is debatable. But your point is valid and if students wanted to donate money then surely some volunteers could sit and man a stall for it for those to donate if they choose to.

 

[Plebeian]

For example, the Greens on Campus receive student funding, yet the Liberal Society doesn't. The Cross-Campus Women's Network receives student funding, yet the Australian Intervarsity Male Rights Association doesn't.

The Liberal Society would receive funding from the Union (like all societies), would it not? This is student funding.

 

[Newbie]

hahah jackson fan
he was absolutely the last guy i expect to get into politics

 

[withoutaface]

The SRC and those who sit on it are unable to justify their actions, nor accusations. For example I emailed Michael Janda responding to his column in the Honi Soit last week where he criticised that neither of the Liberal candidates actively campaigned as pro VSU candidates, and in his reply email I found the following:

In regards to Simon's safety, I agree that there was a degree of open
hostility from some of the broader left groups on campus. However, Simon
running on an open pro-VSU agenda would probably not have made this worse.
What made the level of hostility so high were the actions of some of Simon's
campaigners who at various times throughout the campaign: hit/pushed a
member of the broad left; chalked sexist and homophobic comments on chalking
for various candidates; stole chalk and other material from at least three
candidates; other intimidatory and unacceptable behaviour. These things
caused more hostility towards Simon than whether he openly supported VSU or
not.

And then when I emailed him back asking:
a) why he's backing an argument with hearsay
b) how discrimination based on sexuality or gender is any different to that based on political stance (see: Fuck off Liberal scum) and what would happen if I wore a shirt to uni containing the phrase "Go back to the kitchen".

He never replied.

 

[jpr333]

Let's just put it this way if it is voluntary to join the union next year and the fees aren't close to $100 (even then I'm not sure) I'm not joining. Looking forward to the standover tactics, bullying and propaganda at re-enrolment next year!

 

[stazi]

The SRC and those who sit on it are unable to justify their actions, nor accusations. For example I emailed Michael Janda responding to his column in the Honi Soit last week where he criticised that neither of the Liberal candidates actively campaigned as pro VSU candidates, and in his reply email I found the following:

And then when I emailed him back asking:
a) why he's backing an argument with hearsay
b) how discrimination based on sexuality or gender is any different to that based on political stance (see: Fuck off Liberal scum) and what would happen if I wore a shirt to uni containing the phrase "Go back to the kitchen".

He never replied.

I want one saying "Women: natures punching bag"

 

[withoutaface]

I want one saying "Women: natures punching bag"

Hahaha that too.

 

[grk_styl]

b) how discrimination based on sexuality or gender is any different to that based on political stance (see: Fuck off Liberal scum) and what would happen if I wore a shirt to uni containing the phrase "Go back to the kitchen".

He never replied.

fuckin double standards. so why isn't angus being put in the dog house? actually, i think i'd feel sorry for any poor dog who had to sit with him.

 

[stazi]

AHHHHH!!!!! Apparently this years union passed something new today. From now on at least 4 women HAVE to be elected into the union. That's just rediculous.

 

[grk_styl]

haha. that's hilarious!!

go feminism

 

[Xayma]

5 actually.

3 when 6 positions are up.

2 when 5 are.

Yes it is ridiculous hence why you should have been at the AGM.

 

[withoutaface]

Fucking moronic, if someone's afraid of a bit of mud being slung in their direction they shouldn't be in politics. And besides that, women weren't the worst discriminated against group in the last election by a long way.

 

[Plebeian]

And besides that, women weren't the worst discriminated against group in the last election by a long way.

Who were? I expect you'll say the Liberals again based on past posts, but I could be wrong.

The reasons I voted for affirmative action were:

1) I don't think women should be campaigning principally on their status as a woman. While both Lauren and Katy had a policy platform, I think the "make your vote count, vote for a women" was a significant factor in getting them elected. The chronic under-representation of women has required them to do this. By guaranteeing equal representation, this gender issue will become defunct and female candidates will be able (and required) to compete solely on their policies.

2) As was raised at the AGM (I'll repeat it for the benefit of those who weren't there), the men and women used to have two separate unions. They amalgamated in 1972-3, against the wishes of the women's union, on the implicit understanding that both parties would have equal representation in the new body. This has never happened, so this initial commitment has been violated; it deserves to be enshrined in writing.

 

[withoutaface]

Who were? I expect you'll say the Liberals again based on past posts, but I could be wrong.

Excuse me if I'm wrong, but did Katy have people wandering round wearing T shirts telling her to fuck off, telling people "don't vote for her, she's a woman!", and did she have people physically assaulting her or members of her campaign?
OMG SOMEONE WROTE SLUT ON MY POSTER :~(

1) I don't think women should be campaigning principally on their status as a woman. While both Lauren and Katy had a policy platform, I think the "make your vote count, vote for a women" was a significant factor in getting them elected. The chronic under-representation of women has required them to do this. By guaranteeing equal representation, this gender issue will become defunct and female candidates will be able (and required) to compete solely on their policies.

But they will not be competing, because they are guaranteed a position.

2) As was raised at the AGM (I'll repeat it for the benefit of those who weren't there), the men and women used to have two separate unions. They amalgamated in 1972-3, against the wishes of the women's union, on the implicit understanding that both parties would have equal representation in the new body. This has never happened, so this initial commitment has been violated; it deserves to be enshrined in writing.

Key phrase "against the wishes of the women's union". If they didn't want to amalgamate then they shouldn't have done so. The initial commitment has been violated by noone but the women on campus who have refused to run, and I don't see why they should be offered guaranteed positions if they're too pussy to cop a little bit of mud.

 

[Xayma]

Who were? I expect you'll say the Liberals again based on past posts, but I could be wrong.

The reasons I voted for affirmative action were:

1) I don't think women should be campaigning principally on their status as a woman. While both Lauren and Katy had a policy platform, I think the "make your vote count, vote for a women" was a significant factor in getting them elected. The chronic under-representation of women has required them to do this. By guaranteeing equal representation, this gender issue will become defunct and female candidates will be able (and required) to compete solely on their policies.

2) As was raised at the AGM (I'll repeat it for the benefit of those who weren't there), the men and women used to have two separate unions. They amalgamated in 1972-3, against the wishes of the women's union, on the implicit understanding that both parties would have equal representation in the new body. This has never happened, so this initial commitment has been violated; it deserves to be enshrined in writing.

Based on 2) you would vote for the same arrangement being made for males? As a safety net?

With the remaining spot being up for grabs?

 

[withoutaface]

I agree, it should have read "at least 5 of both sexes".

 

[Xayma]

Both sexes is a bit iffy since there are intersex people. Male and female is better.