Thursday, August 28, 2025
Home Blog Page 550

Canada needed in Afghanistan

Dalhousie Gazette Staff
-
0

By Chad Bowie, Opinions Contributor

As Canadians we enjoy a strong, stable democracy that provides each and every person with basic human rights and an underlying equality of opportunity. We enjoy the right to protest and the right to openly – and loudly – disagree with our legislators. We even have the chance to fire them every four years or so.
All in all, we’ve got it pretty good.
Unfortunately, there are far too many places in the world today where individuals do not enjoy these same luxuries. There are millions of people like us who do not enjoy security, safety and respect for basic human rights. What right do we have, as champions of liberty and democracy, to sit by passively and allow this to happen? The answer is we can’t.
People who find themselves living in places where they do not feel safe and are not permitted to air their dissenting voices in a proper democracy need someone to stand up for them. People that are subject to oppressive tyrannical regimes are worth fighting defending. Afghanistan is worth fighting for.
For years now there have been calls for Canada to end its role in Afghanistan. The people making these calls should reconsider their position. None of us, no matter how hard we pretend to, is capable of understanding the grave injustices that Afghans had to endear during the Taliban’s time in power.
While we’re worrying about when the next generation of the iPod Nano will hit the shelves soon our whether or favourite NHL team will be making it to the play offs, there are still young women to in parts of Afghanistan worried about whether or not they will be stoned to death for talking to a man openly on the street.
As Canadians, we need to remember where our freedom came from. In a nutshell, we asked for it and we got it. It really wasn’t all that hard. Afghans have never had it that easy. They have been forced to endure the brutal nature of theocracy, the heartless confines of communism and most recently the overbearing and iron-fisted rule of the Taliban. We can’t even pretend to be capable of comparing that to any of our national experiences.
If we truly are the great peacekeeping nation that we like to pretend we are, how can we justify allowing this to continue? And don’t think for a second that if we surrender now and call it a ‘victory’ that these crimes against humanity won’t continue. You don’t quit a job when it’s only halfway finished.
Former Deputy Prime Minister John Manley hit the nail in January 2008 when his report on Canada’s future in Afghanistan an immediate military withdrawal would “cause more harm than good.”
The Afghan democracy is still fragile. If the North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies, including Canada, throw in the towel now the Afghan people will once again be subject to the despotic rule of a select few that have no legitimate authority.
Afghanistan will once again become a breeding ground for terrorism and the plight of the Afghan people will once again be forgotten by the West. It may not happen overnight, but it will happen.
We have a duty to continue fighting for freedom in Afghanistan. Don’t be fooled by the rhetoric that so many opponents of the mission will try and use to justify surrender. This mission is not solely about American military interests or Canada trying to prove something on the international stage. It is about the very future of democracy itself in a country where it is long overdue.

Dal students “changed” by Powershift conference

Dalhousie Gazette Staff
-
0

By Maggie Lovett, Opinions Contributor

In the early morning hours of Oct. 23, a group of 40 sleep-deprived Dalhousie students boarded a bus destined for Ottawa. We were there to attend Power Shift, the largest gathering of youth ever on the issue of climate change in Canadian history. Why did the about 1,000 reported youth from across Canada feel compelled to gather in our nation’s capital?
In recent years Canada has gained an international reputation for our refusal to adopt strong emissions reductions targets and play a constructive role in the United Nations’ climate negotiations. At the two most recent Conferences of Parties, COP13 and COP14, Canada has won the satirical “Colossal Fossil” award for being the most obstructive party at the conference.
COP15 will take place this December in Copenhagen, Denmark. The importance of this conference cannot be overstated.
The International Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has assembled and evaluated the scientific data, and has determined that developed countries, such as Canada, must reduce emissions 25 to 40 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020, to prevent irreversible effects of climate change. Our government has largely ignored the findings of the IPCC, instead committing to a nice-sounding target of 20 per cent below 2006 levels by the year 2020, which actually translates to three per cent below 1990 levels by 2020. As of 2006, Canada’s emissions were actually 22 per cent above the 1990 level.
The math here is simple: Canada is not even close to doing its part. Power Shift attendees not only knew this, they were also ready to do something about it.
The conference began with a host of speakers, from scientists to prominent life-long environmental activists, each with their own unique background in climate change and environmental justice.
“(Power Shift) changed my perspective from can we do something (about climate change), to how do we do something about climate change,” said Tom Stayner, a Dalhousie delegate.
The following day, Power Shift delegates marched the downtown sidewalks of Ottawa to Parliament Hill where we joined with others to participate in one of the 4,000 events taking place worldwide as part of the International Day for Action on Climate Change.
The amount of people who took the time from their lives on such a cold and rainy day to tell our government that their lack of climate policy is unacceptable was inspiring. The diversity of the crowd was remarkable – parents with young children, faith based groups, students and youth took part in creative actions.
One of the most poignant speeches of the afternoon came from Gracen Johnson, a co-organizer of the event. She spoke of a hypothetical conversation with future generations.
“’Where were you in 2009?’ your descendants ask. You were here, on Parliament Hill, fighting for them,” she said. Her words were met with cheers and applause from across the hill.
Sunday was filled with a variety of workshops and preparation for lobbying day. Our delegates were meeting with members of parliament, including Megan Leslie of Halifax’s New Democrats. After our respective meetings we were all brought to the public galleries in the House of Commons to observe question period, not knowing what was about to occur.
Many Dalhousie delegates were seated in the gallery in which protesters began to rise up and call out phrases such as “Climate action now!” and “Sign the declaration of indigenous rights!” Security guards took the activists out, one by one, as they stood up.
Soon enough, one began a call and response chant in which many got involved.
“When I say 311, you say sign it! 311!” an activist yelled.
“Sign it!” other activists in the gallery shouted back.
The protesters referred to bill C311, an NDP sponsored bill entitled the Climate Change Accountability Act, the signing of which has been repeatedly postponed by the House of Commons. The bill would commit Canada to reduce emissions by 25 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020, and by 80 per cent below 1990 levels by 2050. The guards evicted everyone from the gallery.
The protest received national media coverage and sparked fierce debate. Green Party leader Elizabeth May came to the defence of protesters, stating, “The youth in the gallery showed more leadership than the MPs on the floor.”
NDP leader Jack Layton, who had been interrupted by the protest, said, “I think a lot of people are very emotionally concerned about the issue, and they have got the science behind them.”
While there was a focus on the injuries sustained by some of the detained protesters, there was also attention paid to the Climate Change Accountability Act: what it is, what it means and how it has been stalled.
As we gathered on the bus to begin the journey back to Halifax, the energy from the conference filled the air. We had been changed by those short three days in Ottawa.
With a resolve stronger than ever to make an impact on our government and continue to advocate for environmental justice, we discussed ideas on how to keep the momentum going. One of the ways we have done this is through weekly Climate Mob Mondays, where students gather at a location on campus to bring attention to climate change and the importance of COP15 negotiations.
We have stripped down to our swimsuits to sing and dance, frozen in place with cell phones ringing loudly – ignoring the call on climate change just as Canada has been, and have silenced ourselves to represent the number of people, nations and wildlife that face the most severe repercussions of climate change because of the greed of developed nations.
Educate yourselves on the facts of climate change. Contact your member of parliament or the Prime Minister himself (toll free: 1-866-599-4999). Get involved with one of the many groups on campus and in the community, such as SustainDal and the Ecology Action Centre. Tell a friend about Canada’s record on climate change – it may surprise them!
Just do something. Write the letter. Make the call. At this critical moment the world is, quite literally, in our hands.

Maggie Lovett is a member of SustainDal.

Letters to the Editor

Dalhousie Gazette Staff
-
0

Wedge needs balance

Ben Wedge is at it again. One of his latest articles, “How not to protest,” should cause concern among readers. His unprecedented far right bias is being allowed free rein in The Gazette, with no articles from a different perspective challenging his radical views.  This letter is a modest attempt to correct that.
In his article, Wedge argues that the fundamental issue surrounding recent protests against government inaction on climate change is not government inaction on climate change but the protesters themselves. Indeed, Wedge concludes that “we should all take the time to view the footage (of the protest), to research what really happened, and form our own opinions.”
He says that recent allegations of police brutality are exaggerated, and he hopes that the police can be vindicated and the protesters can be sent “a strong message that theatrics will not be tolerated in protests.”
The problem is not the catastrophic consequences of inaction on climate change, but an alleged affront to the reputation of the police.
Did your readers see how Wedge completely avoided engaging the issue of climate change? For Wedge, the problem is not climate change. It is protesters challenging the powers that be.
I will concede that Wedge has been consistent in his articles in this respect: at root, his articles are always a defence of the rich and powerful, and always critical of non-elite groups promoting change, particularly change that threatens the established order. His argument is inherently antidemocratic and authoritarian. The incipient catastrophe of climate change is of secondary importance for Wedge when police officers are allegedly being slandered – no doubt a greater threat to humanity.
If Wedge supports action against climate change but does not support the protesters, where are his positive suggestions for effective political activism? So far as I can tell by reading this article, it is nothing more than an attempt to admonish the protesters for their excessive behaviour. Is that contributing anything other than doublethink into the discourse of climate change?
Gazette readers beware. Opinions Contributor Ben Wedge is propagating a radical vision of the world that is not clear upon a glance at his articles. The Gazette should refuse to publish his opinions without a response from someone who is not a Conservative Party sycophant.

— Kevin Johnston, second-year arts and history

Power Shift true to its name

I am writing in response to the Power Shift feature in the last issue of the Gazette. The article outlined certain aspects of the recent conference in Ottawa with deep subjectivity and dubious accuracy. The negativity inherent in Joel Tichinoff’s article is not only wholly counterproductive to the climate movement, but it is a negativity not shared amongst vast majority of youth in attendance. In fact, I have heard the conference described as inspirational and incredibly motivating by dozens upon dozens of attendees and have seen similar sentiments from hundreds more in writing.
For the more than a thousand youth who attended, who engaged with fellow delegates and with the issues, Power Shift was a truly inspiring event. Ask any of the 41 other members of our delegation. I fail to see how an individual who neglected to attend a single conference workshop is at all qualified to be passing judgment of the kind expressed in his despondent article.
I would therefore like to present a different, more widely held view on some of the points covered in Tichinoff’s feature. The pessimistic picture of the Oct. 24 Fill the Hill event painted in this article is essentially inaccurate. If over 2,500 demonstrators cheering until their voices became hoarse can be described as “tepid,” then Tichinoff was bang on.
Additionally, I am forced to wonder by what frame of reference Mr. Tichinoff judged speeches as being ridden with “time-worn words and catch phrases” given that this was, but his own admission, the first climate rally he had ever attended. With regard to the coverage of the opening ceremonies and ensuing entertainment there are a number of inaccuracies to be amended.
First, the keynote speakers were far from unknown. Majora Carter, for example, is one of the foremost activists on environmental justice on the planet. Those delegates expecting, say, celebrities with no real connection to the movement had perhaps come to the wrong conference. These opening ceremonies were about substance and issues.
The goals of Power Shift were to understand the magnitude of both the challenges and opportunities presented by the climate crisis; to push the federal government to pass bold, comprehensive energy and climate legislation; to prepare our leaders and our movement for the international climate negotiations in December; to develop a comprehensive strategy for continued political pressure among young Canadians and to strengthen the bonds between concerned youth nationwide. An immense amount of work went into achieving these goals. Each was pursued with passion and conviction.
Aside from briefly mentioning that Canada performs poorly on issues of climate, the feature article neglects the issues that organizers and delegates work so hard to publicize.
The seriousness of climate change, especially to developing nations, could scarcely be more real; rising sea levels, fresh water scarcity, desertification and destruction of biodiversity are but a sampling of effects already beginning to occur. Thus, Tichininoff’s article is weak not only for the inaccuracies and irrelevancies that he chose to include, but also for the crucial issues he chose to omit.
If I were a young person thinking of joining the movement on climate and environment, Tichinoff’s article would all but crush my ambitions. After reading this piece, the image of Canadian environmental activists I am left with is one of weakness and apathy. This could not possibly be further from the truth. We are strong, we are active, and we will persevere until the necessary policies are in place. In actively choosing the path of overcritical negativity, Tichinoff has done a disservice to a hard working and deeply passionate movement whose sole goal is to ensure a sustainable future.

— Will Horne, recruitment support for Power Shift Canada

Gazette unfair to Schulich, corporate endowments

Calls for de-commercializing Dal, breaking contracts with corporations, and removing advertising have all been subjects of recent stories. For members of organizations such as NSPIRG and SMAC (as well as a small minority of unaffiliated students) one of the biggest problems on campus is the in-roads they see as being made by private commercial interests. They stridently argue that the university is going to hell in a hand-basket.
These comments are unfair and closed-minded. Businesses and corporations are part of the community and contribute millions of dollars in scholarship and research funding to Dal. Many students will graduate and work for businesses one day very soon, and our interests are closely aligned.
Laura Merdsoy can complain about the “old boys” on the Board of Governors (though eight of 20 members are women), but the truth is that the board has worked hard to bridge the divide between both public and private sectors, successfully raising money to strengthen the school’s reputation and to make it more accessible to students. Sadly, the relentlessly negative tone of a small minority of students belies the gratitude many others feel. There are many fine businesses and business leaders who choose to give back and to participate in the life of the university—and they don’t deserve this kind of coverage.
A perfect example of this abuse can be found in a recent Gazette article under the headline “Billionaire buys himself our faculty of law.” In this story Julie Sobowale writes about Seymour Schulich’s $20 million gift to the Faculty of Law. More than $10 million of this money is designated for new scholarships and financial aid, which will eventually allow as many as one-fifth of laws students to attend tuition free. But not even this is enough to get a positive review.
Instead of embracing a gift of $20 million, which will dramatically increase the accessibility of legal education in Nova Scotia, Sobowale emphasizes that Schulich is a “capitalist” and that he is “buying” the school. But his gift involves no interference whatsoever in the curriculum or day-to-day operations of the law faculty. This is typical nattering negativism.
The Gazette is a vessel filled by those who wish to write for it. The problem is that people who believe that businesses are a vital part of our community are not voicing their opinions in these pages. Not enough people who believe in the full spectrum of community and who understand the economic reality of student government are participating in the debate.
When and if that happens, The Gazette will more accurately reflect the views of students – not just the nattering nabobs.

— Richard Norman, president of the Dal-King’s Conservatives

Can we watch something else now?

Dalhousie Gazette Staff
-
0

By Rachel Sunter, Health Columnist

When I was grocery shopping last week, the number of Weight Watchers products in the aisles struck me. Recession or not, this is one company that is expanding, however insidiously.
Rather than be restricted to a weight-loss section, Weight Watchers’ trademark labels rest innocently beside plumper packages in most departments: from dairy and breads to snack foods and desserts.
It bothers me how accessible and sneaky the diet industry has become. When I first heard of Weight Watchers, it was a diet program available to those who sought its help. But with its products lining shelves throughout major grocery stores, Weight Watchers is leaping from exclusive program to alternative lifestyle.
“Stop dieting. Start living,” preach its advertisers.
When a massive company claims to know how to live better than you do, it’s time to start asking questions.
The company’s name is key to its motives. Weight Losers, for example, would be a much less intrusive name. By contrast, Weight Watchers doesn’t want you to lose weight so much as it wants you to watch your weight. This is something markedly different.
I won’t comment on Weight Watchers as a successful or sustainable weight-loss program.
My qualms are with its advertising – something that since its grocery store invasion, I can no longer ignore. This company explicitly associates weight watching with freedom, sensibility, intelligence and, most of all, with controlling your life. Weight Watchers goes beyond competing within the diet industry, enticing people to use food as a means to exert control in their lives.
The Weight Watchers catchphrase, “Discover weight-loss freedom”, is painfully ironic. Encouraging women (and men) to watch their weight is, if anything, a sure way to take their attention off worthier subjects, such as their careers, their spirituality and their active enjoyment of life itself.
Gym time, scales, mirror sessions, clothing shopping and time spent researching weight-loss tricks adds up to a whole lot of hours of not doing anything else. There is no freedom in the act of watching your weight, and tallying your food with numbers in an attempt to signify some kind of self-discipline for the greater good. No freedom at all.
According to advertising, Weight Watchers’ Chocolate Brownies are “as sensible as they are scrumptious.” What does that even mean? Since when were machine-made chocolate patties stuffed with preservatives more sensible choices than homemade brownies? Using local and whole ingredients, I’d say hearty homemade brownies are more sensible in every sense.
Other lines make further inference to our deductive powers: “Intelligent snacking never tasted so good!”
This kind of advertising encourages people to think about how their food choices relate to their intelligence, but in all the wrong ways. Healthy fatty acids have been proven to improve brain, heart and immune function. Sugar gives energy to all cells in your body, supporting all kinds of cervical processes. Opting for Weight Watchers’ Soft Cookies doesn’t make you smart.
Weight Watchers’ emphasis on restraint and control, however, is by far the most disturbing part of this company. Their marketing strategy around control issues is plainly revealed in the following March 2009 press release.
“Consumers have a strong desire to feel more in control of their lives during times when finances feel out of control … While many aspects of life are difficult to control during these uncertain times, there are things consumers can manage – such as investing in their health and well-being.”
Or investing in Weight Watchers International.
The release goes on to say that in response, Weight Watchers is “expanding their portion and calorie-controlled food options.”
This is sick and sad. Trust our consumerist society to bear us into a financial system we cannot control, and then to reap the benefits of our resulting psychological state. A company like Weight Watchers feeds off social repression. The less in-control people are feeling, the more likely they are to buy into something that feels like control.
Instead of teaching women (and men) to feel comfortable in their bodies, to be assertive at work and at home, and become more mindful of their emotions and practice self-care, we have a company diving in to make money off our insecurity.
This kind of business-consumer relationship perpetuates the actual control issues happening in our society. If one woman can go to bed feeling proud, satisfied and in control, because she had a child-size machine-made control-portion cup of pseudo ice cream for dessert tonight, that’s one less woman to worry about for those at the top of this financial food chain.
I watch clouds when there’s a storm coming. I watch the leaves flutter like babies’ hands in the tickling evening wind. I watch my cat sleeping at the foot of my bed, stretching his limbs like a drunken ballerina. I watch good friends exit and enter my life, and grow around me. I am a people watcher, a world watcher, a life watcher. Though diets and body-image issues have certainly touched my life, I am determined to overcome them. I refuse to be a weight watcher.

Secret contracts: a thing of the past?

Dalhousie Gazette Staff
-
0

By Ryan Lum, Opinions Contributor

For the past month or so, the student group Students Mobilize for Action on Campus (SMAC) has been circulating a petition calling for an end to the Dalhousie Student Union’s “secret contracts,” most notably its dealings with Pepsi and Sodexo.
Both of these companies have inked contracts with the Dalhousie Student Union that give them the exclusive rights to sell food and beverages in the Student Union Building, not only denying other companies or individuals the opportunity to sell food or drinks, but also prohibiting the free distribution of food or drinks, unless authorized by the DSU executive.
These contracts are subject to confidentiality agreements – stipulations that forbid anyone other than select members of the DSU governing bodies and those corporate representatives involved in the negotiation from seeing the contents of the contract.
Secret contracts are not a new phenomenon at Dal.
In 1998, the union agreed to a 12-year exclusivity deal for beverage sales in the SUB with Pepsi. Last year, that agreement came to an end, and contract negotiations ensued over the summer.
Pepsi was able to maintain its monopoly on campus for the next seven years by ousting several competitors, including Coke, and once again signed with the DSU under terms of confidentiality.
As negotiations were carried out during a time when the majority of students were absent from campus, student participation was hardly a possibility. Even in the full swing of the semester, the DSU has yet to actively involve its members in a dialogue about why these contracts were signed and whether they serve the best interests of students.
While the DSU is aware of the concerns over confidentiality agreements, they justify their actions by pointing to the funding they receive from Pepsi, money that goes to the benefit of students.
The DSU is caught in a prime example of tied aid, whereby the union receiving funding is contingent upon their achieving a quota of Pepsi sales.
Last year, that quota was not met, and no money was received, although Pepsi retained its right to exclusivity. While Pepsi is in a win-win situation, the DSU promotes a beverage that is concocted at the expense of non-unionized employees in the developing world and the health of its students, not to mention student union autonomy.
For its part, Pepsi cites confidentiality agreements as a tool to protect corporate competitiveness by insuring that trade secrets remain just as they are. While there is no legal measure that subjects Pepsi to full disclosure of its contract details with the DSU, that corporate competitiveness is one of its concerns seems dubious when the many corporations that have inked agreements with Dal are subject to public scrutiny through the Freedom of Information Act.
Even if Pepsi is a generous benefactor of the DSU, which it only seems to be when it suits the company, students deserve to know under what conditions they are receiving food and beverage services and should be given the right to participate in the crafting of those services.
That the DSU – the voice of students in its public, private and administrative encounters – should bind its members to an agreement that was not crafted or agreed upon by students is in violation of the union’s responsibility to serve students’ best interests.
While one may contend that secret contracts are only the merit of student apathy, the first step in promoting an active campus is to promote debate and the proposal of alternatives. The DSU Executive and Council, the bodies that seem to be concerned with the lack of participation in general elections, should be encouraging engagement with the agreements the union signs with service providers, not discourage it. Such conduct seems to suggest that their priority does not rest with students.
Last week, Glenn Blake, a student senator, presented over a petition signed by over 1,500 Dal students who support a future of Dal that doesn’t include secret contracts with the DSU. Councillors will vote on the motion on Wednesday, Dec. 2.
If you believe that secret contracts do not deserve a place in the future of our campus, please contact your DSU representatives and tell them to vote in favour of ending secret contracts.
An end to secret contracts is the first step to a transparent and accountable union, and to a university that represents the will of students.

Ryan Lum is a member of Students Mobilize for Action on Campus.

New buildings, same old ideas

Dalhousie Gazette Staff
-
0

By Jake Schabas, Opinions Columnist

Master plans are always exciting documents, and Dalhousie’s updated Campus Master Plan is no exception. Full of colourful diagrams, maps and tables, plans give us the rare opportunity to shape the future landscape of our communities to better reflect the goals and values we think are important.
Judged from this perspective, there’s much to praise in Dal’s new plan. Students’ cries for improved active transportation and public transit infrastructure have finally been heard. The master plan proposes putting bike lanes along University Avenue and turning the now vacant bus stop corner outside the Student Union Building into a “landscaped transit terminal.”
For pedestrians too, much is in store. A new multi-level parkade to be built next to the Dalplex will rid campus of the haphazard scattering of cars currently parked in many of the university’s busiest outdoor spaces. With the cars gone, a pedestrian plaza will be built at the top of University Avenue to act as a focal point for student social life.
In terms of their overall cost and impact in comparison to other measures called for in the plan, however, the bike lanes, pedestrian plaza and bus terminal are little more than fancy garnishes packaging the more ambitious goals at the centre of the Master plan: to quickly make Dalhousie much bigger by constructing massive new residences and academic buildings.
With Dalhousie currently running at capacity and enrolment projected to increase by 2,500 students in the next four years – a 16.4 per cent increase from last year – the status quo simply won’t cut it any more. The problem is there’s only so much space on campus where new development can go. Cue the planners.
Phase one of the plan proposes to address the demands of massive enrolment increases by building a six or seven storey mixed-use student residence on LeMarchant Street across from Risley Hall and the SUB. The building will have as many as 300 living “suites” on the upper floors, while the ground level will be an “enclosed concourse” – picture a single storey Park Lane Mall – complete with “food services,” a pharmacy, a convenience store, “games” and, get this: a barbershop.
Making room for this residence, however, will mean demolishing the five Dal houses, including the new Grad House, that are currently occupying the site, most of which are in good condition or have been recently renovated.
Indeed, every single house owned by Dal on Studley campus has been listed as a “priority building” by the planners, a label used to identify “those properties considered to be of significance to the plan for future campus development.” This doesn’t mean they will necessarily be torn down, but it doesn’t mean they’ll be protected either.
In this era of “sustainability,” while new development might promise greater efficiency and more environmentally friendly design, razing perfectly good buildings hardly strikes one as following the sustainability mantra. But that’s a question for an engineer to tackle, and besides, there are other more important reasons to be distressed by the proposed demolitions and new residence building.
To start with, there’s the architectural heritage argument.  Built in the 1920s and 1930s, the LeMarchant Street houses are not only some of the oldest buildings on Studley, but they help to integrate campus with the surrounding residential neighbourhood through their scale and style.  It’s these houses that give Dal its uniquely Maritime feel, setting it apart from other Canadian university campuses – a draw for many out-of-province students.
They also provide intimate spaces for important student and community services that rely on the more personal and relaxed atmosphere the houses provide. In fact, most of the university services involving the greater community can be found in these old houses, like the Dalhousie Women’s Centre, the Native Counselling Unit, the College of Continuing Education, the School of Social Work and the Transition Year Program offices, not to mention almost all of Dalhousie’s remaining non-traditional residences.
But even for the majority of students who never step foot in these old houses, their demolition doesn’t bode well for the future of campus life.
The famous urban thinker Jane Jacobs once wrote that “old ideas can sometimes use new buildings. New ideas must use old buildings.” With momentum building for bringing more affordable and local food options onto campus, these new businesses and student societies will need places to serve from; the McCain lobby can only go so far.
But independent start-ups need appropriately sized spaces with affordable rent, not industrial-sized cafeterias with a big price tag that will surely come part and parcel with the “indoor concourse” proposed in the new residence building.  So without even explicity writing it, the “food services, pharmacy, variety/convenience” described in the plan simply means more Sodexho, a Shoppers Drugmart or Lawton’s and another unremarkable Big General.
Cafés such as Coburg Coffee or Just Us! Café are only possible in older buildings because of their cheaper rent, more intimate scale and cozy atmosphere. The same goes for restaurants. So if new student-run organizations like Campus Action on Food and Tuppy Thursdays or local independent businesses are ever going to find a home on campus, it’ll be in these old houses and not in new residence buildings tailored to the requirements of industrial food distributors like Sodexo.
So while destroying five houses to make room for much needed new residences may not seem like the end of the world, it sets a bad precedent for all the other “priority” houses on campus, especially since the LeMarchant Street houses are in good condition and particularly well-located.
Grad students also won’t be pleased to hear that once their new bar is torn down after having only been open for a year or two, the Grad House’s next home will be along side Sodexho and Shoppers in the mall-like concourse of a first year residence building.
These kinds of transformations are a perfect example of what Dal is potentially loosing by replacing its historical houses with massive new buildings.  It’s like choosing the Grawood over the Grad House, and for many students, that’s the wrong choice.
There are other solutions to residence shortages that don’t involve the wrecking ball.  Why not try innovative architecture that works around older buildings or adaptively reusing other structures, like the Studley Gym – another building soon to be demolished by the stroke of a planner’s pen – before razing historic houses. Or by developing any of the huge surface parking lots on campus before destroying perfectly good buildings.
The Master Plan’s colourful bike lanes, pedestrian plaza and transit terminal – all long overdue and relatively inexpensive pieces of infrastructure that the planners would be stupid not to include – shouldn’t distract us from the bigger picture. Dalhousie is growing, and that growth requires new buildings. But does the development proposed in the plan really reflect the same values symbolized by bike lanes and improved public transit?
Sustainability isn’t just about losing the car; it’s about losing the lifestyle where we replace rather than reuse.

Sexton’s foggy future

Dalhousie Gazette Staff
-
0

By Tim Mitchell, Features Editor

Dalhousie University has three campuses in Halifax: Studley, Carleton and Sexton. Studley campus is constructing a New Academic Building that’s scheduled for completion in September of 2010. Studley is also seeing renovations to its Life Sciences Centre.
Carleton campus is constructing a new Life Sciences Research Institute building that’s scheduled for completion in March of 2011. The classrooms in the Tupper building on the Carleton campus are also being retrofitted and upgraded.
So what’s being improved at Dal’s Sexton campus? At the moment, nothing.
“We’re in the middle of a development campaign, and if there’s some other philanthropist out there that is going to drop some money onto the (Sexton) campus, it could happen sooner than later,” says Ken Burt, Dal’s VP (finance and administration). “I don’t know, I just don’t know where we are in terms of that portfolio.”
Ironically, the Sexton campus is home to Dalhousie’s schools of engineering and architecture.
“I feel like Sexton campus is being left out of Dalhousie’s plan for improvement,” says Martin Crawley, a fourth-year mechanical engineering student.
Dalhousie has a Campus Master Plan that outlines future construction and renovation projects around the university. It’s been created by a multinational corporation called the IBI Group that offers services in four areas of practice: urban land, facilities, transportation and systems.
They company recently released a third progress report that outlines future construction efforts at Dal for the next 40 years, if approved by the Campus Planning Steering Committee as well as Dal’s president, Tom Traves, and the university’s board and senate.
Burt says students have been consulted throughout the planning process.
“We’ve been getting some (feedback from students). We’re always interested in hearing from the students. So, if they do want to comment I encourage them to go to the web site (blogs.dal.ca/campusplan) and to get into those blog discussions and have their voice heard.”
DSU president Shannon Zimmerman also sits on the Campus Planning Steering Committee.
In the Campus Master Plan, the future of Sexton includes an Integrated Design Engineering and Architecture (IDEA) building. At the moment however, that’s all the building seems to be – just an idea.
“We’re just at the conceptual planning phase of the building,” says Burt. “It could be as much as 100,000 square feet – largely academic and teaching space. The notion is to create some heavy duty labs so that some of the large engineering projects can be moved in with trucks and offloaded with cranes so students have the ability to work on much larger projects than are currently available.”
The building would be located somewhere between Gerard Hall and the electrical engineering building. It sounds like a much-needed improvement to the Sexton campus. But without funding, engineering and architecture students shouldn’t expect to see it built anytime soon.
“It’s just a process of the way the money comes,” says Burt. “With the knowledge infrastructure program, we did apply for 10 grants from the federal government, including grants for the IDEA building on the Sexton campus. The federal government chose to fund the Life Sciences Centre, so I don’t know what was in their decision making process, but you pretty well have to do the projects that are funded. We do have a developing campaign, a fundraising campaign, underway at the university, and the IDEA building is on the list of projects for that campaign.”
Crawley would like to see the project go ahead.
“Having a new building with proper ventilation, more group space and updated labs would vastly improve the experience of engineers and architecture students at Dalhousie University,” says Crawley. “I don’t understand how Dalhousie can be competitive for attracting more engineering and architecture students without making sizeable improvements on Sexton campus.”
As for the current infrastructure on the Sexton campus, Crawley says it’s time for renovations.
“Proper ventilation systems are lacking throughout Sexton Campus. Our library is very uncomfortable to study in because it is like a sauna all year round. Another issue on campus is the lab equipment and space on Sexton campus. The labs that I have been in are pretty small, cramped and messy. I think this is because the labs were allowed to become outdated and cluttered with old equipment. I am pretty sure students and professors would benefit from newer, larger and cleaner lab space, whether it be for instruction or for research.”
Burt says that in the future there will be some improvements to the Sexton campus, including retrofitting classrooms and labs, as well as the creation of new student space.
“We’re going to be retrofitting for instance, O’Brien Hall over the next couple of years, and increasing our student residences on that campus. If and when the IDEA building goes ahead, it will allow us to retrofit a big portion of the campus. I think the IDEA building will be key to creating a domino of improvements on that campus. The buildings, they’re good, they just need some money invested in them in terms of renewal, and we’re doing that, but that particular campus requires quite a bit of renewal, and the IDEA building will be the first major step in redeveloping that campus.”
The administration is also looking into creating a new 300-seat theatre on Sexton campus for first- and second-year engineering students who have to attend classes on Studley campus. One option they’re considering is transforming the Sexton gym.
“The (Sexton) gym itself is one idea that has come forward, related to relocating all the engineering students onto the Sexton campus. The notion was that by moving them all down to the Sexton campus, they would have their own community, and to make that happen, we need a 300-seat theatre teaching space. Now we’re looking at a couple of options, including using the theatre space, the teaching space that has been developed in Chapter house where we are currently teaching nursing students, sort of at the corner of University and South Park. But again, these are just early discussions. There is a need for a larger classroom and whether it’s a conversion of the gym, or some other space, we’re in the process of looking for something.”
“Whether it be a new building, or overhauling the current buildings on campus, concrete actions and commitments by the Dalhousie administration must be made to improve life on Sexton Campus,” says Crawley.

Cops target homeless without legal justification

Dalhousie Gazette Staff
-
0

By Patricia Vasquez, The Concordian (Concordia University)

MONTREAL (CUP) – The Quebec Human Rights Commission has declared Montreal’s homeless victims of social profiling.
The commission has released a report, including 14 recommendations, urging the city to amend two of its bylaws and suggesting its police force restructure its “rigid” standards, which infringe on the province’s Charter of Human Rights, said sociologist Paul Eid, who co-authored the report.
Eid said Montreal’s homeless are often targeted without any legal justification. “This problem is a result of discrimination,” he said. “It’s a dangerous situation because police base their arguments on social perception and prejudices.”
A solution, Eid said, is educating officers about social profiling. “We want to raise awareness, and are asking them to stop targeting the deprived.”
Between 1994 and 2005, homeless in Montreal were slapped with 34,800 tickets, according to data collected by a professor at L’Université de Montréal on behalf of the Quebec Human Rights Commission. The increase over those years amounted to 327 per cent for offences under municipal bylaws, and 69 per cent for offences under the bylaws of the Societé de transport de Montréal.
Amanda Murray, 23, is homeless. She claims she has been victim of abuse from police. “I was asking for change once and got a $200 ticket,” she said. “I think it’s unfair because I need help just like everyone else. They should stop wasting their time with homeless and start taking care of people who are actually dangerous.”
Eid said the social conditions faced by the homeless sometimes forces them to break the law.
The majority of tickets issued to the homeless, according to the commission, were connected with alcohol consumption and public drunkenness, creating a disturbance in a public place and solicitation.
“These are minor, ‘victimless’ offences,” reads the commission report. “In other words, offences that create little or no harm for private or public property or security.”
Montreal Police Service detective Marc Riopel said the force does not agree with the report’s conclusions.
“It is based on information from 2005,” he said. “Since then, we have worked on new approaches and today’s reality does not correspond with what happened in 2005.”
Police action is often a consequence of public demand, Riopel said. “We are tolerant, but last year we received 1,200 calls from citizens complaining about the behaviour of homeless people.”
Caroline Prévost, a social councilor at the homeless shelter La Maison Tangéante, said prejudices won’t change as long as authorities contribute to social profiling.
“These people have no revenue. Our main concern should be to help them find a home, rather than punish them because they have no place to go,” Prévost said.
Police are aware that giving out tickets won’t fix any problems, Ropel said. “But officers are faced with this reality and they have to take action.”

Digital backwater

Dalhousie Gazette Staff
-
0

Ginger Coons
The Link (Concordia University)

MONTREAL (CUP) – When Cory Doctorow talks, the Internet listens.
Doctorow is a co-editor at Boing Boing, a blog with a higher weekly readership than the Globe and Mail. He’s also a prolific author who makes all his books available for free download, including “Little Brother,” a dystopian young adult novel that spent six weeks on the New York Times children’s bestseller list. Additionally, he’s a crusader for fair copyright, equal access to the Internet and the right to privacy.
Major access barriers on the Internet include network caps, the upload and download limits imposed by Internet service providers. According to Doctorow, those caps are bad for the economy.
“It punishes experimentation because you have to ration your network use. What this does is undermine entrepreneurship,” he said.
Although not reserved to Canada, the problem is so serious in this country that Toronto-born, London-based Doctorow once wrote that it was subpar Internet that would prevent him from moving back.
“Canada is really lagging among [nations in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development] in access, speed, cost and equality. They keep trying to redefine what [high-speed Internet] is in order to make us look better,” he said. Doctorow pointed to Internet speeds in nations like South Korea, which are four times faster than those in Canada.
Doctorow blamed the problem on the lack of competition in the Canadian telecommunications industry. He characterized the current state of affairs, in which a few companies are allowed to control the majority of media and telecommunications interests, as a “total policy disaster.”
“Somewhere out there,” said Doctorow, “there’s an entrepreneur who wants to provide the network that Canada deserves.”
Unfortunately, he doesn’t see that happening without the intervention of Canada’s telecommunications regulator, the Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission (CRTC).
The Internet isn’t the only thing Doctorow sees going wrong in Canada. He foresees problems with the enhanced driver’s licences, currently being rolled out in Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and British Columbia. Those licences are heavily reliant on biometric identification, such as fingerprints, which can prove to be a hugely problematic security feature.
“Fingerprints leak like crazy. How many surfaces do you think you left your fingerprints on today?” he asked.
Copying fingerprints is also easy. Doctorow recalled an event in March 2008 when a German hacker group released the fingerprint of German finance minister Wolfgang Schauble to protest biometric passports.
Enhanced Driver’s Licenses are being adopted in order to comply with newly created American regulations on what constitutes an acceptable document for crossing the border. Doctorow did not view this as a sensible excuse.
“If all the other G20 nations were jumping off western democracy and landing in a boiling pit of fascism, would you jump with them? That’s not a basis for good governance.”
But it was not all doom and gloom from the sometimes-dystopian writer. Doctorow revealed that he had hope for the future of information policy.
“I would like to see a kind of information bill of rights that mirrored the UN Declaration of Human Rights and that was widely accepted as kind of rote by people, where you didn’t have to explain why privacy is important or why neutral networks are important,” said Doctorow, who has pushed for Internet activity to be free from censorship or surveillance by Internet providers or governments. “I think if we got that, everything else would become easier.”
Doctorow is currently on a North American tour for “Makers,” his latest novel. It’s freely available for download in a variety of formats from craphound.com/makers.

Creationists give out free Darwin books

Dalhousie Gazette Staff
-
0

By Ashleigh Mattern, The Sheaf (University of Saskatchewan)

SASKATOON (CUP) – Students who got a free copy of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species on campuses this month might be surprised to find an introduction by intelligent design proponent Ray Comfort.
Comfort’s publisher, Living Waters Publications, are targeting North American universities during November to give “future doctors, lawyers and politicians . . . information about Intelligent Design,” according to their website. Intelligent design and creationism are beliefs opposed to Darwinian evolution, positing that a supernatural creator set life in motion.
On Nov. 19, two men set up outside the Killam Library with 200 copies for Dalhousie students. Kirk Hubick, one of the men, told people to make sure to read the “special introduction written by a friend of mine.” He says he paid for the books out of his own pocket.
On Nov. 9, an unknown group handed out several copies to passers-by at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon. The books have also been handed out at the University of Alberta.
Torien Cafferata is the president of the University of Saskatchewan Freethought Alliance, a campus group for scientific integrity and secularism. He says he is concerned that the books were handed out on his campus “in a weaselly kind of way.”
Steve Newton, public information project director for the California-based National Center for Science Education, says Comfort and supporters plan to distribute the books to 100 American universities on Nov. 19, and 24 Canadian universities on Nov. 24, the 150th anniversary of the first publication of On the Origin of Species.
Cafferata says he thinks they may have changed their plans due to pressure from secularist groups like the Freethought Alliance.
“They learned that a lot of secularists’ societies were planning a counteroffensive, like to celebrate evolution on that day. We were planning to find out where they were planning to release the book, then we would set up next to them and have all the supportive facts for evolution.”
Dr. Jose Andrés, an evolutionary biologist at the U of S, says that one of his issues with Comfort’s introduction in the Living Waters Publications version is that it’s inappropriate for the scientific topic of the book.
The introduction talks about religion and “solving life’s more important questions,” but Andrés points out that “All of that has nothing to do, absolutely nothing to do, with the origin of the species.”
“It’s fine by me, and I’m happy to read that as the introduction to a religious book but not as the introduction to a piece of work that has to do with science.”
There are at least two versions of the book circulating campuses. In an open letter from Comfort on the Living Waters website, he writes, “My name will be on the cover (for those who think that we are somehow being deceptive),” but his name appears nowhere on the back or front cover on a copy obtained by Canadian University Press newspaper the Sheaf. Nor does it appear on the copies distributed on Dalhousie University.
The version handed out at the U of S is an older version, which Newton says has several chapters of Darwin’s original text removed and a slightly different introduction. In the version of Origin discussed for campus distribution on the Living Waters website, however, they say “nothing has been removed from Darwin’s original work.”
Joseph Anderson, an employee at Kenderdine Art Gallery at the U of S, happened to pick up a free copy. Having always wanted to read “On the Origin of Species,” Anderson says he was excited to get the free copy but said it surprised him to find out the introduction was written by a creationist.
“Just because the Origin of Species by Darwin has sort of been held up as an anti-Christian kind of book for so long, I was surprised it was being used as a missionary tool,” he says.
Still, he says compared to some of the religious groups he has encountered on his campus, the people handing out the books were innocuous.
“The way they went about it seems a gentle approach, which I appreciate,” he says. “I’m not for banning groups from campus or anything like that.”
Warren Kirkland, the University of Saskatchewan Students’ Union president, echoes Anderson’s sentiments, saying that as long as they’re being respectful and no one has complained, it isn’t an issue.
“The university is about embracing different views and thoughts,” Kirkland says.
Cafferata says he’s most worried about the students who pick up the book and think Comfort has a valid argument against evolution.
Robert Luhn, director of communications for the National Center for Science Education, agrees, saying the introduction has “bad science, bad history and bad theology.”
“The telling points being that it’s not just a matter of, gosh, Ray Comfort doesn’t know anything about science,” Luhn says. “He makes completely spurious claims. There’s no transitional fossils? There are transitional fossils in museums all over the world!”

1...549550551...567Page 550 of 567

EDITOR PICKS

POPULAR POSTS

POPULAR CATEGORY

ABOUT US

The Dalhousie Gazette is the main student publication at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. The paper first began publishing in 1868, making it the oldest continually operating student newspaper in North America followed by The Harvard Crimson and The Columbia Daily Spectator

Contact us: admin@dalgazette.com

FOLLOW US