Volume 94, Issue 35
Wednesday, November 1, 2000
Letters to the Editor
Re: Rubinoff in hot water, Oct 26.
To the Editor:
As Vice-President of the Student Legal Society I would like to respond to the content of the article entitled "Rubinoff in Hot Water" which appeared in last Friday's Gazette.
First and foremost, as an elected representative of law students, I was dismayed at the number of errors that came to surface at the University Students' Council meeting and it was obvious that adequate research was not carried out.
The gravest error of all was the mis-representation that Mike Rubinoff violated a USC bylaw by sending out an e-mail. Did Mike Schecter hack into the MSN Hotmail network to verify where the letter came from?
The answer is no, because if he did, he would have discovered that I sent out the e-mail from the Legal Society's Hotmail account, of which I am the guardian. Not only that, but it was not signed by Mike or any one person for that matter. It was signed by the Legal Society after a resolution was unanimously passed by our democratically elected council, urging our student body to vote in the upcoming elections.
Secondly, there was a procedural error in that Mike Rubinoff was not allowed a point of privilege to address the one-sided, factually inaccurate ambush that was taking place. To treat an elected representative with such disrespect is a disgrace to say the least.
The report was also condescending and insulting to law students in general, suggesting that law students need to be told who to vote for. In fact, the e-mail did not even say "you must vote for this person" and was not an endorsement of any candidates by the Legal Society.
If these "election scrutineers" even read the e-mail, they would have noticed that it contained a lot of information regarding the procedures to vote. This is information that is critical to ensure a solid voter turnout and the distribution of that information to our student body is a responsibility that the Legal Society takes seriously.
In hindsight, would I have sent out the e-mail still? Of course I would have. I make no apologies for implementing the unanimous wishes of our democratically elected Legal Society and for doing my job: Representing law students and doing what's best for our faculty.
Student Legal Society
Re: Rubinoff in hot water, Oct 27.
To the Editor:
It is very interesting to note that the University Students' Council can create a bylaw in the spirit of fair play during the electoral process, only to have one of its own members violate the rule.
Mike Rubinoff may be a valued member of council, but can he operate outside the rules?
Every candidate who broke the rules faced fines. Rubinoff, due to his position as president and knowledge of the bylaw, should be held accountable for the Legal Society's blatant violation of USC regulation, regardless of the fact that he was not a candidate.
[The Legal Society's] actions have caused me to question the integrity of the USC as a whole. If the USC chooses not to take any punitive action against Rubinoff, then it is sending a message that its members are above the law, this suggests an elitist mentality.
On this subject it would appear that the USC has a lot to answer for. Let me add one more question to the ever growing list: Why is Mike Schecter seen as having less integrity for coming forward than the group or council who broke the rules in the first place?
Re: Sex with Sue encourages deviance, Oct 26.
To the Editor:
Renee DesRivieres accuses Sue Johanson of using her on-campus presentation to promote some sort of hedonistic mentality to the students of UWO.
DesRivieres begins with her objection to a caption in The Gazette (provided by The Gazette staff, not Johanson) highlighting the presentation, namely: "It's OK, perverts. You're all normal!"
According to her, the last time she checked, "rapists and pedophiles fall into that 'sexual perverse' classification."
This appears to be DesRivieres' own personal definition. Do you think for one brain-splitting, rational moment that Sue Johanson, the Women's Television Network, its parent company, the USC and The Wave are advocating pedophilia and rape?
DesRivieres then also found it hypocritical for the USC "to allow such an advocate of the 'if it feels good, do it' philosophy." The aims of Sue Johanson's presentations are to provide people with the correct information regarding sexual health, a perfectly natural subject.
If people feel uncomfortable discussing it in an open forum, their feelings are worthwhile and are by no means expected or forced to participate. The ad in The Gazette clearly stated that admission for Sue Johanson's speaking event was FREE. If some people had to leave after 10 minutes because they were uncomfortable, then I guess it's a matter of different strokes for different folks.
Copyright © The Gazette 2000