19 minute read
NEWS
Liosis stepped down during his term, leaving Gildersleve as acting president. PHOTO: Kriti Monga / The Peak
Gabe Liosis and Corbett Gildersleve reflect on their year as SFSS president
Liosis and Gildersleve have helped establish beneficial change within SFSS moving forward
NERCYA KALINO // STAFF WRITER
The SFSS has elected their new executive Board, revealing the new SFSS president, Helen Sofia Pahou. The Peak interviewed former SFSS president Gabe Liosis and former acting president and vice-president internal & organisational development Corbett Gildersleve to discuss the end of their terms.
Liosis resigned during his presidency due to mental health challenges. “I don’t regret for one second stepping down,” he explained. “After I stepped down I had an opportunity to rest and to engage in self care, and put up personal boundaries,” said Liosis. Gildersleve fulfilled the role of acting president until the end of the term.
During their time on the SFSS executive team, they took action to change the form of advocacy and decision making on behalf of the student body. Before the change made in May 2021, the primary governing body was the Board of Directors consisting of 16 people and Council operated separately from the Board.
Liosis shared with The Peak it was important to shift the dynamic of decision-making between Council and the executive Board members. He noted this was done in order to create more participation in the SFSS’ decision-making.
He explained that by changing the systems of governance, power shifted from 16 people in the Board of Directors to the Council consisting of 60 people representing all programs at SFU.
The by-law changes were made so “Council, in a legal sense, was our Board of Directors and is now responsible for making decisions on behalf of the SFSS’ 26,000 members,” said Liosis.
“When it came to the governance changes over the year I was president, it gave people the opportunity to be involved with their student society,” Liosis explained. “Because not only was there increased representation on the Board of Directors — which is now Council — but each of those Councils represents a student union.”
When asked about the important initiatives that inspired Liosis to run for presidency, he elaborated on the task of officially opening the Student Union Building (SUB). Liosis explained the logistics of providing access to the SUB for the student body was challenging due to new COVID-19 variants delta and omicron. explained the executives had to change their plans in order to maintain safety of the working members in the SUB.
Gildersleve’s first experience with the SFSS was as vicepresident of finance. His initial drive to participate in the SFSS came from believing the executive members of the SFSS could benefit from increased administration and financial training to better apply themselves to the SFSS.
Gildersleve worked “with SFU to finally get a system in place for SFSS executives to have the option of declaring their time as a co-op for up to three terms.” He explained this meant “they would no longer have to take full-time classes [which] would definitely help international students.
“It would help students that were in honours programs or special scenarios like scholarships. They would go on co-op and not have to try to be a full time executive and full-time student,” said Gildersleve.
Similarly, Gildersleve said he realized whilst serving as vicepresident of finance that the pay for these members was under the minimum wage — the amount of compensation had not increased for 13 years. He knew changing the stipend would likely motivate students to take the chance of becoming a member of SFSS Board and inspired them to be responsible in how they tackled issues pertaining to the student body.
Gildersleve felt there is still much more work ahead, especially now that the system within SFSS has shifted. He noted he would be returning after his break to continue mentoring members of the SFSS in order to progress the foundational work of the restructured by-laws.
GABE LIOSIS
FORMER SFSS PRESIDENT With propaganda on both sides, Mylovanov calls this “informational warfare.” PHOTO: Karollyne Hubuert / Unsplash
Tymofiy Mylovanov discusses the war in Ukraine
The Zelensky administration advisor focuses on how to approach information about the war
OLIVIA VISSER // STAFF WRITER
On May 10, the SFU Economics Research Seminar series hosted Tymofiy Mylovanov for the seminar titled, Military and Economic Aspects of the War in Ukraine. Mylovanov is president of the Kyiv School of Economics, associate professor at the University of Pittsburgh, and advisor to the Zelensky administration.
Much of the conversation revolved around information and its validity. Mylovanov described the current situation in Ukraine as a “wars of symbols” that are “won by communication as much as kinetic warfare.” He shared that from personal experience, “there are aspects [of war] you cannot study.
“It’s really difficult to explain what the war is unless you wake up and there is a missile next to you,” he said.
Mylovanov pointed to three forms of evidence to contextualize information that he trusts: “Eyewitness accounts, video evidence, and media coverage.”
On the other hand, he suggested data is something to be aware of. “I don’t trust data, and it’s really strange for me as an academic that I don’t trust data,” Mylovanov said.
When asked how to discern truthful information while living abroad, he said data can be okay to use — when combined with the appropriate context.
According to Mylovanov, the important factor is connections to the source of information. “So, the key is to find a friend or someone who is in Ukraine, or has been in Ukraine, or knows someone from Ukraine” who can help add context to your understanding of events. Mylovanov added, “I cannot trust anything I know in war, and the only thing I can trust is what I have experienced personally or what someone who has experience told me.”
In terms of propaganda, he described the situation as informational warfare. “It’s important to be clear on the questions you want to know answers to. If you really discipline yourself about the questions you want to get the answers to, then the propaganda approach is not very effective.” He suggested asking specific questions helps tackle propaganda because their answers are harder to skew. For example, the questions, “Who started the war?” and “Are there atrocities in Bucha?” are easier to answer than “Can Russia win?”
Mylovanov concluded his seminar by speaking to Russia’s dwindling international support. “Russia in the longer run has lost a lot of agency, unfortunately for the Russian people, and Ukraine has gained a lot of agency but the price is huge. But I guess this is the price if you want to be an independent nation from a vast imperialistic neighbor.”
ENVIRONMENTALISM FOR ALL SFU350 hosts The Intersectional Environmentalist book tour
Author Leah Thomas discusses systems of oppression and environmentalism
CHLOË ARNESON // NEWS WRITER
On May 11, 2022, SFU350 hosted a virtual book tour to promote Leah Thomas’ new book, The Intersectional Environmentalist: How to Dismantle Systems of Oppression to Protect People + Planet. Thomas is the founder of Intersectional Environmentalist, an organisation that seeks to highlight the often overlooked overlap of racism and climate change. Thomas, a writer based in California, describes herself as an eco-communicator.
Her book highlights the racism and privilege present in mainstream environmentalism and the interconnected systems that harm both minorities and the planet. Thomas discusses how aspects such as age, race, ability, spirituality, and sexuality often compound and influence how one experiences the world around them.
Thomas first coined the term “intersectional environmentalism” when she created a pledge that reached over 1 million people. Her website explains “social and environmental justice are intertwined and environmental advocacy that disregards this connection is harmful and incomplete. Thomas coined the term intersectional environmentalist based on Kimberlé Crenshaw’s framework of “intersectionality.”
“I decided to take a stand because there was a real disconnect in the mainstream environmental movement, where only some people were given a microphone,” said Thomas. She noted a majority of the activism she saw was centered around the future of white children. “There wasn’t also a focus on the urgency of the present for people of colour.” Black Americans are 75% more likely to live in areas with facilities that expose them to toxic waste. In Canada, Indigenous peoples are also exposed to hazardous waste at disproportionate rates. “People of colour globally are facing the brunt of the environmental crisis,” said Thomas.
She described how the Black Lives Matter movement impacted her as she was studying environmental science. “I felt a sense of guilt being so far away in California, and beautiful Orange County, meanwhile back home there was suffering,” she said. Thomas is originally from Florissant, Missouri, close to where protests broke out in 2014 over the police shooting of Michael Brown.
“I felt really cynical because I was learning about these significant pieces of environmental legislation, but as one of the few students of colour in my classroom, realising that these same laws were not being equally enforced for all people in the United States and across the world.”
Thomas expressed the need for institutions to include environmental justice as part of their curriculae. “I knew that people of colour, even if they weren’t reflected in the textbooks I had, I knew that my culture practices sustainability in our own way,” she said. “I want all the world’s people to see themselves reflected in environmental education and movements.”
You can follow Leah Thomas for more information about her new book via her website, Instagram, or the Intersectional Environmentalist website. Thomas notes the BLM movement changed her understanding of the environmental movement.
PHOTO:
Sanetra Longno
PREVENTING PATRIARCHY Un-learning Islamophobia with Dr. Anver Emon
Seminar discusses understanding and countering harmful Muslim sterotypes
KARISSA KETTER // NEWS EDITOR
The second installment of SFU’s Onstage Speaker 2022 series was hosted on May 14. Dr. Anver Emon, law and history professor at the University of Toronto, looked at some harmful Muslim sterotypes in Canada and spoke about Islamic law in his discussion. The conversation was led by SFU professor of International Studies Dr. Amyn Sajoo.
SFU’s vice-president academic and provost, Catherine Dauvergne opened the event by noting, “The conversation around Islamophobia is one of the most important conversations for western societies to enter into.
“The inability or unwillingness of western decision makers and law makers to begin to deeply understand Islam — and therefore be able to confront and truly address Islamophobia — is one of the most serious and important issues we face in the law.”
According to Emon, in Canada, Islamic law — sharia — is “treated as a foreign, as threatening, as an ‘other.’ Not unlike an immigrant from the Global South, sharia as a legal system is treated as an existential threat.
“Every state regulates religion — it’s just an issue of degree,” said Emon. He explained it’s difficult to know what states do in the name of religion. For example, in Saudi Arabia, life insurance is not considered halal — or compatible with sharia law. Emon explained this is because insurance is “payments now for an eventuality down the road,” falling into the definition of gambling or speculation. management and regulation of a permanent ‘other’ in our domestic sphere.”
Similarily to the discussion of minorities is the understanding and status of women in Islam. Sajoo said, “The dominant portrayal of women is that women are second class citizens, and they are oppressed.
“The Quran has an entire chapter dedicated to the status of women. It proclaims the moral equality of women very explicitly,” said Sajoo. He addedt the gender divide cannot be directly attributed to Islamic theology, but rather social practice.
Emon pointed to a common link between laws around the world. “When we think about the historical tradition of Islamic law, we have to recognize it’s got a lot of patriarchy in it,” he said. “But, we can also say a lot of legal traditions around the world are super patriarchal.
Dr. Emon is a professor of law and history at the University of Toronto. PHOTO: Nabila Hussein
However, the central bank in Saudi Arabia does sell commercial insurance to corporations. This means the state is not regulating the sales of insurance despite its violation of sharia.
Sajoo asked Emon about the western narratives of dhimmi rules. Sajoo noted the western interpretation of dhimmi rules is that there is “inherent inferiority” of non-Muslims, which “makes them permanent outsiders.” He suggested this is a misconception.
DR. ANVER EMON
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LAW AND HISTORY PROFESSOR
Why are we playing chicken with the next wave by not masking up? PHOTO: Zydeaosika / Pexels
Whether people like it or not, we’re still in a pandemic
No, the last three years have not been a fever dream
ISABELLA URBANI // STAFF WRITER
It may seem like we’re far removed from the nationwide lockdown in March 2020, which sequestered people to their homes (minus the occasional run to the store for the bare essentials), but we’re not out of the pandemic yet. Even though we’re still in the thick of COVID-19, it’s becoming harder to grasp given the recently lifted mask requirements and vaccine cards.
British Columbians became hopeful last year when a vaccine was introduced. At the time of writing, 86% of British Columbians have received their first dose, with similar numbers for their second. The booster, on the other hand, was largely disregarded by many. At present, only 52% of people in BC have had three shots.
It’s as though people believed they’d done their fair share by receiving two shots to fill out their vaccine card that was put in effect last summer. They’re wrong, according to Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, general-director of the World Health Organization.
“We are concerned that a narrative has taken hold in some countries that because of vaccines — and because of Omicron’s high transmissibility and lower severity — preventing transmission is no longer possible and no longer necessary,” said Ghebreyesus in February.
There’s this false belief that, after vaccination, COVID-19 will either just walk out of our lives — or if it doesn’t, it’s simply too hard to reduce transmission. Other ongoing measures, like mask-wearing, have sometimes been argued as detrimental to a person’s way of living. However, since the very beginning of this pandemic, the idea of masking was sold to British Columbians as being a temporary measure. It’s only natural that some might be confused by pandemic precautions being reinstated after continually patting ourselves on the back about BC’s “high vaccination rates.” Baiting people, whether intentional or not, with a sense of normalcy after two years of uncertainty is sure to have them biting. Whether it’s those that haven’t been conscious of COVID-19 procedures since the very beginning or those who’ve been doing their best, citizens are taking the bait and relaxing despite our having been in the midst of the sixth wave.
Dr. Bonnie Henry already has said to expect a COVID-19 surge in the fall. With how quickly COVID-19 can mutate and spread, and given that a substantial amount of mild cases result in long-term health consequences, why are we still taking chances?
What might contribute to that relaxation is that BC stopped reporting daily COVID-19 data just last month. It makes predicting the impact of the sixth wave that much more difficult ahead of the busy summer months. How can people begin to get a fair assessment of what they need to do to remain safe when they have limited information? surge in the fall. With how quickly COVID-19 can mutate and spread, and given that a substantial amount of mild cases result in long-term health consequences, why are we still taking chances?
Masks shouldn’t be something we put on just to deal with a pandemic. Time and time again, Henry put the ball in peoples’ courts to wear a mask. It wasn’t until November 2020 that masks were required amongst retail workers. It’s no surprise that many people are opting to be maskless in close quarters with it now being “a matter of personal choice” — despite masks being the most effective when widely-used. I’m not sure why my potential exposure to a rapidly mutating virus should be up to others.
Masks should be an everyday item people carry on themselves and wear when they start to feel under the weather. We also need to normalize prioritizing health. If you’re sick, stay home. It’s what’s best for your recovery, and it’s what’s best for the people around you. Workplaces are struggling with a sick workforce. Whether it’s workers with mild enough symptoms to come into work, or workers taking sick days, businesses are struggling under an incoherent pandemic approach.
A world of “learning to live with COVID-19” should include precautions to make it safe for everyone to participate in society. This would include masks, upgrades to ventilation, and social distancing. Wouldn’t this be better than letting a quickly changing virus rip through our society and stopping and starting precautions when hospitals become overwhelmed?
The Bright-er Side
There’s a boatload of free parking at Burnaby Mountain Park for classes at the Burnaby campus
I’ll take the 20-minute walk over hundreds of dollars for an on-campus parking pass, please
Written by Nercya Kalino
SCREENSHOT: Google Maps
Listen, fellow impoverished students: you already pay plenty for your car, from the cost of gas to the cost of insurance, to the time spent in traffic. Why not do your best to avoid parking fees this semester? Fortunately, Burnaby Mountain Park has the parking you need! From 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., students can take advantage of a wealth of free parking just a little ways away from the Burnaby campus. It’s well-traveled, well-kept, and — I cannot stress this enough — free! No one is going to walk up the mountain. Nor should you. It’s long and strenuous. But you can get in a 20-minute walk in by parking over on the other side of the mountain top. The walk from the parking lot to campus definitely qualifies as “getting in your steps in” if you’re looking to maintain a healthy and active lifestyle. But not everyone likes a refreshing walk. That’s okay. There’s still a big incentive to park over the hill. If you have class later in the afternoon and you park at Burnaby Mountain Park, you’ll find a fantastic view as you come back to your car through the gravel path. With the sunset coming a bit later these days, who knows? You might just be lucky to watch one. The park’s parking lot is usually empty of students. But we can park there, in a free, beautiful, and safe environment, rather than choosing to pay exorbitant fees to park in the depths of a concrete future prison. Choose better, my friends. Choose free parking. It’s time we stop respecting the saying “they’re all the same.” PHOTO: Tetyana Kovyrina / Pexels
Hold your nose and vote
Let’s stop denying important distinctions between party platforms
LUKE FAULKS // OPINIONS EDITOR
We all have that friend. The one who, come election day, will sit it out. Whether it’s a federal, provincial, municipal, or schoolbased election, you hear the same rationale for abstention.
“They’re all the same.”
Except they’re not. And it’s time we start calling out the expression for careless and false cynicism it represents. Fortunately, using this tactic, everyone, from the politically inclined to the idle cynics among us, can find solace.
Let’s get this out of the way at the top: Not every citizen who sits out an election does so purely out of an inability to distinguish between party platforms. There are other ways that political engagement is undermined in Canada, from a voting system that disenfranchises large swaths of the country to a prohibitive voting schedule. Those are important issues that deserve and require legislative amelioration.
The “they’re all the same” fallacy, however, doesn’t require the same amount of legislative firepower. Mostly because it’s an issue that voters can address themselves through a simple act of investigation.
Let’s take climate change as an example. During the 2021 federal election, only 76% of Canadians turned out to vote. The number shrinks to 66% for young people. A tragedy considering what’s at stake for younger generations. Looking at each party’s climate platform helps rebuke the fallacy this piece raises.
Here’s the easy part: the platforms of the furthest left (Green) and furthest right (People’s) parties that have polled higher than five percent. The 2021 Greens pledged to exceed Canada’s Nationally Determined Contribution under the Paris Accords for 2030 by 15 to 20%. They also planned to “cancel pipeline projects, ban fracking, and slap tariffs on imports from countries with weak climate policies,” in addition to halting fossil fuel subsidies. On the other hand, The regressive People’s Party, in its official platform, denied that a “scientific consensus” on climate had been met. Between both parties, a gulf. On one side, a party that offered Canada the best chance to contribute to a global effort on climate change, on the other, a party that condemns Canadians and the rest of the world to an unlivable future. Neither party was ever going to earn more than 10% of the vote, however. So let’s look at the big guns.
The Liberal party pledged to extend its price on carbon — a program that had earned global acclaim — by increasing the price for polluters to $170/tonne of CO2 by 2030 — which is on the high end of what climate economists recommend. The party had just come off passing Bill C-12, which codified a net-zero by 2050 target for Canada. Under a Conservative leadership, the pricing model goes away. The long-dead Northern Gateway pipeline would be inexplicably revived. The net-zero by 2050 law would be called into question. On climate, degrees of difference represents a real difference of degrees.
But climate change isn’t the only area where distinctions shouldn’t be denied. With the benefit of hindsight, we can see the long-term slow-motion train wreck that is the overturning of Roe v. Wade. While the plot to overturn Roe dates back decades, we can turn back just a few years to the 2016 election to see what made it possible.
Clinton’s 2016 loss directly led to the appointment of three Supreme Court justices — one filling a stolen seat, one an ill-tempered credibly-accused rapist, and another a part of a religious sect that treats women as chattel. Those three critical votes in the recent elimination of a woman’s right to choose, could have been Democratic judges ruling on everything from contraception to workplace discrimination to, yes, challenges to Roe. But no, the demographics Clinton counted on stayed home.
Here, though, we can find some hope. There are meaningful differences between candidates’ platforms. Challenging people who claim “they’re all the same” is the start of meaningful political participation. Getting politicians with decent platforms elected is the first of several necessary stepping stones. Elect them, then call, write, and protest. The first step is to cast the ballot.
