Christian Conservative Christian "Independent"

I'm an evangelical Christian, member of the CPC, but presently & unjustly exiled to wander the political wilderness.
All opinions expressed here are solely my own.

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

More OPIRG scandals coming to light

It looks like my previous post has lit a match... other stories, this time at Queen's, of underhanded tactics used by left-leaning students are coming to light (and make no mistake, the folks involved are predominantly left-leaning, go ahead and do some research on your own) to protect their own vested intrests in organizations like the OPIRG throughout the province.

A reader passed this one from Queen's on to me early this morning, reporting on yet another instance of students using unethical tactics in an attempt to remove a known Conservative-leaning student from his position on their AMS (Alma Mater Society). (in this case, innappropriately using a listserv to spread rumours about a candidate).

According to last week's issue of "The Journal", the Queen's University paper, an attempt was made to remove First Year ASUS Representative to the AMS Kevin Wiener due to his known ties to the Conservative Party. According to student Nick Day, who moved the motion to remove Wiener, "Day said he asked for Wiener’s removal due to his participation in the Conservative Party." (Long time readers of this blog might recall Kevin's name... he was a candidate for National Council back at the Winnipeg convention)

It seems that Day and Wiener have a bit of a thing going on, as Day attacked the AMS, of which Wiener is a member, for seeking observer status with the less "socially active" (read left-leaning) Canadian Alliance of Student Associations, instead of joining the left-leaning Canadian Federation of Students. You can read Nick Day's letter on that issue, and Kevin Wiener's response (second letter from the top) for yourself.

You see, Wiener raised the ire of many left-leaning students by introducing a motion that would have limited the funding of some of their ideological front organizations, like the OPIRG. From the article: "Wiener proposed a motion at the AMS AGM stipulating that no for-profit organization should be eligible to receive student activity fees. Also, when a written statement about the fee is submitted to the AMS, it must explain how much is spent on salaries, honoraria, and management and consultant fees annually."

Makes perfect sense to me... if you're a "for profit" organization, and you get student funding, you should be required to give an account of how it's being used. Basicly, it's an attempt to ensure that ANY student organization, left right or unaligned, can't run an unaccountable slush-fund to further their own ideological agendas. Unfortunatly, for his efforts to increase accountability with student fees, Kevin almost got voted out of his position with the ASM, by a 90 to 81 vote margin, with 23 abstentions.

From the article:
Wiener said he thinks groups with political purposes should not receive student fees.

“My opinion—and I stand by this—is the primary purpose of student fees is to provide for clubs and collect for charities that provide a great deal of good to the community. OPIRG is neither a club nor a charity. Their sole purpose is to engage in left-wing activism.”

Wiener said his motion was not inspired by his conversation or presence at the conference, but added that he is concerned about OPIRG’s tactics.

“I had no idea I was going to be put on trial for being a Conservative,” he said. “One person forwarded the e-mail to the [engineer] mail list of the University. This is a violation of the IT Services Code of Conduct. An e-mail went out to every engineer at Queen’s saying untrue things about me. It was interesting [the motion] was put forward while there was largely people who had been mobilized by OPIRG.”
Sound familiar? A Conservative tries to bring forward a motion regarding the funding of a known left-wing activist group, making the case that NO political activist groups ought to be getting student funding... charitable organizations SHOULD, but political organizations SHOULDN'T. Makes sense to me, how about you?

So the response from supporters of the OPIRG? Illegitimate use of influence and or resources to spread rumours, as in this case, character assasination. Does this sound at all familiar to you?

I'm sure this is just the tip of the iceburg folks, but I think it's time to shed some light into the dark recesses of leftist activism on our school campuses. Keep the stories coming, I'm sure there's plenty more where this came from.

Labels: ,


  • At Tue Mar 24, 12:46:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger KC said…

    I done agree with you on much if anything else but the political culture of university student politics is an absolute disgrace. Mandatory student fees being used overwhelmingly for far left causes, election procedures tailored loosely or strictly depending on the whims of activists, and contary opinions shut down. My 7 years on university campuses killed what ever idealistic notions that I had about democracy and freedom on the left.


  • At Tue Mar 24, 04:03:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I know at UofT Grad school in the late 80's and early 90's OPIRG automatically got money from your student fees but every engineering graduate student knew they had to go down to the grad office and get their name removed so as to stop your share from going to OPIRG and they did.

    The disgusting aspect was in essence it was negative billing.


Post a Comment

<< Home