Mission Accomplished, or was it?

The quality of the two photos I used did not match, the photo of Seamus Wolfe was a higher resolution than the Aircraft Carrier photo, but I think everyone will get the meaning. I think it's rather comical myself. It also works on a few different levels.

So, from what I understand, the decision of the SAC to continue with the Hearing yesterday is being challenged to the BOA.

Here is the section from the SFUO Constitution:

8.4.1 In order to render a valid juridical decision, the members of Student Arbitration Committee must ensure that the following principles have been respected: (a) The parties have agreed to submit to the decision of the Student Arbitration Committee.
Notice the tense in the word 'agreed'. Did they not agree to submit to the SAC when they ran for office? Or in the days leading up to the hearing? Or by filing their defence papers?

But that is all over, it is time to move onto the next phase. March 29, 2009 is the next schedule BOA meeting. Notwithstanding the current motion to making it easier to overturn a SAC decision, this will be an interesting meeting. But here is my contention, which I mentioned briefly in my last post, if the BOA reverses the decision of the SAC to proceed with the hearing has anything really been accomplished to stop it? I mean, okay, the BOA decides that the SAC should not have proceeded on March 6, the SAC will just be convened at a later date! One where All the defendants are present no doubt (since Alex Chaput had a conflict and was unable to attend the hearing).

But what should we do if the BOA sides with the SAC decision? We cannot just go back in time and do the SAC Hearing over, its already been made a mockery of. If the BOA decides that the SAC was correct in continuing, then the accused who flagrantly disrespected it by walking out and creating near riot condition should be further punished. Impeachment anyone?

And for those of you who were unable to attend, La Rotonde took a bunch of good pictures, here are a few that I believe show how the Accused conspired to make a mockery of the SFUO highest judicial body, check out the smiling faces!








I leave you with this. Can you just walk out of a fraud hearing by saying that you don't respect the authority of the court? And the fact that they walked out without allowing the SAC to deliberate on thier disputation of the proceedings show they have no respect for the Constitution, even though their supporters, some of whom sit on the BOA and were acting without any shred of integrity, kept crying for the Constitution to be followed. Well if you were quiet enough to allow the Arbitors to speak, you would have noticed that they were. The fact that the accused walked out meant that they waived their right to a further defence. And since their claim was rejected, based on CANADIAN evidence law, the plan was to disrupt the Hearing in such a way that it was impossible to continue.