Referendum: Impeachments

Posted by: | January 20, 2010 | 3 Comments

The following is a guest post by Bowinn Ma, EUS President 2007-2008; AMS Councilor 2006-2008; Former Hack, less so now.


Bowinn, as EUS President. Martin Dee photo.

One of the roles of guest writers is to change things up, and change things up I shall! The UBC Insiders team has done a magnificent job of creating thorough, professional, and complete postings, but what seems to be lacking is public participation. Where are the dozens of comments we used to get from people supporting and condemning opinions? Where are the flame wars and public uproars against the tragedy de jour? Where is Joe the Plumber, Little Timmy, and Big John with their stories of personal strife against the Power?

More of Bowinn’s thoughts, after the gap.

I am one day behind on a prescheduled posting on the referendum impeachment question and while I had considered researching, interviewing, and then spitting out my own attempt at analysing the situation (but more likely simply regurgitating a pre-conceived opinion that is likely completely unaffected by any new information I may have gained through my interviews and research) it suddenly occurred to me that what was more important to this debate are the points of view from all of you, the readers and little red and white (racial references not intended) blood cells of the body that is UBC.

So then, a VERY quick recap of the referendum impeachment question:

1) Tim and Blake did an arguably very bad thing.

2) People are upset at said bad thing, others are in support of it.

3) Upset people want Tim and Blake out, but the AMS Lawyers tell them that recall is not legal except by impeachment by referendum.

4) Tim and Blake are censured in the meantime, but upset peoples still want them out.

5) In the meantime, nominations for Executive candidates have already opened and closed.

6) Upset peoples push through a referendum question, to occur on the same ballot as the Executive elections, asking whether Tim and Blake should be impeached.

So then, what do you think about this?

Things to consider: Are you on the side of “This is principle! They must be kicked out for the love of democracy!” or “This is ridiculous and the only purpose an impeachment at this point serves is to spite them.” or “This is hilarious! Yes, let’s kick them out just as they are being replaced. That’ll show…whoever it is this will show. I don’t actually care what happens and I’m not even sure why I’m following this debate, but I have opinions, damn it, and I will give them!”

Let the flame wars begin…and if not, then well, that sucks. This may certainly be a topic that has passed its prime for passionate debate, but I’m trying my best to stick to a schedule here, folks. Is anyone out there?

If I said that I think Blake Frederick was the sexiest man alive and that his circumvention of political institution turns me on, would you have more to say?


3 Comments so far

  1. Neal Yonson on January 21, 2010 1:40 am

    There was a short time on Insiders when users were required to log in to submit comments. That’s no longer the case, so no need to hold back.

  2. Bowinn Ma on January 21, 2010 2:43 pm

    It is entirely possible that I have over estimated the background knowledge of those who browse this blog regarding this topic, but I feel this is unlikely. Being one of the most controversial and ‘exciting’ (for lack of a better word) topics to hit the AMS stage in a while, engagement exploded as students scrambled to express support or distaste and there is certainly no shortage of personal opinion over the matter.

    Still, though, we are an entire generation of students suffering from short attention spans and half-hearted punches. This topic has been beat to death, which is partially why I opened the floor to public comment as opposed to rehashing the entire situation again.

    I am of the personal opinion that a referendum question for impeachment at this point serves only to spite Blake and Tim. I believe that this action does not add much more to what was said clearly through the successful motion to censure and comes off as petty and childish, even if the movers for the addition of the question felt their motivations were honorable.

  3. Anon on January 27, 2010 5:20 am

    It’s probably easier to start a flame war if you actually take a controversial stance (such as we should exile Blake and Tim to an iceberg) rather than a nuanced position. Moderation and bipartisanship are no fun. Just look at Obama.

    Also, if Blake’s circumvention of political institution turns you on, that just encourages me to destabilize my local student government.
    My opinions are already largely vented.

Name (required)

Email (required)


Speak your mind

Spam prevention powered by Akismet