Home Blog Page 1349

Word on the Street: October 9, 2012

By
EIC
-
0

Q: So what are you be thankful for, this fine turkey day of ours?

 

By Gary Lim

“The fact no one has asked to see my birth certificate yet.”

Miguel Romnez
Completely Relatable

 

 

I’m thankful for the clarity that comes near the end of your life. The serenity of oblivion and . . . hey is that grain? ‘Cause that looks like grain. I’m going to go peck it out.

Tur-Keisha
It’s a turkey

 

 

Butter flavoured insulin. Yes, I’m aware it’s something you inject,but that doesn’t mean “Butter don’t make it better! ®

Paula Deen
Ahab’s nemesis

 

 

“No, thank you”

Frank Hutchenson
Canadian

 

 

“I’m thankful I wasn’t born in that shithole Somalia”

Ombatu Tikibaki
Rwandan

 

 

 

 

Occupying our thoughts

By
EIC
-
0

Perspectives on the movement a year later

By Jennifer Bednard
Photos by Lindsay Brown

With the anniversary of Occupy recently behind us, there has been a lot of discussion about the movement and its place in a larger context, or of the possibility of the movement continuing in the future. What is still unclear to many is the reason for the movement in the first place, and just how so many problems wound up under the banner of a single movement. The myriad of stories all have a single common factor — economic policy.

The Occupy movement often cites the fact that in the United States, one per cent of the population holds an enormous portion of the country’s wealth. A possible salve for national debt that comes out of these sentiments is, unsurprisingly, “Robin Hood tax,” which would institute higher taxes on the wealthy to the net benefit of the poor. We can see something similar in action today in France, where Francois Hollande recently declared a tax of 75 per cent on income over one billion euro. This common narrative of rich versus poor runs throughout much of the Occupy’s media coverage, and has since the beginning.

Of course, there is no real push on a government level to implement such a tax. This is because both major parties in the United States are economically conservative by any reasonable standard. It is impossible to vote for a reform of the tax and welfare systems, because there is no party to propose that. That leaves protesting as the only viable option for bringing attention to any issue that falls on the economic left. In some ways, Occupy is a movement along the same lines as the Tea Party: both attempt to pull the ruling parties back from a near-consensus on economic issues to something that may represent a wider range of opinion.

This is not the sole reason for Occupy’s existence. The movement extends to countries whose political parties have a broad spectrum of economic approaches. Occupy is based on the idea that the current economic system has left ordinary people behind, a common problem in most countries around the world. However, the United States has seen the most intense and prolonged protests of the movement, which suggests that the issues are more entrenched there than elsewhere. In a political system that ensures that only the rich are able to run for office — furthermore, only the rich supported by business donations — the poor are simply not represented. And for those who cannot vote for change and don’t have the money to fund change, taking to the streets in protest is the only viable option.

Should you drop out of school?

By
EIC
-
0


The current cost of education doesn’t match up with student expectations

By Esther Tung
Photos by Mark Burnham

There are a dwindling number of scenarios in which a university education is a sound investment. At SFU, a four-year degree will come to about 25,000 clams, more for the double majors, honours extras, and business students. But for many students in such programs, the degree will do little to help pay back your student loan.

White collar higher learning is useful if you wish to pursue a specific profession that requires a specific degree, as they usually entail grad school — law, medicine, and the hard sciences, for instance. But declaring a psychology major simply because you have to put yourself through four years of school is a complete waste of time and money.

University is a place for intellectual discussion, a centre of ideas for progress. At least, it used to be. Now it is widely regarded as a mandatory incubator for bushy-tailed high school graduates to prepare them for “the real world,” and a one-way ticket to the coveted middle and creative classes. But the structure of the collegiate curriculum has not evolved fast enough to match a changing world in which good ideas are worth more than good grades.

Communications classes do not prepare you for a career in public relations or advertising, it teaches you how to question the values of the big, bad media’s status quo. And if tutorial participation is anything to go by, the large majority of students seem completely disinterested in the subject. Most people have their thinking caps on, but seem to be under the impression that the caps will do the thinking for them.

The reality is that your honours in English literature is not a safety net. A double major will make your parents proud, but pride won’t rocket you to middle class-dom. If you are so passionate about moral philosophy that you are prepared to spend several years paying off the debt it’ll accrue, then none of this applies to you. I don’t doubt that knowledge and learning critical thinking has intrinsic value, but I caution against seeing your graduation diploma as anything that will elevate you from the 20 other candidates vying for the same internship at that social media marketing company.

For those who honestly can’t afford to be in university but have no idea what the hell you’re doing here, especially you first years, quit now while you’re still ahead and enrol in a trade school. Learn a specialized skill that few others have. With a pinch of luck, you’ll be in the $50,000 tax bracket in your first year of employment. Naturally, I don’t speak from experience, but my guess is that university will still be here in your later twenties, and you’ll have saved enough to put yourself through school, if that’s what you really want.

For those of you who will still insist on sticking around, just remember that grades are not everything. The number doesn’t matter because there will always be someone else who has done better than you. University is an investment in personal growth, not in a future with returns of a detached house, a BMW, and 2.5 kids.

Getting a feminist makeover

By
EIC
-
0


New makeup ads use feminism as a marketing ploy

By Ljudmila Petrovic
Photos by Vaikunthe Banerjee

Advertising companies are often accused of objectifying and sexualizing women. One of the most famous attacks on this phenomenon has been Jean Kilbourne, the woman behind the documentary Killing Us Softly. That film deals with the effects of advertising on women’s self-image, and points the finger at these companies for portraying women as they do. The first version of the documentary came out in 1979; since then, not only has Kilbourne continued to make these documentaries, but others have joined her cause.

This kind of attitude is not surprising or new to anybody in 2012, but if advertising companies were to change their portrayal of women, would that really be for the better?
Flipping through any magazine, you will find ads on every other page. When it comes to magazines targeted at women, most of these ads are likely to be for various cosmetics. I usually skip the ads without looking at them, but on this particular magazine-flipping session, I realized something that I hadn’t before: these advertisements weren’t making women like sex objects at all. On the contrary, they were using empowerment and strong women as their platform: mascara ads telling women to be fearless and strong, and lipstick ads telling women to be the ones in control.

Now, this sounds great: women are being told to embody empowering qualities, rather than to be thin and submissive. But this really means that advertising companies are using the feminist movement to market their products. Since the rise of Sex and the City and Cosmopolitan, mainstream feminism has taken a different approach; upon which these companies can build platforms. No longer is the image of a feminist that of a hairy-legged man-hater; now it is Samantha Jones, who “has sex like a man” and always looks fabulous. This is the image of a woman that advertisements now use. The message may in itself be a good one, but the fact that feminism is now being used as cosmetic marketing is a worrisome trend that may affect the way the movement develops.

This message also remains somewhat subliminal: the very nature of advertising means we are constantly being bombarded by messages meant to sell us the product. However, in the case of these make up ads, it appears that we are told to be strong women. But the implicit message is that makeup is power, that it is beauty that makes you a strong woman, and not just natural beauty, but an image of beauty painted by these companies.

I’m not anti-cosmetics. I wear makeup, and so do most women that I know, if not all of them. But for decades, we have been told to be skinny, submissive, and sexy, and now we are told to be empowered feminists. The problem with this is not what we are being told, but rather by whom. The fact that this sort of sublimation is coming at us from all sides may change the face of feminism, and as a generation, we may begin to believe that makeup is not only an image of beauty, but also an image of feminism.

Fish and chips or frankenfish

By
EIC
-
0


The latest edible to get bioengineered could be B.C.’s own salmon

By Kristina Charania
Photos by Steven Zolneczko

Hey, you. Yeah, you — the kid shivering at pictures of fist-sized strawberries, glow-in-the-dark cats, and spider goats.

You’ll be nonplussed to hear that your seafood products may be next on the biotechnology chopping block. In particular, the conflict between farmed and wild salmon is not only incredibly complex, but it may have an alarming and quickly-developing third participant: the frankenfish.

It’s a well-known fact that farmed salmon are notorious for retaining a potent stew of antibiotics, pesticides, and toxins that lead to complications when ingested by humans. Take Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) as an example — besides clear evidence of carcinogenicity, they are proven to reduce the immune system’s response to pneumonia and viral infections, promote irregular thyroid hormone levels, and contribute to the formation of brain defects that initiate short-term memory and several learning deficits. Many components of this chemical mishmash are also bioaccumulative, meaning they accumulate faster than our bodies can metabolize them, which has severe implications for pregnant women who can pass on these substances to a vulnerable fetus.

To avoid these health difficulties, nutrition experts usually refer fish-lovers to wild salmon. Thankfully, our ocean-side location makes buying fresh salmon simple for Vancouverites.

Unfortunately, wild salmon populations continue to decrease, which may potentially lead to price hikes. When biotech company AquaBounty produced their first set of genetically modified salmon — claiming to nearly halve the growth period of salmon through a tweaked gene that turns on growth hormones for longer — the worries of some consumers were put to rest.

But these fish are a fucking awful solution to any type of salmon issue.

For starters, AquaBounty fish are bulkier and nastier than their organic counterparts. If these pimped-out salmon escape into ecosystems housing wild-type or “regular” fish, they will naturally become schoolyard bullies and outcompete normal salmon for food and shelter. Wild salmon levels would then hit an ultimate low that would not safely allow fish to be caught (a further population decrease) and sold alongside farmed and genetically tweaked fish.

If modified fish become the primary species populating oceans and streams, their total annihilation by salmon necrosis or a similar infectious disease is likely — these mutated salmon are genetically identical and lack all of the same antibodies. At this point, no wild-type or GM salmon would exist to be caught for consumption at all, leaving restaurants and families with unhealthy farmed salmon.

There are other problems with the ambiguous genetic modifications in these creatures. If released to the public, it would be impossible for a regular person to identify every chromosomal mutation in the salmon and their subsequent effects on our bodies. While AquaBounty clarifies that they have mutated the gene that produces growth hormone, other modifications for size, eating habits, and bodily function could go unnoticed — the repercussions of such alterations in seafood meant for ingestion are unknown and may not be identified until the fish has nosed its way into our diets.

Fortunately, the FDA has not approved of any genetically modified organism (GMO) for sale yet — so, for the time being, consumers and health advocacy groups can lay their concerns to rest.

But if, one day, your salmon begins to look strangely like a Magikarp, you should probably throw it down the nearest garbage chute. You know what they say, after all: you are what you eat.

Letter to the Editor, Oct. 9th

By
EIC
-
1


Dear editor,

On October 9th, 1968, The Peak ran a small ad which read as follows:
“Girls — need help? in trouble? Contact the Women’s Caucus Counsellor by letter ℅c/o SFU Student Society or phone her 299-**** evenings for information.”

As euphemistic as this ad was, the SFU Women’s Centre has been digging, and has been unable to find any examples of advertisement for surgical abortion (for this is indeed what is being referred to) in British Columbia — and perhaps Canada as a whole — earlier than this date. Whether or not this comes as a surprise to you will likely depend on how well you know the role this campus plays in Canadian women’s history.

In the early days of the Canadian feminist movement, SFU wasn’t just involved — to a large extent, it was the feminist movement. The Vancouver Women’s Caucus was founded by SFU students who were dissatisfied with the status quo; in the Sept. 18, 1968 issue of The Peak Marcy Toms wrote an editorial announcing the Women’s Caucus; the very next week it was followed with a column (by a young Maggie Benston) simply titled “On abortion”. The piece was meant to be educational. It made no calls for changes in law or policy, and merely addressed the consequences of unavailable birth control or abortion on women in Canada. It nevertheless inspired significant controversy. Meanwhile, the Women’s Caucus doubled down and tried to find out how it could provide birth control or abortion services to women in need, resulting in the above Peak ad.

The SFU Women’s Caucus was also the origin of the 1970 “Abortion Caravan,” which crossed from Vancouver to Ottawa, educating and protesting along their way. When they arrived at Parliament Hill on Mother’s Day 1970, they numbered 500 strong and succeeded in promoting a national discourse around abortion rights.

I mention these pieces of history in the aid of contextualizing our current “debate on abortion”. This ground has been tread before. Nationally, the Supreme Court has ruled on this before. At SFU, Marcy Toms founded the precursor to the Women’s Caucus in late 1967, 45 years ago, with this issue in mind.

When Maggie Benston wrote “On abortion”, when the Women’s Caucus placed that ad in The Peak (and got frantic replies from students at SFU, UBC and even elsewhere in the province), there was a conversation about abortion. In the decades since, this conversation has ended. And anyone suggesting otherwise is willfully ignorant of the history that SFU students helped to create. SFU helped jumpstart Canadian feminism, and those echoes remain to this day.

Sincerely,
Stephanie Boulding
Women’s Centre collective member
SFU student

Hellbound? provokes discussion and controversy

By
EIC
-
0

Kevin Miller’s new documentary goes beyond Christian views. 

By Alexis Lawton-Smith

Kevin Miller, an Abbostford-based screenwriter and documentary filmmaker, has recently completed a provocative and controversial documentary. The film’s topic is a place that conjures up images of a fiery abyss, where its victims are sentenced to eternal damnation and punishment: hell.

Miller calls from Abbotsford, and begins to fervidly discuss his reasons for making the film. He has just arrived back from promotional screenings in California.

Hellbound?, Miller explains, is inspired by one very powerful memory, and a startling realization: “I became a Christian when I was nine years old. Even though my grandfather was a minister, and we kind of went to church, we weren’t necessarily a Christian family.” Miller pauses before continuing, “I remember one evening very vividly. It was a beautiful summer evening, and I was going out to help my family in the garden. I stopped on the driveway and looked at them. For the first time it struck me that if they didn’t believe what I believed, then they were all going to hell.”

[pullquote]“I remember one evening very vividly. It was a beautiful summer evening, and I was going out to help my family in the garden. I stopped on the driveway and looked at them. For the first time it struck me that if they didn’t believe what I believed, then they were all going to hell.”[/pullquote]

This sudden realization left Miller conflicted. “It puts you in a difficult position,” he explains, “because you think that you have discovered something you really fit into, but suddenly there is this bad side to it — a dark side.”

Miller emphasizes this experience because it led him to scrutinize the common views of Christian theology, which he felt revealed contradictions. “Although you are taught that God is love and forgiveness, behind that is a God that will ultimately not forgive. Even though we are supposed to love our enemies and forgive them, God won’t.”

Hellbound? attempts to expose these contradictions, and ask other daring questions. Although Miller declares that “a price can be paid for challenging the majority,” he made this documentary “to provoke informed discussion.”

[pullquote]At Hellbound?’s core is an argument that suggests how dangerous opposing viewpoints can be.[/pullquote]

This informed discussion doesn’t simply stop at Christian theology though. At Hellbound?’s core is an argument that suggests how dangerous opposing viewpoints can be. “Everything is so polarized, especially in America, and the people that disagree with you, they don’t just hold different views — they are wrong [to each other]. I think this ‘us vs. them’ theology is percolating under most of our public discourse.”

In an attempt to illustrate this discourse and opposition, Miller frames the documentary around the events of 9/11. Miller argues that “there are real world implications [with personal bias and belief] that go deep into our psychology . . . this is something that I am really trying to get at in this film, that there is a direct connection between what we believe and the world we create as a result.”

Hellbound? presents an eclectic group of speakers who range from pastors like Mark Driscoll to musicians like Oderus Urungus from the metal band Gwar. “I wanted to cast the net as far as possible,” states Miller. “I wanted to show that we all know the hell story, have an opinion about it, and it is somehow affecting our lives.”

While Miller identifies himself as Christian, he asserts that his view of Christianity has shifted over the course of his life. “My sense of what it means to be Christian has changed. It is not about joining a tribe,” Miller speaks quickly, but exalts his next words. “Christianity isn’t about exclusion . . . and it is not about vanquishing your enemies.”

At the end of the interview, Miller offers some reasons why Simon Fraser University students should watch his film: “I think it is a fascinating discussion whether you have written off religion or you are a diehard Hell believer. I would encourage you to come to this movie, because I think you will find something that intrigues you, or makes you mad. But I don’t think you will go away saying that it was a waste of time.”

Sugaring Season sweetens up autumn

By
EIC
-
0

Beth Orton’s new album is one part honey one part spice. 

By Daryn Wright

The first thing one notices when listening to Beth Orton’s Sugaring Season is that she is able to perfectly and simultaneously render imagery of both the lament of summer and autumnal acceptance. The album cover is a side profile of Orton, wearing a collared white shirt, her hair in a comfortable up-do, overexposed lighting highlighting the shadows. These visuals do well to introduce the listener to the kind of album Sugaring Season is: an uncomplicated one, with floating melodies and careful acoustics.

The album opener, “Magpie”, is a showpiece for Orton’s wavery and precise vocals. The lack of articulation in her singing creates prominent soft vowel sounds, as she croons, “I don’t mind no what I tell you/I don’t mind no what I say/I don’t mind no what we’re saying.” The childlike syntax and repetition conveys the song’s meaning: the dreamlike confusion of loss. “Dawn Chorus” uses a clarinet to carry Orton’s lilting voice, as the intonation rises with each chorus. “Something More Beautiful” is reminiscent of Joni Mitchell or Cat Power, with an orchestral backing that builds with the progression of the song. The mostly acoustic flourishes aren’t timid though; if anything, they serve to elevate the power of Orton’s subtly aching vocals.

[pullquote] The mostly acoustic flourishes aren’t timid though; if anything, they serve to elevate the power of Orton’s subtly aching vocals.[/pullquote]

“Poison Tree” begins “I was angry with my friend/tell him wrath but wrath did end.” Orton’s wrath comes in the form of a classical guitar and echoing lyrics, assisted by male backing vocals. Complex instrumentation on Sugaring Season overrides Orton’s usual folktronica of albums past. Rather than a flat, pre-packaged folk album, this shift results in a more dynamic relationship between instrumentation and vocals: at times, Orton’s voice is flute-like.

“See Through Blue” sounds like it belongs in a French film; her elongated vowels sound foreign and ornate at first listen. A carnivalesque piano is paired with a chorus of violins, and the song is kept short and tidy: it is a glimpse into the window of Orton’s home and collection of sentimental objects. “Last Leaves of Autumn” is an auditory painting of a fall evening: leaves fall with the slow movement towards the chorus, and one imagines the passing of seasons with the shifting of speeds.

What Sugaring Season does well is provide a picture of Orton’s personal transformation: in the six years since her last album, Comfort of Strangers, she has married and become a mother. The album expresses a yearning and restlessness through her vocals and ornate instrumentation. She has turned the folktronica genre into something elemental, fusing the organic sounds of strings with the modern and domineering complexities of vocal experimentation. Sugaring Season explores emotional nuances fearlessly, and Orton’s comeback is likely to leave old and new fans alike yearning for a stroll among fallen leaves.

The Master is pleasingly lost at sea

By
EIC
-
0

Paul Thomas Anderson’s sixth feature film proves to be worth the hype.

By Will Ross


To the extent that we can ascribe a narrative to Paul Thomas Anderson’s career, it may be a loss of resolution. Though all his work has been characterized by sprawl and ambition, each film has been more mysterious and elliptical than the last. And so, as we arrive at The Master, Anderson’s sixth feature, he seems to have jettisoned all causal links between scenes.

Most notably, he omits the meeting of the two leading actors: Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seymour Hoffman), an L. Ron Hubbard-inspired pseudo-scientific cult leader, and Freddie Quell (Joaquin Phoenix), a World War II veteran with post-traumatic stress disorder. Quell, a drifter, wanders onto Dodd’s vessel during a party, and wakes up with no memory of the previous night — but Dodd remembers it quite well, and strikes up a friendship that he knows is dangerous to him and his cause. Quell accepts it, not because he is convinced by it, but because following a faith affirms his place in the world. When he asks where he is, a character replies, “You’re fine. You’re at sea.”

[pullquote] Anderson refuses to clearly locate any scene in a narrative thrust. The effect is mystifying, but not ambiguous — we always search for answers, but we are never lost entirely.[/pullquote]

So are we. Anderson refuses to clearly locate any scene in a narrative thrust. The effect is mystifying, but not ambiguous — we always search for answers, but we are never lost entirely. But even then, this kind of structural decision can make for inconsistent pacing, and there is a line between motion and meandering that the movie crosses several times.

[pullquote]The production was filmed in 70mm, a now-uncommon, large film format. The resulting appearance is astonishing, detailed, and unique; all the more so because while 70mm usually emphasizes wide compositions, The Master makes heavy use of close ups.[/pullquote]

The production was filmed in 70mm, a now-uncommon, large film format. The resulting appearance is astonishing, detailed, and unique; all the more so because while 70mm usually emphasizes wide compositions, The Master makes heavy use of close ups. The liberal use of hard light and shallow focus gives the actors’ facial features utter control of the frame.

The Master has become somewhat notorious for its scientology-inspired cult, and, indeed, it’s by turns a damningly cynical and misty-eyed farewell to religion. But what makes it truly engaging is that, despite its frequent ellipses, it takes its characters on an affecting, emotional journey. Late in the film, Freddie tries to reconnect with something he had run away from years ago, only to be met by disappointment. Watching his reaction, we realize that the Freddie Quell who we knew at the beginning would not — could not — have reacted to the situation this way.

It has no plot, and it has no revelations or answers or conclusions to offer its characters, but I don’t miss those things at all when a film ends with sequences as nostalgic and inspiring as the final 10 minutes of The Master.

Fashion Week: the battle between style and comfort rages on

By
EIC
-
7

New York and London influence the world’s fashion choices. 

By Caroline Brown

There has always been an underlying rivalry between New York and London, two of the four epicenters of fashion. London gave rise to cultural phenomena such as the teddy boys, the mods, and the rockers. New York’s global influence came in the late 70s, when hip-hop and graffiti exploded onto the scene. Even though these two metropolitan cities dictate the world’s finance and business sectors, some people don’t see that they also dictate our fashion choices.

[pullquote]If I wanted to look at leather jackets, solid white t-shirts, and cardigans I would walk around Vancouver; we’ve already mastered comfort staples.[/pullquote]

Each February and September the fashion industry hosts Fashion Week in the four fashion capitals: New York, London, Milan and Paris. For the past five years, New York has been on top, producing commercial clothing with style and comfort. However, for spring 2013, New York’s continued use of last year’s colour blocking and floral, as well as an overemphasis on staple dressing (t-shirts, jeans, leather jackets, etc) was a disappointment. There weren’t any new designers to get overly excited about. One designer in particular, Custo Barcelona, suggested a new use for bright orange shag carpet. Other designers, like ALP and BLK DNM, played it safe and decided to base collections around staple pieces. Even though the fabrics and construction of the garments in both collections were lux and high quality, the desire for a commercially appealing collection left me bored and uninspired. If I wanted to look at leather jackets, solid white t-shirts, and cardigans I would walk around Vancouver; we’ve already mastered comfort staples.

Then there were the New York designers, who believe they live in a world where women wear cocktail dresses to work and gowns to clubs. Designers like Jenny Packham and Badgley Mischka produced clothes only for celebrities and the ultra-rich. Gown after gown came down the runway without any daytime wear in sight. Even though there were the usual show-stopping, I’m-changing-my-entire-wardrobe collections like Proenza Schouler, Alexander Wang, and Marc Jacobs, New York can’t continue to rest on their laurels.

[pullquote]Mary Katrantzou used exaggerated prints of stamps, banknotes and geometric lines, which emphasized the seduction of forgotten ancient European cultures.[/pullquote]

While many designers relish the independent outlook of London Fashion Week, their creative freedom largely outweighs their functionality. However, for spring 2013, many young designers in London have found that difficult balance of function and innovation. Recently, some designers who had left London Fashion Week in the past — like Preen, Jonathan Saunders and Matthew Williamson — decided to come back to their old stomping ground. Mary Katrantzou used exaggerated prints of stamps, banknotes and geometric lines, which emphasized the seduction of forgotten ancient European cultures. She favoured the easy silhouettes of shirtdresses, A-lines, sheaths and shifts, which would be great to wear walking along the seawall or sitting on a patio downtown.

Jonathan Saunders, who pioneered the revival of prints in past seasons, simplified his combination of prints by juxtaposing simplistic solid neutrals with metallic lux. While colour blocking and simple prints of stripes and polka dots also played a large role in his collection, a subtle change in the usage of prints relates more to modern women and their lifestyles. Christopher Raeburn, a recent newcomer known for austere parkas made from British Army parachute nylon, produced a utilitarian themed collection, including chic sweatpants made of grosgrain ribbon. His designs are practical and simple yet filled with clever details like tuxedo piping on a track jacket or a laminated-lace jacket.

London designers are beginning to design for modern women. We want clothing for all occasions and all types of weather. We travel through cities, from class to work, to parks and clubs, and we still want to maintain style. London designers are beginning to understand the complexity of our daily lives: while they continue to produce fashion-forward designs, they are keeping our labyrinth of a life in mind.

1...1,3481,3491,350...1,430Page 1,349 of 1,430

Simon Fraser University’s independent student newspaper since 1965.

Contact us: [email protected]

© The Peak Publications Society 1965-2024

Simon Fraser University’s independent student newspaper since 1965.

Contact us:
[email protected]

© The Peak Publications Society 1965-2024