*This article first appeared in The Muse’s 75th Anniversary Print Supplementmagazine, published January 2026.
Self-proclaimed ‘conduit’ for books, Josh Hutchings, runs curated secondhand haven Collected Pulp with one mission in mind: keeping physical media accessible to St. John’s residents.
Collected Pulp prioritizes customer affordability above all else, pricing books relatively low compared to sticker-shock rates running rampant through big bookstores nowadays.
A lifelong reader and longtime bookseller, Hutchings reflects on the social conventions surrounding media, ownership in the digital age, and the dangers of nostalgia.
“There’s this trope,” he says, “that young people are uninterested in stuff… but it really seems like younger people are trying to reach out to things that are more tangible.”
Hutchings designates a particular type of excitement for Gen Z customers when they find an especially “rad cover,” an old pocketbook, or a friend who loves the same author — a phenomenon he describes as “the look of a cover or just something that speaks to you, attaches to you.”
“People are starting to see how ephemeral everything is,” the bookseller stated. According to him, there appears to be a radical shift back to owning physical media as people become increasingly frustrated with relentless digitization, sneaky post-release censorship, and the unsteady, “renting” framework of streaming services.
“You see people saying, ‘I just bought this movie on Amazon. I’ll have it forever.’ Well, the license runs out, and it’s just gone. You don’t own any of that stuff. It’s digital.”
(Contributed)
Ever had a great album or book ruined for you after a breakup? While Hutchings champions reading and owning physical media, he cautions consumers against getting too attached or associating people and situations with their favourite bits of fiction.
“Everything’s very nostalgic now,” Hutching explained, joking about how, as he ages, all physical media holds some sort of retro quality apart from the story attached. “Books never change, though. The book is literally always there; it won’t change for you, or it can have that nostalgic factor that leans towards unhealthy.”
Repeated consumption of the same media can offer comfort, sure, but there comes a point when romanticization veers into dangerous territory. To Hutchings, it’s not that a song or book is objectively bad, just that dwelling on an unpleasant memory or traumatic event associated with it may trouble your ability to get past it.
Though the looming destructive potential of nostalgia persists, Collected Pulp proves the value in accessibility, actually owning things, and allowing yourself to get excited about physical media.
*This article first appeared in The Muse’s 75th Anniversary Print Supplementmagazine, published January 2026.
Over 75 years of The Muse, the place we write from and for has changed massively. This is a map of campus from the 1960s. As shown on the map, campus was much smaller 60 years ago, and some buildings had drastically different purposes. The old Science building was missing one side of its distinct square, and shockingly, the Math building was the library.
Older main buildings, such as Education and Chemistry-Physics, weren’t even planned for construction at the time. Education was planned to go where the Music building is now. The QEII library also wasn’t constructed yet.
Nothing existed across Prince Philip Drive, including Prince Philip Drive. The UC, Engineering, and Business buildings, among others, were absent. The Aquarena and the Works were also not yet built, alongside a large portion of the residences.
The campus was far smaller then than it is now. As it has evolved, The Muse has evolved with it, and now, both cover far more ground than they did in the 60s.
What happened to university degeneracy? Lifestyles worse than 60s’ rock stars, fuelled by a mix of caffeine, nicotine, and alcohol.
Our future, lawyers, doctors, and politicians, five hours from a midterm with a beer in their hand and a stranger in their bed; did this really exist, or is it just some romanticized trope?
If I’ve learned anything over my three years at MUN, it’s that university isn’t meant to be gone through celibate, sober, and studious — it’s a time for experimentation and discovery.
Hell, if I were to attempt such a feat, I don’t think I’d make it four weeks—let alone four years.
Even still, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of students who see university as a time for exclusively academic pursuits.
As students, we hear stories about the Breezeway packed weekly, legendary parties, and a lifestyle reminiscent of the Hollywood ideal. Yet, it appears that what once embodied someone’s early twenties has been consumed by classes, part-time jobs, and social disconnection.
However, participating in this culture was not just for us ‘alcoholics’; it was a way of bringing the student body together.
The current state of campus is tragic; seldom are events of any significance, and those that are seem few and far between. So instead, students turn to George Street for their fix. And although a night on the town is great on occasion, it increases costs and drives students away from campus.
Despite Memorial students shifting towards a more straight-edge lifestyle and taking the drinking that they do off campus, it’s not entirely their fault.
In the past few decades, Memorial has become increasingly strict regarding partying and alcohol. Since 2009, Memorial approved its current Alcohol policy, which can best be described as overly repressive and neo-prohibitionist.
According to the document, “Memorial University recognizes the unique social needs of a campus community and attempts to provide an environment where these needs can reasonably be met.” However, the actual policies within the document severely limit Memorial’s student life and party culture—key components of any healthy university ecosystem.
One of the most damaging policies in the document is regarding campus events. To host an on-campus event involving alcohol, Liquor-Services must approve it, and all liquor must be ordered through a beverage order.
Assuming it is approved, your event then must adhere to the strict time slot of 5:00 pm to 8:00 pm on Fridays. At the mixer, students are required to purchase all alcohol through a trained bartender, and are limited to three drinks per person.
For any event on campus to be hosted and advertised, involving alcohol outside of the Breezeway, it must meet these requirements.
The Muse / Quidi Vidi Advertisement / 1997-10-24
Until the early 2000s, Memorial featured a cacophony of alcohol advertisements: walls were covered with posters, The Muse featured cutouts for local bars, and beer reps could be found giving out samples around campus.
The change stemmed from a policy in 2016 banning the advertisement of alcohol on campus, disallowing any ad involving a “company name, logo, or brand of a distillery or brewery.” A policy applying to both campus space and media, including CHMR, The Gazette, and The Muse, ending all alcohol advertisements involving Memorial.
Whether you’re a frequent drunkard or a straight-edge student, it feels unanimous that an event meeting these requirements would best be described as lame or an overpriced pre-game.
Therefore, if Memorial truly recognized the social needs of the campus, it would ease these restrictions, allowing events to run later than 8:00 pm, to happen on days other than Friday, and to involve more than three drinks per person—being on campus doesn’t need to be boring.
By restricting campus life and community, Memorial has continued to become a disconnected, asocial commuter campus. If these restrictions were to be changed, it would unquestionably mean more public events and a re-ignition of campus life.
Such a change would mean more students partying on campus, opposed to downtown, having positive effects on campus, but also for the safety and finances of students.
The Muse / Black Horse Advertisement
Despite these restrictions and an ever-shifting culture, many Memorial students defy these rules and keep the university alive through parties and unhampered degeneracy.
However, these policies strongly discourage public campus events, severely limiting Memorial’s social atmosphere.
Now, although students are welcomed to host dry events, by railroading drinking into specifically Friday-only mixers, it alienates drinkers and non-drinkers, reducing event turnout. The allowance of social lubricant at currently dry events would not only help the sociability and experience of these events, but also reach a much larger audience—especially if advertising were allowed.
So, if you’re a new student attending Memorial, the best advice I have is to experiment—be part of the change, be a university degenerate, and host that party.
*This article first appeared in The Muse’s 75th Anniversary Print Supplementmagazine, published January 2026.
The Muse has always highlighted student voices, in one way or another.
For over 50 years of its 75-year history, it’s had ‘Mouth Off’: short, quick comments from students on a variety of topics.
Mouth-Off always has at least one question, usually relevant to current events, and was put to a handful of MUN students from different faculties and years.
The earliest example of Mouth-Off I was able to find was from March 12, 1971, where The Muse asked students, “What do you think the University yearbook should contain?”
At the time, Memorial University had a student-run yearbook that was looking for staff and starting its first days of production. Responses were mixed, but mostly focused on a desire to highlight student life, not just the graduates.
Mouth-Off questions were sometimes light-hearted, asking stuff like “What events would you like to see at the winter carnival?” or humorous, like “Can you justify your existence?”
Sometimes they were even self-deprecating, with questions like “Do you think Mouth-Off is dumb?” which came back positive, except for comments about the student photos and the quality of the questions.
However, many Mouth-Offs were more serious, discussing topics like politics or sexual assault. One of the final Mouth-Offs of The Muse’s print era, November 13, 2014, asked students where they “drew the line in terms of sexual harassment.”
Throughout The Muse’s history, it has almost always covered topics such as sexual violence and safe sex, especially in times when it was not conventional in the media, and Mouth-Off was no exception; earlier editions of Mouth-Off from the 80s elevated the voices of young female students, asking about “birth control,” and “where they wouldn’t feel safe walking at night.”
Although The Muse went out of print in 2017, it did not mean the end of Mouth-Off; with the rise of platforms like YouTube in the early 2000s, The Muse transitioned Mouth-Off to a video format, with the same balance of serious questions and lighthearted fun.
Now, with The Muse being out of print for almost a decade, Mouth-Off has continued through short-form videos on social media like Instagram, Facebook, and TikTok.
We re-asked current MUN students a set of questions from 1982:
Do you think MUNSU has a moral obligation to support other unions?
Estimate the number of student alcoholics at MUN.
Heather Guiney – 4th year Archaeology:
Yes, I’d say so.
I don’t know, the definition of alcoholic is pretty obscure…Maybe like 30 percent?
Max Jin – 4th year Computer Science:
Yes, solidarity for unions.
I’d say low bar 30 percent. Just like eyeballing.
Kassy Keats – 3rd year Political Science:
I don’t know a lot about MUNSU’s responsibilities in general, but it’s nice to see them support other student unions.
A lot more than we think.
Neil Villanueva – 1st year Science:
I think they should build relationships with other unions as well.
I think I’m going to say about 80 percent.
Ariaaza Dipour – 2nd year Computer Science:
I think MUNSU has a self-interested responsibility to support other unions.
Like 60 percent.
Falak Ajani – 3rd year Human Kinetics and Recreation:
No it does not.
78 percent…I’ll see like half my classmates whenever I go downtown.
*This article first appeared in The Muse’s 75th Anniversary Print Supplementmagazine, published January 2026.
Last summer in St. John’s was marked by the Canada Summer Games, as thousands of people flocked to the province to watch the country’s best athletes.
But how did it compare to the 1977 Games?
Team NL feats
Team NL entered the 1977 Canada Summer Games having not won a single medal in the 1973 Canada Games.
In fact, Team NL had only won a single medal in the entire history of the Summer Games: a bronze medal in men’s soccer at the 1969 Summer Games.
For Newfoundland, winning its first medal in eight years and its second medal ever was crucial, especially on home soil.
Team NL won the Centennial Cup for most improved team, and brought its medal record from the previous Summer Games from zero to four.
The medals won by Team NL at these Games were monumental at that time. Gordon Follett Jr. won the province’s first-ever individual medal at the Summer Games, a bronze medal in athletics.
The province also earned its first gold medal at a Canada Summer Games, as swimmer Blair Tucker won the men’s 200m butterfly. Team NL also picked up a medal in women’s field hockey, winning bronze, which was one of the bigger stories of the Games.
Infrastructure and importance of Aquarena
The Muse, February 4 1977 (MUN DAI)
One thing these Games had in common with each other was the infrastructure that was built to make them a possibility. For both iterations of the Games, tons of money was spent on sporting facilities, especially the Aquarena.
For the 1977 Games, the Aquarena was built. It was one of the biggest stories surrounding the Games in the lead-up to the opening ceremony.
It cost just over $1 750 500 to build. According to Bill Burke, the manager of the Canada Summer Games, the facility was the “most modern community recreational facility in all of Canada, perhaps even North America.”
Not only were the organizers raving about the Aquarena, but so were the athletes. Linda Cuthbert, who at the time was the 10-metre Canadian diving champion, said the Aquarena was the “best pool complex she’s ever seen, including the Olympic pool in Montreal.”
At the time of its construction, the Aquarena was widely considered the most impressive sporting facility constructed in the province.
The Aquarena was once again key in ensuring the Games could be hosted here in St. John’s, this time around, with a major renovation taking place.
The Aquarena remained untouched for almost half a century, and in order for the Games to go ahead, a major facelift was required, which resulted in a $24.6 million renovation.
As reported by The Muse, the renovation included brand new diving boards, overhauled washrooms and change rooms, a new plumbing system and a new lighting system.
Fortis Canada Games Complex (City of St. John’s)
However, the Aquarena wasn’t the only major sporting infrastructure to have oddles of money put into it, as the brand new Fortis Canada Games Complex was built in order to support both athletics and soccer.
The facility is located right next to the Aquarena and is very close to the MUN campus.
The facility cost $34 million to build, and according to Jordan Wright, the lead organizer at MUN for the Canada Games, the complex was a key commitment that was made in order for the city to host the Games.
Sports
Canadian baseball player Jaida Lee kicking off women’s baseball at the 2025 Games (Sport Canada)
The 1977 Canada Games only featured 13 sports, many of which were not played during the 2025 edition.
This was the first Canada Games to ever feature archery, which was included in the Summer Games program until 1997, when it was switched to the Winter Games program.
The 1977 edition of the Games featured Field Hockey, along with other sports that are no longer included, like Water Polo, Water Skiing and Target Shooting.
Looking at the 2025 iteration of the Games, it is interesting to see how much the Games have grown in terms of sport. In the 48 years in between the Games, sports such as Rugby Sevens, Golf, and Wrestling have been added.
I would also be remiss if I did not mention that the 2025 Games were the first Games with women’s Baseball, which was a huge moment in Canadian sports history.
The 2025 Games were the largest ever in terms of athlete participation and brought national attention to our province. The growth of the Games in the 48 years between St. John’s hosting is remarkable, and it will undoubtedly continue to grow over the next 50 years.
“Vulgarity is neither fashionable nor intellectual,” claimed a blistering letter to the Editor in a February 1991 issue of The Muse.
This was in direct response to the student publication’s most controversial issue, which made national news. Memorial’s student publication was under investigation by the RNC for a sex column in its annual Gay and Lesbian Supplement.
Both then and now, The Muse wears this controversy as a badge of honour – the outrage towards its coverage was testament to its mission of keeping students informed without shying away from ‘difficult’ or ‘inappropriate’ topics.
Many following editions of the paper would continue this trend by covering issues of eroticism – editorial decisions that appeared shocking to many readers.
The Gay and Lesbian Supplement
‘A gay man’s guide to erotic safer sex’ (The Muse, February 15 1991 / MUN DAI)
February 14th isn’t just a holiday bleakly corporatizing the metaphysical phenomenon colloquially known as love – in Canada, the date also observes ‘Pink Triangle Day,’ a day of historic recognition for 2SLGBTQIA+ people.
Pink triangles are both a reminder of the violence queer people faced in WWII concentration camps, and a reclamation of the once-oppressive symbol. Pink Triangle Day is no longer as widely observed and can be criticized for its exclusion of trans issues.
Starting in 1990, The Muse marked this historic day double-feature with an annual ‘Gay and Lesbian Supplement.’
As February arrived each year, Muse staff would cover the ongoing struggle for equality. The masthead would survey students, debate the function of labels or the ethics of certain relationship dynamics, and, most notably, publish factual and informative HIV/AIDS coverage debunking harmful cultural myths amidst rampant fear-mongering.
(The Muse, February 16 1990 / MUN DAI)
Many students submitting articles and letters for such supplements used pseudonyms to avoid being outed. This was during a time when these issues were seldom spoken about in media, other than alarmism or to justify bigotry.
Published in the infamous 1991 issue, an article titled ‘A gay man’s guide to erotic safer sex’ transparently measured the HIV/AIDS risk factor for specific sex acts, albeit with some anecdotal evidence and descriptive liberties taken, and complete with a photo of a man performing oral sex on another man.
In a time when access to information and the internet was less than democratic, and few sexual health resources were available to queer people, even if they mustered the courage to seek them out, this type of coverage was nothing short of life-saving.
Most people, however, did not agree with this sentiment, so vehemently so that The Muse’s editorial staff decided to make their subsequent issue a ‘Letters Supplement,’ giving students a chance to air out their grievances.
A medical student called the supplement “revolting” and said that the paper had “successfully made gays and lesbians seem perverse while simultaneously offending the majority of St. John’s.”
Another letter, from “20 disgruntled students,” banded together to divulge a quite passionate, profanity-ridden spiel on why “The Muse is not a porno magazine,” claiming they had only seen content similar to ‘A gay man’s guide’ in explicit publications.
Most letters claimed to have no issue with gays or lesbians, while calling them ‘immoral,’ ‘sick,’ and ‘perverted’ in the same breath. This response brought to light long-running, harmful misconceptions that conflate queerness with sexual perversion or deviancy.
In the same issue, Editor-in-Chief Dawn Mitchell wrote that the reaction was “unexpected and unwarranted.”
She further explained that the piece was intended to educate, and “despite this controversy, however, the staff maintains its right to determine the editorial policy of the Muse and will not be deterred from its attempts to expose those issues which we feel are not addressed by the commercial media.”
Representative Gary Kinsman at the press conference (The Muse, February 22 1991 / MUN DAI)
Following the backlash, community members and students held a press conference at the LSPU hall in support of The Muse.
Associated persons maintained the educational quality of the coverage. At the press conference, MUN sociology professor Gary Kinsman said that “hopefully, more people will realize we have to deal with this issue, even though it may offend a few people. In many ways, this is a health emergency.”
Many other student publications like UBC’s The Ubyssey, Simon Fraser University’s The Peak, Concordia’s The Link, and UofT’s The Varsity reprinted the article to display solidarity.
The sex column renaissance of the early 2000s
(The Muse, February 3 2005 / MUN DAI)
A few years later, The Muse’s sex coverage expanded to include not just activism, sexual health, and safety, but to also center discussions around pleasure, mutual respect, and comfort.
The early 2000s, in particular, veered towards ‘tutorial’ style articles that are, admittedly, quite surprising to read, though I’ll let you decide for yourself.
Some articles of considerable shock-value include ‘Some call it wanking’ and ‘Mind-blowing cunnilingus,’ published in 2004, and ‘Be kind to your bottom,’ published in 2005.
During these few years, the publication printed regular columns titled ‘Sexual Frustrations’ and ‘The Sex Geek.’
(The Muse, January 14 2004 / MUN DAI)
To our knowledge, these articles did not spur such spirited public feedback, but there are little reliable ways of knowing how the average MUN student in the 2000s reacted to such coverage.
(The Muse, February 5 2004 / MUN DAI)
Musingsand questionsgoing forward
The Gay and Lesbian Supplements ceased production in 2001 – though it’s worth reiterating that queer issues are not inherently sexual topics, and the paper sustained coverage of the 2SLGBTQIA+ community afterward.
General coverage of sexual issues and health appears to taper off in the early 2010s.
While the internet has its blessings, it appears web-only journalism has increased self-censorship on certain fronts, affecting what students feel they are ‘allowed’ to say in print versus online publications.
It’s much less anxiety-inducing to discuss ‘taboo’ or ‘inappropriate’ topics with the knowledge that it’s only being distributed in print to a small, captive audience, and writers aren’t petrified of the elusive looming presence of virality, future employers stumbling across it, or being haunted by their digital footprint.
The Dalhousie Gazette’s annual Love & Sex Issue (@dalgazette on Instagram / https://dalgazette.com)
This all being said, a large portion of student publications across Canada still do ‘Love and Sex’ issues for February, and based on recent conversations with editorial staff from other papers, these special issues appear to be their most-read and highly anticipated yearly.
Jenna Olsen, Editor-in-Chief of Dalhousie University’s student-run publication, The Dalhousie Gazette, says that “The Dal Gazette’s love and sex coverage has been massively popular. I think university media should be radical and provocative, and because our only oversight is our student-run editorial team.”
“Some of our most popular pieces from the last two years have been sexually provocative content,” Olsen said.
Regarding some of their more provocative print coverage, the Dal Gazette team expected some reprisal towards their content and preemptively addressed readers. To Olsen’s surprise, students seemed unfazed.
“We printed a full page close-up of a bare boob in our limited edition fashion magazine, and it was the talk of Dalhousie campus. I was expecting some backlash for that one, but I didn’t even get one complaining email.”
While media ecosystems and what is deemed ‘acceptable’ to make the subject of an article have changed drastically since the 1990s, students at other universities are still itching to see their school’s sex survey published in a February issue.
Does this suggest a need for increased transparency around sexuality despite our supposedly ‘open’ mid-2020s public sphere? Does this increased interest speak to how people are continuously fascinated by the taboo and inappropriate? Maybe it attests to vulgarity indeed being fashionable and intellectual?
These are questions that have arisen for us recently after discussing the Gay and Lesbian Supplements with Muse alumni, and Love and Sex issues with editorial peers.
So, dear Muse readers, this is where you come in.
Is the new-gen Muse lacking this kind of coverage? Are we too soft now? Are all MUN students just prudes? Would you want to see a MUN sex survey? Or a Love and Sex print issue?
Please let us know here, or on social media @themuseyyt.
The US-Israel joint attacks against Iran, beginning with the first strikes around 9:27am in Tehran, signal the latest and most significant escalation in conflict since US-Israel strikes on Iranian nuclear and military facilities in June 2025.
The latest air strikes targeted military and government infrastructure in Tehran, Iran’s capital, with Iranian media reporting attacks on the Ministry of Intelligence, the Ministry of Defence, the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, and a military complex.
Missiles also struck University Street, killing at least two students at a school in the east of Tehran, as well as a girls’ primary school in southern Iran, killing at least 108, bringing the death toll from airstrikes to an estimated 201, so far.
Iran responded to the US-Israel attacks by sending retaliatory strikes against Israel and US military infrastructure in Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, UAE, with explosions reported in Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain and northern Israel.
There has been one confirmed death in Abu Dhabi, UAE from falling debris and one man received minor injuries in northern Israel.
Iran’s government had previously warned of severe action against US military bases in the region if the US resorted to military force, in order to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Global responses to the joint US-Israel strikes have varied—countries struck by Iranian missiles have condemned Iran’s retaliation and asserted their “right to respond,” China expressed that Iran’s sovereignty must be respected and urged an end to military action.
Russia accused the US of manipulating ongoing negotiations between the US and Israel to distract from the impending strikes, and Norway contradicted the assertion touted by US and Israel government officials that strikes against Iran were “preventive,” stating that it is “not in line with international law” since preventive strikes “require an immediately imminent threat.”
This is further complicated by statements from Israeli defence officials affirming that the joint strikes were planned for months prior, with a specific date selected weeks before.
Other nations have released statements with varying degrees of support for US-Israel military action, including a joint statement from Germany, the UK, and France condemning “Iranian attacks on countries in the region.”
Canada’s statement, released by Prime Minister Mark Carney and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Anita Anand, follows in this vein, stating that Iran is “the principal source of instability and terror throughout the Middle East” and that Canada “supports the United States acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”
At the time of the US-Israel attacks, the US and Iran had been embroiled in a third round of nuclear negotiations taking place in Switzerland, amid increasing US sanctions on Iran and rising American military presence in the Middle East.
The talks have largely stalled, with the two sides unable to come to an agreement. United States government representatives have long claimed that Iran’s nuclear program poses a significant threat to international security as they claim Iran grows closer to developing nuclear weapons capabilities.
Iran refuses to include their missile programs in the agreement, saying that Iran’s missiles are for “defence only.”
The purported concern about Iran’s nuclear weapons has been a leading explanation for the attacks on Iran by American and Israeli authorities, even though US President Donald Trump previously stated that the US-initiated ‘12-Day War,’ in June 2025 had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear operations.
Further shedding doubt on this claim is testimony from the US’ own Director of Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, who testified in March 2025 that US intelligence “continued to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.”
For students of history or those who simply remember history, the statements from US and Israeli officials manufacturing support for their attacks on Iran are eerily similar, nearly identical, to the pattern the world saw play out during and after the American invasion of Iraq in 2003—now widely condemned and understood to be one of the United States’ most detrimental foreign policy decisions.
Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, president George W. Bush exploited public fear to pursue military action against Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq.
He had argued that Iraq had not dismantled their nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs, as was dictated by the United Nations after the 1991 Gulf War, which presented a massive risk to international security; particularly, American security.
The 2003 invasion of Iraq, which swiftly toppled the Iraqi government and military, led to a prolonged American occupation of Iraq which lasted until December 2011, when the US had fully withdrawn.
By the end of the Iraq war, the country had been totally destabilized, an estimated 300,000 Iraqis were killed, including approximately 200,000 civilians, 4,500 American soldiers were killed and 32,000 were wounded. No weapons of mass destruction were ever found.
Canada’s support for the aggression clearly initiated by the United States and Israel raises serious concerns about further Canadian complicity in violations of international law and possible war crimes.
Prime Minister Carney’s statement lends credence to the unfounded claim that the United States is pursuing military action against Iran for a righteous reason: to defend and protect the international community from a rogue state with nuclear weapons.
This is despite the UN Attorney General’s condemnation of the US and Israel’s actions as “military escalation.”
It is also deeply ironic due to Canada’s ongoing complicity and passivity in the state of Israel’s continuing genocide in Gaza, a state which, unlike Iran, already possesses nuclear weapons and is one of only five nations worldwide that has declined to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Iran has signed.
Even Prime Minister Jean Chretien refused to publicly support the US invasion of Iraq at the time—primarily due to a lack of authorization from the UN Security Council—and Chretien did not directly involve Canada in hostilities.
The UN Security council is set to hold an emergency meeting this afternoon to discuss the growing crisis across the Middle East. Canada would do well to remember the harrowing legacies of the Iraq war, and the lessons we should already be familiar with—war begets war, bloodshed begets bloodshed.
It is wise to be skeptical about the actions of a military power who has a lengthy track record of misrepresenting information and fabricating narratives to the benefit of no one but the most wealthy and powerful.
At the beginning of the 2025-26 curling season, Brad Gushue announced that this season would be his final one, meaning the upcoming matches in St. John’s will be his last.
Unless team Gushue wins the Brier, which is definitely a possibility, he’ll get one last chance to represent Canada at the Men’s World Curling Championships later in March in Utah.
Understanding the stakes of this Brier for both himself and the fans, Gushue told reporters he hopes to find a balance between enjoying the moment and staying locked in on the game.
He also reflected on the growth of curling in the province.
“It’s not just me, but our team, who has really created an interest in this sport,” Gushue said.
“I remember starting out, and there wasn’t quite the interest when we would walk around the community. People didn’t know what curling was, and now everyone has watched curling at some point in their life, and they’re not only team Gushue fans, they’re curling fans… I think some of the draws that are being held this week where we aren’t playing, are still gonna be pretty full, because people are gonna want to watch some of the other great teams.”
“I think we’ve developed this province into a great curling community,” he stated.
Gushue ended things by saying the Brier will be the thing he’ll miss “the most” about curling when he retires.
Team Young represents NL’s other team
Nathan Young says it’s more than a dream to represent province in hometown Brier (Michael Burns/Curling Canada).
Since team Gushue automatically clinched a spot at the Brier due to their position in the CTRS rankings at the end of the 2024-25 season, that meant another NL-based team would get the chance to qualify for the Brier.
Team Nathan Young has earned the opportunity to represent the province after beating Team Simon Perry 5-4 in the Newfoundland Tankard.
For skip Young, it will be his third appearance at a Brier, getting the honour to represent the province twice in both 2022 and 2023.
When asked what it meant to him to be representing the host province on home soil, Young said, “I thought I could say it’s a dream come true, but you can’t even dream this. This is better.”
“You dream about going to the Brier; you don’t dream about going to the Brier in your hometown, because it is just two things that are crazy. We are so thankful to be from this province and have support from the curlers and the people of the province, and to be able to curl in front of them is pretty incredible.”
When talking about his goal for the Brier, Young says his team never has a “number of wins as our goal,” but rather to deal with “the shot at hand.”
“We maximize our chances of success by communicating well as a team, supporting each other and throwing the right weight.”
The Brier began last night, with both NL-based rinks competing.
Team Gushue will be going up against Quebec, while Team Young will be going up against Nunavut. Both teams will face off on Monday night, while the tournament ends next Sunday with the championship game.
Raj Chetty and John Friedman of Time magazine released their worldwide university ranking for 2026. Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador was ranked 295th out of 500 universities globally, 17th out of 29 in Canada, and second in Atlantic Canada.
According to Time’s methodology page, this is the magazine’s first time publishing a university ranking, stating, “TIME, in partnership with Statista R, the leading global provider of market and consumer data and rankings, has published the inaugural edition of the ‘World’s Top Universities of 2026’ ranking. The quantitative study highlights institutions that drive academic excellence globally.”
Memorial University was awarded an overall score of 47.5, tied with the University of Konstanz, a public university in Germany, which put them 295th and 294th, respectively, far from the number one ranked University of Oxford, whose overall score was 90.1, and the number one ranked in Canada. University of Toronto, whose overall score was 75.71.
The overall score and placement of a university are based on their scores in 3 distinct categories: “Academic Capacity & Performance,” “Innovation & Economic Impact,” and “Global Engagement.”
Memorial was given a score of 47.44 in the category of Academic Capacity & Performance, comparable to the University of Canterbury, a public university in New Zealand whose score in this category was 47.66.
Academic Capacity & Performance is defined as “under the pillar of academic capacity & performance, the study examines both the resources universities devote to teaching and research, and the results they achieve in terms of scholarly output and academic excellence.”
In the category of Innovation & Economic Impact, MUN was given a score of 43.50, similar to Marburg University, a public university in Germany, which was given a score of 43.33.
Time Magazine describes the methodology of Innovation & Economic Impact as “[examining] universities’ contributions to the advancement of science and technology, the diffusion of knowledge, and their influence on economic decision-making through the careers of their graduates.”
Lastly, in the final category, Global Engagement, Time Magazine gave Memorial University its highest score of any of the three categories, 62.29, not far off the second-highest-ranked Canadian university, the University of British Columbia, which scored 62.83.
Global Engagement is defined as “a global ranking, the study evaluates the global engagement of universities by measuring the extent to which they attract international students and staff and the degree of international attention they receive.”
Memorial University was quite content with this ranking. Dennis Peters, an associate VP at Memorial, told The Tim Powers Show on VOCM that the ranking is a “source of pride.”
President Dr. Janet Morrison said in a statement in the Memorial University Gazette that “Memorial is on the right track” as well as “Our students and alumni are contributing to their communities and meeting the challenges of a changing world, because of their experiences at Memorial.”
MUN has recently announced that it will be selling the Geo Centre, and that if there is no sale by the end of 2026, the Geo Centre will close.
As a MUN geophysics master’s student, and a member of the Johnson family, I can confidently say that this is a horrible decision.
With Newfoundland’s economy being heavily rooted in natural resources, and climate change becoming more dire every day, education on geosciences is more important than ever.
The Geo Centre is an amazing place for learning and for community events, and letting it disappear would be a disgusting waste.
Many people remember going to field trips at the Geo Centre as children, and learning about everything from the planets in space to the ground beneath our feet.
The Geo Centre is an incredible place for inspiring and educating people of all ages.
Geoscience education is undoubtedly important for our province. Our economy is heavily tied to natural resources, with oil and gas and mining being huge industries here.
More than that, climate change is presenting new challenges everyday, destroying habitats all around the world.
Geoscientists are crucial for fighting climate change. We need more people in geoscience to sustain our community and make a better future.
What better way to educate people about this field, and to inspire students to go into this field, than the Geo Centre? It’s disappointing that MUN hasn’t done more with this asset.
There’s very little exposure to the geosciences in grade school, so having facilities such as the Geo Centre is extremely valuable.
We are also seeing a rise in misinformation surrounding the sciences, which is another reason it’s so important to have science outreach and education being supported in our community. There is so much potential to use the Geo Centre in more ways than ever before, to help build our future.
Since MUN was gifted the Geo Centre, it’s management of the facility has been lacklustre. Overall, the Geo Centre seems to be underutilized, with not many events being hosted there, and the facility remaining closed for most of the year.
That being said, the idea of a new owner for the Geo Centre also brings hesitation.
Picture this: In a few years time, the Geo Centre becomes a purely for profit business, with no attention paid anymore to science education or outreach. That could be the outcome if the Geo Centre goes to an irresponsible buyer.
However, there’s a chance that the Geo Centre could fall into good hands. Best case scenario, the Geo Centre is bought by an entity which focuses on the education and outreach potential of the facility, and uses it for the betterment of the community.
The worst outcome would be for the Geo Centre to close. MUN has a great opportunity with the Geo Centre to make it better than it’s ever been; it could create new exhibits, new education opportunities for the youth, and use it to host more events!
It’s a shame to see such an opportunity be thrown away.
Choosing to close the Geo Centre if there is no buyer by the end of this year is irresponsible, disappointing, and disrespectful.
I’m definitely not the only person who feels this way about the Geo Centre.
Many classmates and friends have expressed their opinions regarding the sale of the Geo Centre, and the overall feeling is disappointment.
MUN has cited the main reason for selling the Geo Centre as being that the Geo Centre comes at a cost to run, and that it carries a large sum of deferred maintenance costs.
The sale of the Geo Centre is one of the many symptoms of MUN’s poor finances. Mismanagement of resources and funds, as well as decreased financial support from the government, are clearly hurting the university on many fronts.
We are seeing the loss of many facilities and programs which students love, including Harlow campus, humanities programs, and the Geo Centre. This is what happens when education is not supported.
To prevent further losses to our community, there needs to be a drastic change to MUN’s finances, as well as increased support from the government.
When we don’t support education, everyone loses.
Alexis Johnsonis a geophysics master’s student at Memorial University
