Categories
Opinions

Language politics and Quebec’s crippled democracy

How arguing over language turns politics into a zero-sum game

We got another rousing reminder last week that as long as language issues continue to dictate Quebec politics, democracy in this province will remain a flawed concept.

Despite the urging of Canada’s Commissioner of Official Languages Graham Fraser, the Quebec government refused to create an office of anglophone affairs.

It appears that aiding a province’s linguistic minority to navigate the political realm is not always in vogue in la belle province, even if there are such offices servicing francophone minorities in other provinces.

After all, Quebec’s divisive battles over language cultivate a fear of cultural assimilation and turn politics into a zero-sum game that has a detrimental effect on the democratic process. Some could say that many votes in last year’s general election were cast to avoid an undesired outcome rather than to pursue desired policies. In such circumstances, the ability to hold the governing party accountable becomes severely compromised.

The cringe-worthy PQ Charter of Values is a thing of the past. Quebec sovereignty appears to be as unlikely as it has been in decades. Yet there is an odd feeling that the Couillard government is back to dealing with the issues that matter the most—the economy, education and health—by being much less malleable to citizens’ concerns.

Fraser’s recommendation coincides with rising concerns that the Liberal Party’s proposed Bill 10 will erode anglophone control over its institutions and hamper the delivery of health and social services within their communities.

In his public support of the government’s refusal, David Birnbaum—one of three anglophone MNAs in the Couillard cabinet—encapsulated an essential problem in Quebec democracy.

He acknowledged that responses to anglophone concerns can be slow, only to boast shortly thereafter that the Liberals are more understanding to those issues than their PQ predecessors (stating the painfully obvious).

 In short, the Liberals have spared Anglophones and many other Quebecers that are turned off by questions of sovereignty, and it seems they should all be thankful regardless of how or when their other vital concerns are dealt with.

Any concession to Anglophones will be interpreted as a loss for the francophone majority by Philippe Couillard’s opponents who—for now—represent a worst case scenario for many Quebecers.

Democracies are never perfect. But the word “impunity” should never be contemplated to describe a party’s rule. The lingering cloud of language politics in Quebec does just that.

Categories
Opinions

Cheap shots over cheap tickets at Guzzo Cinema

The company’s hockey widow ad is much ado about nothing

Guzzo Cinemas’ “hockey widow” ad campaign has caused a stir lately, with many calling it sexist. At the heart of the accusation is the claim that the photo ad—which promotes a movie discount for women on evenings that the Montreal Canadiens play—implies that women do not watch hockey.

But really, it doesn’t at all.

The backlash for Guzzo Cinemas is a classic case of reading too much into what is actually a pretty straightforward message.

“Are you a hockey widow?” reads the photo ad. “You know… Left alone to regret wasted evenings while he watches the game?”

In fairness, for the ad’s detractors, the interpretation of the ad’s message was likely impacted by its visuals.

“Guzzo Cinema’s newest promotion on hockey widows offers women a discounted price on nights the Montreal Canadiens are playing. The ad is accused of being sexist. (Source: Guzzo Cinemas)

The picture accompanying the ad features a man glued to his TV during a hockey game. Next to him, his neglected girlfriend looks very much like she is being held hostage from puck drop until the final buzzer. The bottom of the ad shows the same woman, happily eating popcorn at a Guzzo movie theatre with her girlfriends.

Nevertheless, it strikes me as odd that an ad filled with clear, probing questions would be interpreted as a definitive statement on gender roles.

Merely asking those questions suggests an openness to the idea that there are indeed women who do love hockey, yet Guzzo Cinemas was accused of narrow-mindedness.

Imagine that this wording was used, for example: “Are you a woman? Left alone to regret wasted evenings while he watches the game?”

Not only is this fictional ad too broad to truly resonate with a prospective customer, it implies that no woman watches hockey and is certainly deserving of the backlash that the “hockey widows” campaign has received.

Clearly, the target market for Guzzo Cinemas’ promotion is much narrower than just women—it is women who do not love hockey and have significant others who do. I strongly doubt that anyone can deny the existence of such a group.

Sensitivity towards the portrayal of women in media is not only understandable, it is needed. But how can such a blatant misunderstanding arise? How can an advertising campaign so specific be seen as a sexist generalization of women?

But mainly, this kind of rush to judgment is due to the importance we tend to give to the images and messages shown on media platforms. It is the fear of the media’s power to influence others and legitimize certain norms, beliefs and values. It is the fear that if a message or image is in a movie, commercial or television show, some will conclude that not only must it be true, it must be the only truth.

Members of groups that have historically been stereotyped can be weary of how they are portrayed regardless of how harmless the portrayal is. Add the reality of the social responsibility of businesses and, in this case, Guzzo Cinemas’ margin of error was ever so small.

“Are you a hockey widow?”

It is a question that gives options to women in the audience. It does not pigeonhole them into a certain identity. We are all entitled to our opinions. However, I question the act of reading into something that simply isn’t there.

Categories
Opinions

Backlash for Nick Cannon’s “whiteface” photo

Do we need to lighten up, or is this an upsetting display of reverse racism?

To promote his latest album that bears the cringe-worthy title White People Party Music, Nick Cannon, who is black, revealed a picture of himself on his Instagram in heavy makeup that made him look Caucasian. It has been dubbed as “whiteface.”

The picture was met with criticism and the public drew comparisons to the degrading blackface minstrel shows of the 19th and 20th centuries. With faces painted black and exaggerated lips, performers portrayed blacks as dim-witted, lazy and dishonest, among other stereotypes.

Graphic by Jenny Kwan

As a black man, I can personally attest to how those racist depictions are among the most hurtful and maddening visuals within our culture.

On the other hand, the attention-starved antics of the America’s Got Talent host spawned the following question: should a black person painting his face white draw the same ire as the opposite scenario? In my opinion, the answer is simple: Not at all.

The minstrel shows were instrumental in disseminating and upholding the crippling narrative of racial inferiority and that unfortunately continues to shape the black experience to this day. Whether it is on the basis of ethnicity, gender, economic class, sexual orientation or mental illness, heightened sensitivity is warranted for groups that have historically faced institutionalized discrimination.

For example, given the ongoing fight for gender equality, I don’t believe that a woman saying that all men are dogs is nearly as bad as a male counterpart saying that all women are…well, you catch my drift. However, that doesn’t mean the question is not valid.

In fact, it is a progressive step towards regulating an odd and implicit social norm — members of disadvantaged groups having carte blanche to ridicule others without any fear of reprimand. Cannon’s statements defending his actions only strengthen the point.

“Yes, we have issues with race in this country, in this world. It doesn’t have to be with hatred,” he explained during an appearance on Good Morning America. “There’s a big difference between humour and hatred.”

He seems completely oblivious to the fact that the stock he places in his intentions is completely irrelevant in other cases.

Madonna’s recent Instagram faux-pas — referring to one of her sons as the N-word in the caption of a picture — was harshly criticized. Her claims that the intention behind the use of the word was not racist mostly fell on deaf ears, mine included.

But naturally, when Cannon casually claims that the spirit in which he performed the stunt should factor into how we interpret it, claims of a double standard are legitimized.

In addition to posting the picture, Cannon included hashtags that included “Dog Kissing,” “Good Credit” and “Fist Pumping.” Although I’m sure they are not necessarily as derogatory as the buffoonish portrayals of African-Americans during minstrel shows, such sweeping generalizations are ultimately counter-productive.

It is in fact fair for some to perceive that there is ultra-sensitivity on one end of the spectrum while unrestrained ignorance is allowed on the other.

Of course, when tastefully done, humour that revolves around our cultural differences has the power to bring us together. Considering the immediate reactions, it’s fair to say that Cannon’s attempt failed miserably in that regard.

In the end, I believe it is reasonable for everyone to have the right to determine what they deem offensive. Asking anyone to relinquish that right because of a perceived societal privilege is anything but.

Cannon remains confident that his actions were meant to challenge our society to discuss race, which is fair enough. But just as he wants us to lighten up, some of us need to tighten up as well.

Categories
Opinions

The millennial generation is drunk on Facebook likes

Getting attention through social media is thrilling, yet addictive. Graphic by Jenny Kwan

For those of you who have been lucky enough to have been shielded from such ignorance, the recent NekNomination craze is a disturbing practice which calls for people to chug large quantities of alcohol and then nominate others to replicate the senseless ritual. I have seen my fair share of foolish viral videos, but these ones take the cake — by a landslide.

While watching some of these videos, I simply shook my head in disbelief.

I began to search for the appropriate words to describe the continuously growing phenomenon we call social media. With it, I have noticed a troubling contradiction: empowerment and destruction.

One undoubtedly feels a jolt of confidence knowing that without any specific expertise, hundreds, thousands or even millions of online audience members can endorse their thoughts and actions by sharing or “liking” them on social media. Yet, in such a wide network where content is infinite, we are endlessly bombarded with entertainment options that make the fight against our low attention spans even more challenging.

For many, standing out is not only a top priority, it’s the only priority. And as we somehow grew accustomed to the initial wave of NekNomination videos, the extreme lengths to which NekNominees go to get their 15 minutes of social media fame reveal just how destructive these platforms can be.

When a person, seemingly without giving it a second thought, is willing to include urine in their alcoholic beverages or to follow their guzzling exploits by diving into a river in order to “stand out,” it begs the question, how far will some go to reach a pointless objective?

Sadly, there have been at least five deaths around the world that have been linked to this farcical game. Jonny Byrne, a 19-year-old from Carlow, Ireland, died last month after drinking a pint and jumping into the river.

An optimistic take on these senseless tragedies is that they will hopefully raise awareness about the hazards of NekNomination stunts, and ultimately help scale back the negligence that is evidenced in online behaviour. Unfortunately, I am not one of those optimists.

Social media replicates and considerably enhances the pressurized environment found in high schools and colleges.

“We found in our study that people, college students, are not getting a sense of social support from being on the phone,” UCLA developmental psychologist Patricia Greenfield  told CBC News, Feb. 24. “They’re getting social support through bigger networks and having a sense that their audience is large.”

Social media metrics through which we express approval such as retweets, likes and views dominate the thoughts of those who are on a quest for social acceptance. Along with other attention-desperate stunts caught on camera, NekNomination videos excel in all of these categories. These larger networks breed more peer pressure, which in turn leads to more careless behaviour. They become indisputable social proof that outlandish acts can be someone’s ticket to Internet superstardom.

In fairness, these platforms enable us to connect with others beyond all boundaries as well as exchange information and ideas. Unquestionably, the content shared on social media is not always cringe-worthy. Instead of condemning social media together, I prefer to highlight the astounding sharpness of its double-edged sword: empowering and destructive.

However, these online drinking binges have me wondering if the former outweighs the latter.

Exit mobile version