Category: Opinions

Categories
Opinions

The provincial government needs to fix the childcare system

While planning my move from Calgary to Montreal with a toddler last year, I was in a state of joy.

Not only is childcare largely subsidized in Quebec, but I had heard wonders about the CPE system. CPE stands for “centre de la petite enfance,” government-funded daycares where qualified educators follow Montessori-like pedagogical programs.

It turns out things were more complicated than I expected. 

First of all, the length of the CPEs waitlist is unfathomable.

According to the Québec Ministry of Family, as of March 2018, CPEs had a capacity of 96,000 spaces. Compare that to more than 115,000 in private daycares and some 90,000 in at-home private daycares. Most children, therefore, attend private facilities — subsidized and unsubsidized, the cost of the latter being alleviated by tax returns.

Licencing private daycares costs less than opening more CPEs, which is the avenue the past and present governments have embraced. While childcare in a CPE costs on average $60 of public funds per day per child, a day in a private daycare usually amounts to $22 in taxpayer money, say Le Soleil and L’Actualité.

Second, too many private daycares are of substandard quality.

The Observatoire des tout-petits, part of the Lucie et André Chagnon Foundation, said in a 2018 report that between 33 and 40 per cent of children placed in private daycares “are attending facilities of poor or very poor quality.” The proportion is below 3 per cent for CPEs. In a mirror effect, while 45 per cent of CPEs provide “good or excellent” care, less than 10 per cent of private facilities do.

In one private daycare I had put my child in, I found that kids aged between two and three were just put in front of the TV for several hours a day instead of taking part in the educational activities I was told they were doing. Some weeks, children did not go outside a single time, even when the weather allowed it.

Besides health and safety regulations, requirements to open a private daycare are minimal. In theory, two out of three educators should be ‘qualified,’ which is to say that they have a diploma in early childhood education. But a 2016 report of the Ministry of Family found that only 16 per cent of private daycares respect the two out of three qualified educators’ rule.

In an attempt to make childcare more affordable for families, the Legault government announced on Nov. 8 the reduction of fees in subsidized facilities, from up to $13.20 per day to $8.25 per day. And, according to La Presse, the government is working on subsidizing 3,000 spaces in private daycares.

These measures are beneficial to Quebec families. However, they do not solve one of the most pressing and worrisome issues of childcare in Quebec: the quality of care in private facilities.

Finally, Premier François Legault campaigned on the promise of developing the preschool system for kids of age four. But the educational support and equipment in preschools are poor as per the study by the Observatoire des tout-petits. Children in CPEs receive a better education than children in preschools.

Too many families struggle to find decent daycare. Low-income parents rarely have the time and money to invest in finding a good option and potentially commuting to get there. More CPEs have to be established to foster the needs of Québec children, especially in underprivileged neighbourhoods. And the bar needs to be raised with respect to the regulation of private daycares. The future of the next generation is at stake.

Graphic by @sundaeghost

Categories
Opinions

Gender inequality is real in the music industry: Taylor Swift can’t re-record or use her old songs

As a 20-year-old music fan living in Canada, I have been listening to Taylor Swift for as long as I can remember.

When I was younger, she was an idol, and I still love her and her music. From “Our Song” to “Lover,” her songs just keep getting better. I have to admit that there’s something about her old songs that hits me differently – perhaps because of my sentimental ties to the memories of these older songs.

On Nov. 14, Swift tweeted about how Scott Borchetta, founder and CEO of Big Machine Label Group, and Scooter Braun, the company’s new owner, wouldn’t let her perform at the American Music Awards (AMAs), where she’d be honoured with the Artist of the Decade Award.

Ironically, as soon as she expressed concern about the restriction, Big Machine Label Group released a statement saying artists can perform their music live without the label’s permission. They granted “all licences of their artists performances to stream post-show and for rebroadcast on mutually approved platforms.” However, they still won’t let the artists re-record or use them. This statement was obviously directed at Swift.

When Braun purchased Big Machine Label Group, he became the owner of Swift’s first six albums. According to Swift, Borchetta never gave her the opportunity to buy her music before selling the label, even though it is suspected he did with other artists. Braun owning Swift’s music means he legally controls it, which is why he’s allowed to tell her what she can and can’t do with it.

Essentially, two men who didn’t write, sing or collaborate on her songs wouldn’t let her perform them or use them in a documentary she is filming with Netflix. It is evident that this is all an attempt at controlling Swift in order to make more money off of her and her work.

This issue speaks to a wider systemic issue of women’s rights in music. Swift is a successful and well-respected artist, but it seems like it’s never enough. This has happened to many other amazing women in the music industry. Demi Lovato has been body-shamed countless times by fans, media, and other celebrities. According to MSN, Lady Gaga was also judged because of her looks and fashion sense and felt she was never enough. Miley Cyrus was also judged after the split with Liam Hemsworth. This confirms that there is still a long way to go for gender equality.

However, according to Vox, Swift will be re-recording all of her old songs starting in November 2020, when her contract with Big Machine Label Group legally allows her to.

But what about her Netflix documentary? Borchetta and Braun won’t let her use any of her old recorded songs. What would a Taylor Swift documentary even be without “Mine” or “I Knew You Were Trouble?”

In the meantime, show Swift some support by using #IStandWithTaylor on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook. 

Graphic by @sundaeghost

Categories
Opinions

The harsh realities of burnout culture

As I open the 47th window on my computer and prepare myself to fill this blank document with thoughts, opinions and rhetoric I hope you’ll find interesting, to my surprise, my computer shuts down.

A black screen is a daunting thing to see when you have so much to do — 12 articles, 11 soulful yet professional cover letters, 10 tests, nine unread emails and a partridge in a pear tree.

As I trudged through the snow to use a library computer to finish my work, I couldn’t help but think that sometimes I feel like my laptop.

Yes boomers — I just said I feel like my laptop, okay?

I’m the kind of person that doesn’t do well without structure, so when my system feels like it’s about to shut down, I often excuse the emerging breakdown with phrases like, “I thrive when I’m busy,” “The more time I have, the more I waste,” “I’d be bored if I did less” or the classic, “I don’t burnout.”

Listen, no one is above burnout culture. Not Oprah, Elon Musk or even that friend that seems like they are constantly balancing a million internships and projects at once. As a research professor at the University of Houston and a recent public figure, Brené Brown says, “your body keeps score, and always wins.” Brown is alluding to the fact that we need to engage with self-reflection and self-awareness in order to live our best lives, pardon the cliche.

At this point, you might think that this is just another article telling you to slow down, smell the flowers, kiss your dog, go for a run and call your mother — in which case you are absolutely right. Telling people to slow down, live mindfully and engage with their life meaningfully is not new, but at the same time should constantly be part of the conversation.

We are trained as students, as workers and as humans in general, that the only way we have a purpose in this confusing world is through being productive. This philosophy is ingrained in us to function in the cold, fast, capitalistic world we live in. If we are not moving forward, we are moving backwards. If our economies are not getting bigger, faster, stronger, then what’s the point? It’s important that we understand this system, to combat it.

Some public figures are restructuring their philosophy to promote a healthier lifestyle.

Arianna Huffington, founder of the Huffington Post, has been advocating for the prioritization of sleep for a few years now. In an interview with National Geographic, she explained that we are currently in “a moment of transformation.”

“What stops people from prioritizing sleep is the fear that somehow they’re going to miss out, said Huffington. We have so many phrases that confirm that – “You snooze, you lose,” “I’ll sleep when I’m dead.”

It’s important to remember we are doing our best. If you need to ask for an extension, miss a class, postpone an interview or what have you, don’t beat yourself up. We are all struggling to grapple with showing up for ourselves, listening to our instincts while also trying to succeed. The reality is, if you are constantly pushing yourself and spreading yourself too thin, then you won’t be able to show up the way you want to in every part of your life. You’ll be tired, you won’t be present, and even if you don’t burnout right away, it will happen.

So in the name of showing up for myself and listening to my body, I’ll end this article here. Quite like my computer, I’m shutting down — or at least on sleep mode. Goodnight. 

 

Photo by Britanny Clarke / Graphic @sundaeghost

Categories
Opinions

The imminent immigration fear

My husband and I watched “Living Undocumented,” a show on Netflix about illegal immigration in the United States, for the same reason we like watching people trying to crawl out of debt: some sort of warped guilty pleasure we share.

We wanted to feel good about our mediocre existence and compare ourselves to people who had a long journey ahead of them. It wasn’t a sick act – we weren’t mocking, but rather seeing how far we’d come; from the headache of filling out dozens of applications, ordering official documents and multiple interviews, to waiting anxiously for the results  we couldn’t be sure about. If we weren’t accepted, it would upend our lives.

My husband’s Canadian citizenship ceremony was happening the next day, after nine years of our own hike across the land of bureaucracy. We both have a Brazilian background; I moved to Canada with my family at three years of age, and he arrived as an exchange student when he was 18 years old. It finally felt okay to be excited, and we decided to be reckless and get a taste of what the very first steps felt like.

We watched the first episode, then another, until it was 1:30 a.m. We wouldn’t go to sleep until we finished at least one more. What we expected to give us peace, made us doubt if my partner’s ceremony would happen at all.

I expected it to be bad, but my ignorance as to what constituted bad was quite juvenile.

It was as if I had been irresponsible in thinking everything would go smoothly. Without giving blatant spoilers, I learned about the unfairness of the US Border Patrol. For example, I didn’t know they could negotiate peaceful terms involving an undocumented family meeting another family member one more time before they get deported without being deported themselves, only to take it back , and put the visiting family members into indefinite imprisonment at the detention camps. Another thing that shocked me was that US border Patrol could physically assault lawyers representing undocumented immigrants without any immediate repercussions.

It was not just the difficult decisions they had to make — it was the spirit they felt from their community; the constant struggle between wanting acceptance but never being able to reveal yourself.

All this doesn’t compare to how surprised I was to see that under the Trump administration’s Zero Policy, every single undocumented immigrant is treated the same, and can be deported at any time. That means undocumented immigrants who have committed crimes in the country are treated the same as one that is law-abiding and a constructive member of their community through their work and family. The policy forbids any official who oversees the undocumented immigrants to exercise discretion or determine what consequences are appropriate based on the immigrants merits, sometimes allowing for leniency, such as allowing them to stay in the country, or even have a driver’s license, if the individual has contributed constructively to their community and has no police record. Instead, all officials have to apply a predetermined punishment, in this case deportation or detention at an internment camp.

This means undocumented immigrants who have willingly checked into Border Patrol agencies throughout the years, paid taxes, are raising their families with their kids going to local schools, and have never committed a crime, could be deported at any moment.

The friendly relationship between the agency and the people wanting to live a better life had come to a terrible end: mothers and fathers having to say goodbye to their children, decade-old careers abruptly ceased.

I couldn’t help but wonder, what if we weren’t safe from this? What if all it takes is one government worker interpreting the law in their own way, destroying everything we worked for?

These nine years of our own process to citizenship were challenging, not because we were undocumented, but because it escalated to a lengthy trial where my partner had to win in order to apply for citizenship. On the day of the verdict, the judge said how impressed he was with my husband because he had represented himself in court, and won. This was an incredible victory; we were overjoyed and relieved. But it also became an event warranting suspicion; the trial proceedings and outcome had to constantly be reviewed throughout the application process.

While I am not at liberty to divulge all the details surrounding the case, it ultimately meant we had one more hurdle to overcome. Before the ceremony, all applicants have to go through a final verification process, meaning everything that occurred during the process had to be reviewed one final time. We were worried: could the person behind the desk use this as a reason to postpone us from crossing the finish line? On the day of the ceremony, neither of us spoke about it. I prayed for the best, and started thinking about a calculated reaction to the worst.

As the day progressed from the initial anxiety to the reassurance of the judge’s welcome, to sitting and witnessing my life partner swear the oath as a citizen of Canada, I realized I never had anything to worry about. There was a pride and unity that filled the room, a rhetoric that went beyond integration — there was open praise for our different backgrounds, and that as people we would add our culture to the fabric of Canada’s history.

Our victory felt bittersweet knowing how hard it is for others to work for years, only to have it taken away. We had finally made it, and I can only feel an abundance of gratefulness: for my country, for this nation of people who are accepting, and that we can now officially call ourselves a Canadian family.

 

Graphic by @sundaeghost

Categories
Opinions

Note to Shelf: My Jane Austen Experience

It is a truth universally acknowledged that an alarmingly high number of readers have gone through at least one of Jane Austen’s novels. 

In fact, it is a moral imperative to read at least one of her books in your lifetime.

Austen is known as one of the most revolutionary writers of English literature, not only for being one of the few female authors of her time, but for exposing the many struggles women face in society. Despite all her stories ending in matrimony, she makes sure to focus on the importance of romance, understanding, and a person’s good nature in any relationship.

I honestly feel like a fraud writing about Jane Austen, when I’ve only read two of her novels, and gagged through the other four, but hey, it’s my column *kid shrug.*

I have been a book-devourer for the past 10 years, and have only read Northanger Abbey, and the ever-coveted Pride and Prejudice. 

How monstrous do I have to be to gag through Emma, Sense and Sensibility, Mansfield Park, and Persuasion? I’ll tell you why: I started with her best-seller.

Reading Pride and Prejudice at 14 was a bit of a hassle — but then again, every book I read at that age was tough to get through. I wanted to improve my vocabulary by reading classics, and hone my English skills. Thing is, by doing so, I missed out on actually enjoying the story and characters, and ended up hating the novel.

Two years later, it was assigned as a reading  for a class, and by then I was actually excited to read it again — and it did not disappoint. From the obvious dream-boat that is Mr. Darcy, to the ever-so-popular, snarky, tenacious, and spirited Elizabeth Bennet, this book easily became one of my favourite classics to date. I find myself reading it over and over again every year, because nothing compares to the fluttering butterflies that Austen’s descriptive passages incite in me — from Darcy’s enamoured gazes, to his devoted and loving words.

Having enjoyed this novel so much the second time around, I decided to broaden my Jane Austen library and purchase all of her books. Unfortunately, none of them had the same effect. Northanger Abbey came pretty close, in spite of Austen’s blatant criticism of gothic literature, an unsurprisingly favourite genre of mine, but the other four were a nightmare.

Persuasion was too confusing, Mansfield Park a dreaded bore, I didn’t even make it past the first chapter of Sense and Sensibility, and Emma really infuriated me. 

As cliché and untruthful as this might sound, I think my downfall was starting at the top of the pyramid instead of working my way up. What do I mean by that? Pride and Prejudice is known for putting Austen on the map as one of the most renowned authors in English literature. This is why it is present in most school curriculums. Although it isn’t her last book, it is, in my opinion, her finest work. Some would disagree with me, claiming Pride and Prejudice to be overrated and basic. Perhaps they’re right, and I’m wrong, but again, it’s my column, so *hush.*

Word of advice to ye who chooseth to venture into the realm of Jane the Austen: maybe leave Mr. Darcy for last.

 

Photo by Laurence B.D.

Categories
Opinions

Don Cherry shops for his opinions the same place he shops for his suits: the trash

On Remembrance Day, the poppy signifies our commemoration to the fallen veterans of the First and Second World War.

But does pinning a poppy to a shirt necessarily prove one’s recognition more than somebody who doesn’t carry the flower? When did patriotism become all about competition?

Yes, I understand that it is a symbol of honour for the fallen, for I too carry the poppy on Nov. 11. But how does that make me more patriotic than my counterparts who might not wear a poppy?

Don Cherry and Sportsnet are facing backlash this week after the Hockey Night in Canada commentator referred to new immigrants as “you people,” therein generalizing that immigrants who do not wear poppies in honour of Remembrance Day do not support veterans.

Cherry’s comments from the night of Nov. 9 lead the sports network to post a statement on Nov. 11, confirming his lay-off.

Some of Cherry’s comments include the following:

“You people … you love our way of life, you love our milk and honey, at least you can pay a couple bucks for a poppy or something like that […] These guys paid for your way of life that you enjoy in Canada, these guys paid the biggest price,” reported The National Post.

Shireen Ahmed, a sportswriter and co-host of the Burn It All podcast wrote an article on this for The Globe and Mail, headlined ‘What Don Cherry forgets about Remembrance Day, hockey and what unites Canada.’ Ahmed discusses the racist connotation of Cherry’s words and her views from the perspective of a person of colour.

What gives Cherry the right to single out minorities about paying for Canadians’ way of life? 

As questioned in Ahmed’s article, what about the minorities whose ancestors did serve during the wars? My great-grandfathers, who were born in India, served in the Royal Indian Army as medical assistants and doctors during the Second World War. Ahmed’s own grandfathers also served in the Royal Indian Army and Air Force.

Did Cherry forget the entire world was faced with the ramifications of these wars? Did he forget about the colonies under European control that were forced to contribute their military and citizens to the wars? Did he forget about the Black and Indigenous veterans in Canada, who, despite contributing to the Canadian Armed Forces, were still treated unfairly and not given the right to vote?

Why aren’t these communities recognized for their bravery as equal to the rest of the military? Why aren’t they recognized for making the same sacrifices for their country and/or their colonizers? Why are these facts so hard to swallow for people like Cherry, who, might I add, did not contribute to the war themselves? Judging by Cherry’s remarks, their efforts have clearly gone unnoticed, along with the thousands of other veterans who served in various militias.

I say other, because let’s not kid ourselves: we all know that any soldier or vet who isn’t white is a racial minority. It threatens the white knight-in-shining-armor-complex that has been explicitly presented to us throughout history.

One thing is for certain, Cherry is a hypocrite. “Don Cherry [never] acknowledged the many vets who are suffering from homelessness, substance abuse, mental health issues who get so little support,” continued Ahmed in her article. Need I say more?

Canadians with the same mindset need to take a step back and re-evaluate the reason they wear the poppy on Nov. 11. Whether or not it is worn, immigrants and minorities in general do not need a lecture on respect, as pointed out by Ahmed. Most of us are very familiar with the notion of ‘sacrifice,’ and Cherry should be the last person pointing the finger.

Nevertheless, let us not dwell on Cherry’s unnecessary comments that took away from the meaning of Remembrance Day. Let us not focus on the end of his career with Sportsnet, because people like him need to be held accountable for their actions.

And to you, Mr. Cherry, I think I speak on behalf of most POCs and minorities when I say the following: 

Ok boomer. Good riddance. 

 

 

 

Graphic by @sundaeghost

Categories
Opinions

A marketing student’s strategy to a journalist’s success

The world of journalism is changing every day, making it more difficult for the traditional newspaper journalist to find a job. As a result, journalists should specialize in different areas, like marketing, in order to be more appealing to hiring managers.

According to IBISworld, the newspaper publishing industry in Canada is shrinking with a growth rate of minus 1.4 per cent by 2020, due to the rapid technological change that has altered media consumption. Traditional newspaper journalists are now being left without a home because big companies like Domino’s Pizza, Dove and Nike are now turning to social media influencers, online advertising and other digital platforms to share information to reach their desired target markets.

So how can we create more opportunities in this field? Well, maybe the solution begins with blending journalism with different areas of expertise.

This past spring, I graduated with a bachelors in marketing and a dream to work in advertising. While surfing through job posts, I noticed many advertising jobs were asking for journalism or communications graduates. I was amazed to find employers in the field I was planning to enter were looking for different skill-sets.

I soon realized that I needed to change my mindset. I had to blend my marketing knowledge with something else. With the increased demand in niche journalism, the multi-skilled journalist is high in demand. In Mark Stencel and Kim Perry’s newsroom study, where they randomly surveyed media leaders on their hiring tendencies, it was discovered that nontraditional skill-sets were more sought after — coding, digital design, social media distribution and data metrics were at the top of the list. Proving that journalists need to be more than journalists to successfully navigate through the new changes in this field.

Blending marketing and journalism is one way to stand out. Two of the more popular combinations of journalism and marketing are brand journalism and content marketing. Brand journalism is a hybrid of traditional journalism, marketing and public relations. In Andy Bull’s book titled Brand Journalism, he states that brand journalism incorporates the storytelling aspect of journalism, core elements from strategic public relations and marketing principles like visionary planning, research, a defined purpose and incisive messages. 

On Business2Community, a website where business professionals share and receive thoughts that can further their business and gain network opportunities, Sarah Skerik explained that brand journalism looks to build awareness, earn media exposure  and build brand credibility while setting context for directional brand messaging. So in other words, brand journalism is the telling of stories to create a comprehensive image of the brand.

For example, both McDonalds and Ronald McDonald House Charities benefit from positive stories written about the charity. In 2017, McDonald’s McHappy Day raised almost $3.5 million across Canada to help Ronald McDonald House of Charities. By promoting the charity, they also promoted their products.

In comparison, The Content Marketing Institute defines content marketing as a “marketing approach focused on creating and distributing valuable, relevant, and consistent content to attract and retain a clearly defined audience.” Their goal is to capture interest, educate and introduce essential benefits of something short yet memorable, like words, catch phrases, and images that stimulates strong emotions that stay in the mind. According to eMarketer, in 2019, 84.5 per cent of companies in the US with more than 100 employees utilized digital content marketing strategies. 

Content marketing usually involves a campaign. Newsletters, daily emails and interactives come to mind. Therefore, brand journalism is a subset of content marketing because it can be looked at as a campaign. An example of successful content marketing would be when you are offered 10 per cent off your next purchase just for signing up for a newsletter. Another example is Coca-Cola’s “Share a Coke” campaign where you are able to customize your own bottle of Coke.

Whether you pick brand journalism or content marketing, I think marketing is one of the best skills one can add to their list of abilities as a journalist. Traditional journalism is changing. By adding marketing to your skillset, your employer would know you have the ability to write a great piece geared appropriately to the targeted market, making it easier to reach your goal. With journalism taking on more and more marketing characteristics everyday, this seems like the most logical choice.

 

Graphic by Victoria Blair

Categories
Opinions

What’s up with Lilly Singh?

Lilly Singh’s comedy in her YouTube videos is overly theatrical for my taste.

However, there is no denying her accomplishments as an Indian and openly bisexual woman in the media. In an article from The Globe and Mail, Singh is praised for redefining late-night TV on NBC. Hosting her own show, “A Little Late with Lilly,” an accomplishment traditionally dominated by white men, is impressive, to say the least.

Furthermore, Singh’s jokes are not without their share of controversy, and criticism. Some ever took their disapproval to online platforms.

“The Curious Case of Lilly Singh,” a YouTube video by user j aubrey, nitpicks Singh down to her core. It should be noted that j aubrey is male and, well, white. He has been critical of many other large YouTubers such as Lele Pons and Tana Mongeau. In December 2018, Forbes released a list of the most successful YouTubers. No women were mentioned on this list, so Singh took to social media to voice her disapproval. “If you already have more success than you know what to do with, nobody wants to hear you complain about representation,” j aubrey said. The YouTuber criticizes her for “playing the victim” despite her financial success.

In her late-night show, Singh often uses white people as the focus of her jokes. What is wrong with this exactly? Well, nothing in my opinion, but j aubrey seems to think that if she wants to make jokes about race, she should do so in a creative manner.

He focuses on her “racism” towards white people with her punching-up humour. “It’s the way she shoves her identity down her audiences throat,” he said. This is hardly a step in the right direction. Singh’s punching-up humour is not racist towards white people. You cannot be racist towards a group of oppressors, sorry, j aubrey.

This is a dangerous mindset to have when it comes to race, feminism and the representation we see in the media. This is not where growth occurs, but rather where it remains stagnant. Singh is an oppressed minority, and painting her as some kind of bitter feminist for voicing that recognition in the workplace is still very much unequal, is another gripe in an unfair, white male power balance. We have been able to make small steps of progress in regards to discrimination, but these small steps have only occurred from speaking out. Prejudice is rooted in the framework of society. Having these discussions is vital in the fight for equality.

While the comments Singh has received from j aubrey are neither here nor there, she has been the topic of legitimate criticism from the Black community. McKensie Mack wrote a viral essay in 2017 on modern day blackface. Mack states that Singh also steps in and out of blackness, like many white people. That she performs “a stereotyped version of Black culture and identity.”  Singh has dressed in chains, rapped on a basketball court and worn cornrows for her YouTube videos. However, while on the cover of magazines, Singh’s chains are nowhere in sight. Mack criticized Singh for using Blackness as a costume, “she puts on Blackness in the morning and takes it off at night.” She has also made jokes at the expense of the Punjabi community on air. Singh told Jessica Alba while interviewing her on her show, that her children wrapping towels around their heads would look like her Punjabi friends. She later took to social media to apologize for the joke. Singh has failed to acknowledge how her comedy has been seen as offensive to the Black community. It would be worth acknowledging her mistakes with appropriation.

Though, as far as I’m concerned, if you are offended by Singh’s punching-up humour, then in the words of comedian Stephen Fry, “well, so what?” 

 

Graphic by Victoria Blair.

Categories
Opinions

What’s really happening in Chile?

The social unrest and constant riots beginning on Oct. 14 have really taken a toll on Chile, which appeared to be the most economically and politically stable country in South America, as reported by BBC.

This alleged reputation has proven to be just a façade when a significant amount of the population decided to protest against the numerous years of social injustice.

As a Chilean living abroad, it hurts to see my natal city in flames, but mostly it is sad to see how for years, hate, human rights violations, resentment and oppression have taken over the country, until the people couldn’t take it anymore.

On Oct. 18, the metro fares in Santiago were raised by 30 pesos (approximately $0.05 CAD). This increase was the straw that broke the camel’s back after many years of undignified living standards. A student collective spearheaded a movement that called for fare evasion, known on social media as #EvasionMasiva. The initial protests resulted in turmoil; supermarkets were sacked, thousands of people marched the streets, and the majority of Santiago’s metro stations were completely scorched, as mentioned by Vox. 

Eventually, it wasn’t just Santiago’s students anymore. The movement had reached other cities in Chile, and soon, millions supported the cause. Since the police force was unprepared to handle the situation, President Sebastián Piñera declared the country to be in a state of emergency. He sent the military on the streets and reintroduced a strict curfew that Chileans last experienced during Augusto Pinochet’s dictatorship in the 1970s and 1980s.

Furthermore, Piñera went on national television to claim that the country was “at war” with its own people, a statement that infuriated the protesters even more. Piñera later rectified his claim by proposing an economic reform and cancelling the rise in the metro fares.  However, these measures did nothing to smooth things over.

By now you may be wondering, why is it that people continue to protest and refuse to go back to their routines? Chile has an enormous accumulation of wealth where one per cent of the population earns 33 per cent of the country’s wealth. The social inequality has continued to expand throughout the years to the point where the minimum wage is so low that people spend about 20 per cent of their salaries just on transport. They have unworthy pensions, a poor health system, high rates for student loans, a poor educational system, draughts, precarious jobs, collusions, capitalization of national resources, and so on. But most importantly, people are asking the government for a constitutional change. Chile’s constitution was changed by Pinochet in 1980, and still remains the same today – which epitomizes the extent of the dictator’s legacy and is key in understanding the people’s frustrations.

Today, the protests continue, and the movement has adopted the slogan “Chile has awoken!” Those who endure to march refuse to go back to their normal lives and resign to the degrading living conditions caused by Pinochet’s neoliberal economic model. According to The Guardian, 7,000 people have been arrested, at least 18 people have died, and the number of people who were abused by the security forces is high, yet unknown. Santiago’s metro damages go up to approximately $400 million and businesses have lost near $1.4 billion. Despite this, the majority of the people march in peace, they are out there hoping to achieve a dignified living and basic human rights. As stated by BBC news, on Oct. 24, protests broke the record for the biggest peaceful march since the 1990 when Chile returned to democracy. 

It is distressing to see Chile go through this situation, but it was also inevitable. The people can only take so much social injustice and poverty. The situation goes beyond choosing a side; the international, local and social media each portrays different fragments of reality. Nothing is black and white, there are many different shades in between. Chile needs to rise above its people’s differences, come together, heal by solving its embedded issues and invest in its future.

Graphic by @sundaeghost

Categories
Opinions

Speak whatever you want in Canada

Multiculturalism in Canada is often explained as being a mosaic, with every person retaining their identity and coming together to form a colourful and diverse nation. But what is to be done when pieces of our mosaic start turning on each other?

Last week a video surfaced of a woman’s racist tirade in a Shoppers Drug Mart in Burnaby, BC.

The woman, who is visibly agitated, tells employees that “speaking in Chinese” in front of her is “rude as fuck,” and demands that they “speak English in Canada.”

Describing someone speaking another language as rude, then following that by telling them to “shut up” and demanding that they speak in English, is racist.

It fuels an “us versus them” mentality which cannot be tolerated. People living in Canada, no matter if they were born here, have a citizenship, or are newly arrived immigrants, have the right to speak whatever language they want as private citizens.

What takes me aback the most in this video is the brazenness of the perpetrator. She does not seem fazed by the fact that she is being filmed, or that a child is standing right next to her. She continues her verbal assault shamelessly.

She spews hatred and racism without even flinching. She speaks to the employees in a tone that would be inappropriate to inflict on an animal. She doesn’t seem to think of her opinion as wrong or controversial. If you’re in Canada, no matter where you might be from or what your mother tongue may be, you speak in English.

There are more than 200 different languages spoken in Canada, according to data from the 2011 Canadian census. Hence, there is a certain level of absurdity in assuming that when you leave your house you will only hear English or French, and a level of insanity if you decide to go on a racist rant about it.

Furthermore, considering the fact that English and French are colonial languages and are not even native to Canada, why should we see monolingualism as favourable?

Multiple scientific studies have concluded that knowing more than one language is good for our brains. A 2013 study from Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences showed that bilingualism delays a person’s age at the onset of dementia. Bilingual participants in the study developed dementia 4.5 years later than their monolingual counterparts.

Bilingualism also has positive effects on children. A study done by the University of Oregon showed that compared to monolingual children, bilingual children have stronger inhibitory control. This allows them to pay attention, take turns, and follow instructions better than their monolingual peers.

Besides improving cognitive function, being able to speak more than one language can make you more employable, help you when traveling abroad, and enables you to hold on to your culture.

Clearly, cases of people demanding others to only speak one language has little to do with anyone’s wellbeing, and more to do with hate and intolerance.

At the end of the day, if hearing someone speak a different language deeply disturbs you, maybe you should just stay home.

Photo: Laurence BD.

Categories
Opinions

This is fine, I’m fine

You know the meme of a dog in a room on fire, where the speech bubble says: “This is fine”? Yeah, that’s me, I’m the dog. Also a plausible comparison is me as Ross in Friends after having too many margaritas: “I’M FINE!”

Why am I “fine,” you ask? Hi, my name is Kayla-Marie Turriciano, and I take on too many projects at once (as seen in my Twitter bio), and am definitely not in over my head.

In my first year at Concordia, I wrote about how it’s important to maintain a balance between work, school, and a social life, and how you can’t do better than your best. In my second year, I called myself out for being a hypocrite because I had completely gone against my own advice and had a terrible work-school-life balance. I was literally in a perpetual state of stress and anxiety and admitted that it was easier said than done.

Now in my third year, I have something else to add to this stream of articles about balance in life. This past year has honestly been one of the most emotionally draining. From last summer to present, I’ve barely had time off: I went from the fall semester, to winter, to a summer semester intensive, then an internship and a job, to now back in school full time while holding down three jobs. On top of that, I regularly contribute to sections within the paper other than my own.

A lot of people in my life – family, friends, peers, coworkers, basically everyone – worry that I’m going to soon suffer a burnout. They say I’m overworked, over-stressed, and am generally doing too much. Our lovely opinions editor, Youmna, regularly keeps me in check to make sure I don’t have a breakdown by spreading myself too thin. I constantly reassure her I’m doing fine – and here I am writing this article when I have two others this week on top of all my other work and assignments.

See, the thing is I actually am fine. I’ve definitely not been fine in the past, suffering mini breakdowns from being overworked and overtired, resulting in me crying at the kitchen table after someone slightly raises their voice at me.

But truly, this time, I am fine. I don’t know if it’s because I’ve mastered all this multitasking, if I’ve become numb to everything or if I’ve just peaked and reached nirvana. Maybe all the theoretical political science courses discussing Lucretius and Seneca have taken a toll on me.

Whatever it is, I just know that, while I am taking on too many projects at once, I’m actually not stressed, nor do I feel like I’m going to be crushed under the weight of everything.

I truly, finally, actually am fine and I’m not in a theoretical room that’s on fire – I’m just living my life, totally fine.

Graphic: Salomé Blain.

Categories
Opinions

Editorial: Think before you opt-out

From Nov. 12-14, Concordia students will be able to cast their vote for or against online opt-outs for fee levies. Let’s break down what that means. 

At its core, a fee levy is a small amount of money charged to students on a per-credit basis, which go back into providing essential student services. According to the Concordia Student Union (CSU), fee levy groups on campus receive either all or part of their annual operating budgets from per-credit fee levies.

Some of these groups include, but aren’t limited to: the Centre for Gender Advocacy, the People’s Potatoes, QPIRG, the Concordia Co-op Bookstore, Cinema Politica, CJLO, The Concordian and The Link, as well as the Concordia Food Coalition, Sustainable Concordia, the Concordia Greenhouse and so, so many more incredible groups on campus.

Students have always had the opportunity to opt-out of these services, but they have had to do so in person. This system affords groups the opportunity to explain their services to these individuals before they move forward with opting out. Online opt-outs would facilitate blind decisions to save a few bucks without understanding how important these services are to students across the university.

Many fee levy groups directly address important aspects of student life, and many groups have developed deep relationships with the student body. Groups like the People’s Potato and the Hive Cafe Solidarity Co-Operative provide hundreds of free lunches to students on both campuses. The Center for Gender Advocacy offer trans health resources and confidential peer support. We like to believe that student media groups such as ourselves help the Concordia community as well by reporting on all aspects of the university and holding the school accountable.

We at The Concordian strongly oppose online opt-outs, and we stand alongside all other fee-levy groups on campus, as many of us use their services on a regular basis. We urge students to vote no to online opt outs, not simply because we would not be able to exist as an organization without fee levies, but because the push for online opt-outs coincides with a significant increase to the athletic fee levy, which students cannot opt out of in any way.

This paints a clear picture of which services are valued by the university. We, on the other hand, believe every one of these groups holds value and deserves to be protected. 

Exit mobile version