Category: Opinions

Categories
Opinions

Where does comedy stand when it comes to racial jokes?

Photo by Thom Bell

An examination of comedy in today’s society where political correctness must always be observed

Comedian George Lopez came under fire for a joke he told at one of his shows on Feb. 4. During a segment, he joked that “there are only two rules in a Latino family: don’t date black people, and don’t park in front of the house.”

Photo by Thom Bell

In response, a heckler stood up, gave Lopez the middle finger and was subsequently kicked out of the venue. While the woman was being escorted out of the building, Lopez called her a “b*tch” and remarked that “four seats just opened up.”

Taken out of context, Lopez’s comments to the heckler may seem harsh—many people were upset. Most of the outrage, however, has been directed at the joke itself, which many claim is racist. Others have criticized the comedian for his overly mean-spirited and “sexist” remarks to the woman.

The thing is, these were not statements. They were jokes. They were funny jokes too, if you dig beneath the surface. Calling the joke “insensitive” just because he identifies a race in his joke, and ignoring what he means is sensationalizing his intent. I don’t know all the details and intricacies of the Latino community, but if you decipher the joke, it’s obvious Lopez is poking fun at the Latino community and how close-minded some Latinos are when it comes to interracial dating. He goes on to emphasize how ridiculous this is by comparing it to something as trivial as parking in front of the house. This joke works in all the ways a good joke should, and most of the crowd reacted accordingly.

Removing these jokes from their context and slapping them on a headline takes away all the built-up irony and energy from the show. This isn’t the first time a comedy show has been bombarded with such misunderstanding. Every few months, a different comedian is discussed on Good Morning America and, every time, they miss the point completely. In the case of Lopez, as is the case for many situations like his, you can hear the crowd laughing in the video.

Conversations that follow incidents like this usually bring up two questions: who decides what is funny, and what was the comedian’s intention? Comedians are quick to respond because only they can decide what their intentions were with regards to the jokes they told. Deciding who determines whether a joke is offensive—the audience or the comedian—has been an ongoing issue for as long as comedy has been around.

The notion that comedians are responsible for the reactions of others goes against the model of the genre. It’s impossible to predict how an audience member or listener will interpret or react to a joke, and in every case, someone is bound to be offended.

“It’s a very childish era,” comedian Bill Burr noted on his podcast in July 2013. “If I did a joke about chopping a guy’s hand off, you’re telling me that there are people in the crowd who, when they hear that joke, are going to head off and do it?”

Often, comedians will push the limits of what is “acceptable,” just to circumvent expectations. The comedian’s role is to observe and reflect on everyday situations, and to twist them or reveal their absurdities in a comedic and entertaining way. Comedy as an art form exposes the underlying thoughts of a society. To look back on the material of past comedians is to reflect on human history.

Of course, there are times when comedians’ jokes fall flat, but even in those cases, the intention of the comedian trumps the interpretation of the audience. If a joke doesn’t get a laugh, that doesn’t mean it’s suddenly not a joke, but that the comedian needs new material.

Comedy at its finest—the George Carlins, the Jerry Seinfelds, the Louis CKs—presents society without any makeup. Great jokes will always target and comment on society’s biggest issues. Even comedy at its dumbest, at its raunchiest, is a laugh. Comedy is an escape from the daily grind of life, and to confuse that escape with reality is simply ridiculous. When the irony is removed from the situation, the presentation, the delivery, and the comedian, all you are left with is a statement. Statements can be offensive, hurtful, racist, sexist. Jokes aren’t immune to this, but to hold them to the same standard is laughable.

Categories
Opinions

Owning an exotic animal should be illegal in Quebec

Graphic by Florence Yee

Acquiring exotic pets is absolutely ludicrous and should be banned provincially

Dogs, cats, goldfish, turtles and rabbits. What do all these animals have in common? They’re typical household pets. However, in the last few years, animals such as pigs, monkeys and foxes have become additions to suburban households. According to the Globe and Mail, there has been an increase of import of exotic pets in Canada in the last 15 years, particularly with reptiles.

Now, as cute as these animals may look and no matter how much fun you think it might be to have a pet lemur, consider the following: they’re wild animals! Who came up with the idea to domesticate and toilet train a fox? It’s a horrible idea. Just buy a cat and tell your friends you own a tiger.

One could argue: “Well, dogs were essentially wolves that man domesticated, so why can’t I own a fox?” My answer: domestication didn’t just happen overnight. It’s not as if one day a wolf wants to eat you and the next day it’s man’s best friend. This process took thousands of years to become what it is today. According to The Atlantic, humans didn’t even play as much of a role in this evolution as we think, but rather, the wolves themselves changed in body and temperament. This means ancient wolves made some sort of conscious effort in the domestication process. So until monkeys start asking to live in your bedroom, or until foxes jump at the chance to go for a walk on a leash, they should not be kept as pets.

People must also consider the blatant danger of owning such animals. NatGeoWild published an article recounting incidents of injuries by exotic pets towards humans. For example, in 2009, a 21-year-old woman was hospitalized after one of her two “pet” black bears attacked her. In 2012, a python bit a four-year-old as she was “playing” with it. There are countless documented injuries caused by wild animals kept as pets that could have very easily been avoided.

National Geographic’s Dr. K’s Exotic Animal ER is a television series about a veterinary clinic that specializes in exotic animals and pets in the United States. In one episode, a couple walked into the clinic to have their pet lynx examined by the veterinarian. This was absolutely insane to me. Lynxes are predators, yet the owners said it’s like having a big cat at home. No, it’s more like having a lynx at home that can rip your face apart at any time.

In wondering how the laws differed in Canada from the United States, I learned that our laws in Quebec are terrible. According to the regulation respecting animals in captivity, Article 14 states: “Anyone who keeps an animal referred to in Section 13 in captivity may dispose of it by selling it, giving it away or slaughtering it.” Mammals referred to in Section 13 include foxes and minks, meaning that, after you have legally bred foxes, you can dispose of them how you like. Article 15 states no license is required to keep a monkey if it is trained to assist someone with physical disabilities. Although this is legal, it’s disgusting. Rather than a therapy dog, you can legally have a therapy monkey.

To be frank, the fact that there are laws giving human beings the right to own wild animals and specifying how to treat these animals is horrifying. The fact that people choose to own “exotic pets,” which are just wild animals, is dangerous. But what’s even worse is we have laws giving us the right to use and abuse them only to dispose of them how we like. We might as well have no animal ownership laws, because these laws aren’t really helping anyway.

Let’s all keep in mind the irony in that there are very strict laws regarding pit bull ownership, including forcing them to wear muzzles and yet, owning a pet monkey or exotic reptile is fine and within our rights as Canadians. This needs to stop. Stop trying to domesticate wild animals, stop owning them—just let them live in the wild where they belong.

Categories
Opinions

Why I’ll never let go of my foreign origins

Graphic by Thom Bell

Learning to embrace my unique cultural roots within Canada

I was four years old when my family moved from Bejaia, Algeria to Canada. I don’t remember much of the move, to be honest. I do remember the snowy evening in March when we arrived, and I have vague memories of the small apartment we shared with one of my parents’ friends for a few months before we found a place of our own.

According to my parents, I didn’t speak a word of French—or English—back then. I apparently learned French in the streets, with the help of the other kids in the apartment complex we rented in the St-Michel borough of Montreal. I don’t remember any of that. I do remember fitting in surprisingly well at first, though.

There’s one aspect about myself that was strikingly important to me back then—and still remains today. I have always identified as Algerian, first and foremost. It took me quite a while to realize and understand I was Canadian, too—even after getting all the paperwork out of the way.

My origins, my beliefs and my culture have always been a part of me I have tried to make as obvious and as clear as possible to whomever I spoke with. Call it patriotism, or whatever. I’ve seen it as a way to establish my identity, even when I was confused as to what exactly that entailed.

When proudly announcing that I was Algerian, especially as a child, I noticed a pattern. People would put me in a box—Muslim, Arab, probably loves soccer and makes a fuss about calling it “football.” Basically, they would assume things about me that were often wrong.

One thing most people often get wrong about me, to this day, is my ethnicity. Ever since I can remember, my parents have always been incredibly proud of being Amazigh, or Berber—in simple terms, indigenous people of North Africa. Despite the erasure of the culture strongly pushed forward by the Algerian government, there has been progress, like the officialization of Tamazight, the Amazigh language, in February 2016, but the discrimination is still prevalent. Yet, the Amazigh people of Algeria still have a strong influence in the country and within their diaspora, especially here in Montreal.

Out of the approximately 26,000 people in Canada who identify as Berbers, over 21,000 of them reside in Montreal, according to a 2011 Statistics Canada survey. That’s a massive community—and yet very few Montrealers, let alone Canadians, know about Berbers or the Berber culture.

And so I spent a lot of time, as a child and still today, explaining that yes, I am Algerian, but no, my native language isn’t Arabic (it’s Tamazight), and my culture involves more than my Muslim faith. In fact, I spent my life putting so much emphasis on this part of my identity that it took me quite a long time to realize I was Canadian, too.

It was in high school, as I grew older, somewhat wiser and more confused about the person I was, that it hit me—I wasn’t only Algerian. My identity and sense of belonging wasn’t limited to my country of origin, but most certainly extended to the country I have lived in for as long as I can remember.

As long as I live as a Canadian citizen, I am undoubtedly part of its political, social and cultural life. As a citizen, I can bring forth ideas, values and change, and express my views when voting, when protesting, when celebrating—even more so considering my cultural background. These differences don’t make me any less Canadian. If anything, they only add something to my Canadian identity that other citizens might not possess.

In high school, it dawned on me that it was important to pay attention to what is going on around me, in my country—the one I live in, not the one I absentmindedly long for from time to time, the one I only visit once every two years. What happens here, the feats and the downfalls, will affect me directly while whatever might be going on in Algeria will not. What I can bring to this country, Canada, will consequently be much more significant.

I still pride myself immensely on my Algerian heritage. It’s something nobody can take away from me, despite the racism and the constantly growing Islamophobia. However, I have come to pride myself on being Canadian, too. I love this country like my home—because that’s exactly what it is to me.

Categories
Opinions

Obtaining the unattainable A+

Graphic by Florence Yee

Experiencing the worst tease of your university experience

I will never forget the day I was told that I couldn’t.

It was my first semester at Concordia University. Having just graduated with a college degree in commerce at my parent’s request, I was excited to finally be in a program I was passionate about: English literature. Bring on Shakespeare, T.S. Eliot and James Joyce. Bring on the 2000-word essays, discussion questions and take-home exams.

My moment finally came when my ENGL 260: Introduction to Literary Studies professor handed out the instructions to our first written assignment. After years of memorizing formulas and digesting the 4 P’s of Marketing, I would finally be able to let my creative juices flow.

But my creative train of thought quickly derailed. I watched as the professor stiffened his posture, settled his glasses on the tip of his nose and drew in a deep, powerful breath. He proceeded to warn us not to expect any A+ grades in this class.

His rationale, he explained, was that such high grades are reserved for the level of knowledge and quality of work that graduate students produce. At this point in our academic journey, we should be content with Cs, he said.

I had been judged before writing even a single word. My confidence and my ambition—not to mention my GPA—would suffer for the simple reason that I was in my first year.

Somehow, I managed to get through the hours of reading and thinking required to write that essay. I knew there was a good chance I wouldn’t get a high grade, but that wasn’t enough of a reason for me to slack off. I couldn’t put my name on something I wasn’t proud of and, for that reason, I gave this paper my absolute all.

A couple of weeks later, an ugly “C” stared back at me in bold writing, the ink as red as my boiling cheeks.

Should I have chosen a different topic? Picked a more interesting thesis? Given different examples? After reviewing my essay with both my TA and my professor, I realized the answer to all of these questions was very simple: no. There was nothing I could have done to get a better grade.

Don’t get me wrong, there was a lot wrong with my essay. However, after speaking with my professor and T.A., I realized the ‘mistakes’ I had made in this paper were understandable mistakes that any student in their first year would have made.

As an example of their overly high expectations, I was told I should have explained what I meant by the word “well-being.” With a plethora of ways to interpret that word, how could I not provide a definition in my essay? It was a mistake any newbie could have made.

But how is it fair to penalize my current abilities just because I will be smarter by the time I graduate? Can’t I still have something meaningful to say in the meantime?

When entering a more creative program of study such as English literature, there is no calculator from which you can derive your answer. There is no formula for understanding ideas. The grading scheme of such disciplines is different and less regulated than, say, the John Molson School of Business. This difference, however, should not mean disappointment.

I am not saying I deserved to get an A+ on this particular paper. However, I do believe that it is because of this professor’s high standards for the A+ that my classmates and I received such low grades.

Whether you are a high achiever or not, the lack of A+s in a university curriculum should worry you. To treat the A+ like a hero is to villainize the student mind, and it is precisely this kind of thinking which encourages a disrespectful power dynamic between teachers and students. For the sheer fact we are paying to be here, we deserve a chance to get that A+ if we damn well work hard enough for it.

High achievers should not have to write a revolutionary piece in order to achieve good grades. Similarly, students who are content with satisfactory grades should not have to work twice as hard just to receive a passing grade.

No student should be told their best efforts aren’t good enough at any point during their academic career.

I have since encountered some professors who are willing to hand out A+ grades to well-deserving students. These were the classes which encouraged a strong atmosphere of mutual respect.

The unattainable A+ is an unnecessary tease. On behalf of students everywhere, I urge professors to leave the teasing to their own private affairs, and off the syllabus.

Graphic by Florence Yee

Categories
Opinions

How microaggressions lead to mass shootings

Graphic by Florence Yee

Freedom of speech ultimately translates to the notion of responsible speech

Racism operates on a spectrum, and all of it matters. Its more extreme versions do not appear out of nowhere. Quite like Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, racial violence builds itself on top of its smaller forms. Once a part of the pyramid is normalized and accepted by a dominant group, a higher part starts developing. Like racism against any marginalized group, islamophobia is no exception.

In the wake of the shooting at a mosque in Quebec City a little over two weeks ago, many have wondered how our society has come to this. As Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard told reporters following the attack, “We are all responsible,” according to the Montreal Gazette. And it all starts at the bottom of the pyramid: microaggressions.

Yes, a microaggression, despite its unfortunate terminology, does matter. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a microaggression as “a comment or action that is subtly and often unintentionally hostile or demeaning to a member of a minority or marginalized group.” This includes comments about belongings, appearance and preferences (among others) that appear in a person’s daily life.

I won’t bother trying to pronounce your name. Where are you really from? Your parents must be so strict. How’s the war in your country? These remarks suggest that there is an image of who “true” Canadians are, grounded in Eurocentric whiteness and Christianity. The microaggressions alienate people and subconsciously start to form an insidious divide that makes the group as an other in contrast to the imaginary us. They quietly hint that some people just don’t belong.

Then comes prejudice: the over-generalizations, the assumptions and the hatred. Asians are taking my job. All Muslims hate Westerners. Black people are violent criminals. All terrorists are Muslim. The aforementioned divide limits daily experiences that could improve understanding between communities. Instead, the more distant interpersonal relationships become, the less empathetic people are. The marginalized group is dehumanized, reduced to the most sensational headline, and summarized as a general threat to that illusory us.

The fear seems justified now. Time for some old-fashioned discrimination. During the 2013 provincial election, Pauline Marois put up Bill 60: The Quebec Charter of Values—a thinly-veiled attempt at banning civil servants from wearing Islamic headscarves, the most common “obvious religious garment.” While Jews wearing kippas and Sikhs wearing turbans would also be forced to remove their religious items, a poll conducted by CBC in 2014 found that 78 per cent of anglophones and 70 per cent of allophones agreed that the legislation would disproportionately target Muslim women.

Hijabs and niqabs were deemed too conspicuous despite the giant beacon-like cross on Mount Royal and the cross hanging in the National Assembly of Quebec that would be allowed to remain. That bill, along with the many debates on limiting religious accommodation, such as Kellie Leitch’s screening for “anti-Canadian values” and an American travel ban from Muslim-majority countries, turns exclusionary thoughts into discriminatory actions.

The government-sanctioned actions indicate to the general population that this type of discrimination is completely okay. Quebec’s growing xenophobia in “defense of francophonie,” and attitudes adopted from France’s similar anti-immigrant and islamophobic stances set the stage for a terroristic mass shooting. It had all the components of normalizing violence to occur. After all, Alexandre Bissonnette, the alleged shooter, was found to be a keen follower of Trump and Le Pen’s nationalistic rhetoric on social media.

In this whole process, there has been an abuse of so-called freedom of speech. If you think about it as “just political correctness” or “limiting freedom of expression,” I hope you also think about your part in inciting race-based violence in direct and inevitable ways. Nothing you say or do happens in a vacuum. Even the smallest actions can contribute to the greatest tragedies. What you say matters every step of the way.

So act like it.

No one wants to make your comments illegal, but everyone can call you out for their inappropriateness and take measures to correct them. Social consequences should befall anyone who causes societal harm. Just as freedom of the press can be abused, so can freedom of speech. After all, they both influence social cohesion and the well-being of others. Freedom of speech means assuming responsibility for your speech.

Please consider your role in the ongoing tensions. You may not have fired the gun, but you helped load the bullets.

Categories
Opinions

Let’s talk about corporate philanthropy

Graphic by Thom Bell

Analyzing philanthropy in major businesses in an age where PR is everything

During the Bell Let’s Talk campaign, which took place a couple of weeks ago, social media sites were brimming with people sharing their experiences with mental illness in an attempt to raise awareness. For every tweet, Instagram post, Facebook videoview and Snapchat geofilter that mentioned the campaign, and for every call or text made by a Bell customer on Jan. 25, Bell donated five cents to various mental health resources.

Millions of people supported the campaign, including celebrities like Ellen Degeneres, Ryan Reynolds and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. According to an article by CTV News, the campaign raised $6.5 million this year, and more than $79 million total since its debut in 2010. This event is simultaneously one of the most effective mental health fundraisers and awareness campaigns in Canadian history, and also one of the greatest marketing strategies of all time.

Bell was the number one company on everyone’s minds on the day of the event, and in a context of selfless philanthropy no less. It can be assumed, however, that selfless wasn’t entirely the case. The purpose of the campaign, in part, was undoubtedly to spread brand awareness, and thus grow financially.

Is there a problem with the duality of this campaign? Does its success from a marketing perspective take away from its success in raising awareness for mental health issues?

According to an article in The Globe And Mail, out of 1.2 million Canadian children affected by mental illness, only a quarter receive appropriate treatment. It is clear that there is a stigma around mental illness, because it is not being treated the same as a physical illness—such as a broken bone—to which Canada’s health care always provides adequate aid.

In order to end this stigma, we need to be comfortable talking about it as a real illness, and we need some loud voices to start the conversation. In our society, corporations hold a lot of power and influence, thus they have some of the loudest voices.

They are capable, then, of effecting real change and, as is the case with Bell Let’s Talk Day, that change can be extremely positive. My only problem with it is that the economic market that we live in runs on self-interest, and it is hard to see any corporate act outside of that context.

For me, Bell crossed a line in using mental illness in the manipulative, profit-driven environment of the marketing world. Mental health is such a serious issue to people who have been affected by it. According to the Canadian Mental Health Association, one in five Canadians will experience mental illness at some point in their lifetime. I’m convinced that Bell saw an opportunity to capitalize on that fact, and that they don’t really have the interest of those with mental illnesses in mind.

Hints of this emerged on the day of the campaign, when the CBC broke a story about a Bell Media employee who was fired after requesting time off—with a doctor’s note—to deal with their mental illness. Bell is still a profit-oriented company, and I think that to believe otherwise is not only false, but potentially dangerous.

In my view, Bell is capitalizing on mental illness. They are profiting off of the pain of millions of people, which is immoral. Bell’s power as a major corporation makes them one of our best resources for fighting the stigma around mental illness. However, I don’t think that we should view this as a permanent way to deal with the problem of mental illness in our society.

Once the conversation is more free and the stigma gone—or at least drastically decreased—the problem should be dealt with by more responsible institutions that solely have people’s best interests in mind—such as the government and not-for-profit organizations—rather than left in the hands of corporate companies that don’t. I propose that for now we view the Bell Let’s Talk campaign as a necessary evil, and as a stepping stone towards a society that deals with mental illness more effectively and morally.

Categories
Opinions

Canada’s foundations are based off of immigration

Graphic by Thom Bell

Exploring multiculturalism and immigration during these turbulent times

The word ‘immigrant’ evokes many emotions in me every time I hear it. It connotes a sense of hope and excitement that a family will be starting their new life in this country, yet it’s paired with a sense of nervousness for the trials they will face. Canada is celebrating its 150th anniversary this year, and many citizens will be marking this day by reflecting on their own cultural diversity, demonstrating how immigration has essentially shaped this country over the last century.

Being an immigrant anywhere in the world is often a daunting and terrifying experience. To gather up all you own and say goodbye to the home and friends you’ve always known for a chance at something better is a perilous task many of us will never have to face. I myself have had the privilege of being born a Canadian citizen because my parents immigrated to Canada from Pakistan over 30 years ago.

“One out of five people in Canada’s population is foreign-born” according to a 2011 report released by Statistics Canada. Approximately 1.1 million foreigners immigrated to this country between 2006 and 2011, according to the same report. New data should be available in the near future though, considering the Trudeau government conducted a nationwide census in 2016.

But the question remains—is Canada truly home for immigrants and their families? Yes. I think many immigrants would agree. Canada is the country that has given many a new life, opportunities and freedoms. For my father, it’s a place where he has been able to see his children benefit from things he could never have dreamed of as a child, such as the education or healthcare systems.

Many families who have immigrated are now seeing their former homes face catastrophic war or other devastating situations. This strengthens our sense of gratitude for our new home and the opportunities it has brought our families.

However, it’s not as if we’ve forgotten where we came from. Many of my friends refer to themselves as Pakistani-Canadian, Syrian-Canadian or Vietnamese-Canadian, and consider both Canada and their former or parent’s former country as home.

Sadly, Canada still has a long way to go to be considered truly multicultural. For example, public schools rarely celebrate or educate their students about any holiday traditions other than Christmas, such as Hanukkah, Eid, or Diwali. Though the cultures are prevalent, they are not really celebrated in the mainstream.

Without question, the experience of being a non-immigrant Canadian is much different than that of an immigrant, or the child of an immigrant. I can’t count how many times, after telling someone I’m Canadian, I’ve gotten the response, “No, I mean where are you actually from?” Though harmless questions like that are the least of my worries, I am concerned by the recent surge in racist propaganda that has popped up on Canadian campuses, including McGill and the University of Toronto. Flyers with “Make Canada Great Again,” or “Fuck Your Turban” strewn across them in big letters have made appearances at across schools in the country, according to CBC News. So, although Canada is unquestionably our home, there’s still a sense that many people here don’t agree. And what can be done?

Realistically, we have to continue moving towards bringing multiculturalism to the forefront, especially to the younger generations. Growing up, it was rare that anyone was curious about my Pakistani heritage, but as I got older and met international students, I found they were much more open and curious about my culture. This is the key—to open our minds and continue to learn about each other’s pasts.

Categories
Opinions

A ban on one is a ban on all

Graphic by Florence Yee

The Arts and Science Federation of Associations (ASFA) sent shockwaves throughout the Concordia community early last week when they announced they were implementing a ‘ban’ on The Link newspaper.

The letter posted to the association’s Facebook page said the ASFA executive will “abstain from commenting on, or engaging with” the newspaper. The reasons listed were for unethical practices, such as recording individuals without consent, having a biased agenda, misconstruing information and causing harm to certain individuals’ mental and physical health. There were no specific examples of coverage or names of reporters provided.

ASFA says this ‘ban’ will be in place until The Link formally apologizes or until the end of their mandate on May 31, 2017. Here at The Concordian, we feel as though ASFA should instead be apologizing to The Link.

From one student newspaper to another, The Concordian formally stands with The Link. It can be argued that an attack on one media outlet is an attack on us all. We must fight for the freedom of the university press, and this move by ASFA is purely absurd and quite frankly, autocratic.

The Link’s editor-in-chief Jonathan Caragay-Cook told The Concordian they were not approached by ASFA about the letter they published nor did they reach out about any issues the organization was having with the newspaper’s coverage. Fundamentally, if ASFA had issues with recordings and the way stories were reported on in The Link, the ideal protocol would have been for them to complain to The Link’s editor directly. They chose not to and instead made a hasty decision. Bottom line, ASFA did not take the appropriate action to solve this problem from the get-go.

Just because ASFA has been subject to negative coverage by The Link that they may disagree with, it is not reason enough to instill any kind of ‘ban’. If anything, this makes it appear as though ASFA has something to hide that they don’t want The Link to uncover, or that they can’t handle any criticism. It stinks of lack of transparency.

This letter simply paints the ASFA executive team as irrational and unprofessional—it was extremely unclear and we need solid proof in order to believe any of the claims made. We understand if ASFA has issues with particular reporters or methods of reporting, however, there is a way to communicate that to a media outlet. It’s reminiscent of what’s going on in America with Donald Trump and the media.

We would hope that, if any of our own writers here at The Concordian were causing problems or conducting their interviews in shady ways, we would be contacted directly about it before any sort of action takes place. We would hope to be kept in the loop about a reporter who is not doing their job correctly so we could address the issue first-hand. In this case, The Link was left in the dark.

However, we learned that ASFA voted at their meeting on Thursday that they would meet with The Link to discuss their future working relationship. Despite this good news, this should have been the action taken by ASFA from the beginning. We are disappointed that ASFA has not yet formally apologized to The Link for this hasty letter. Instead, they have apologized only to their membership, for the way they chose to release the statement.

The Concordian believes this ‘ban’ should be immediately rescinded, and we hope the two groups can resolve this problem as soon as possible. As media, we must be able to hold our student politicians and student organizations accountable. Without us, how will students be informed about what may be going on behind closed doors?

Categories
Opinions

Quebec and Islam: Why the mosque shooting doesn’t surprise me

Graphic by Florence Yee

Taking a closer look at the province’s history with xenophobia and Islam

When I was in second grade, my teacher would hold spelling bees in class. I won one, and was ecstatic because the winner would always get a prize. Students could win teddy bears, puzzle pieces, even candy. I was eyeing a turquoise teddy bear when, instead, my teacher handed me a cartoon book about Christianity and Jesus Christ.

At the time, I didn’t understand that what was happening was wrong. I didn’t feel weird when I wasn’t allowed to go out during recess, and instead, was kept indoors with my teacher who read to me about Jesus’ life.

I remember sitting next to her at her desk, listening as she lectured me about the importance of praying every Wednesday morning. As she droned on, I studied the small but imposing Quebec flag at her desk, the white and blue fleur-de-lis forever seared into my memory. I’ve realized that, for the longest time, I associated Quebecois people with intolerance. My teacher was Quebecois and she despised that I was Muslim—and I spent most of my life assuming all Quebecois felt the same.

Of course, I now realize that’s not true. I can’t believe that, because it would be the same argument used by Islamophobic people—that one person’s bad actions represent all the members of a group.

The Jan. 29 Quebec shooting has brought the reality of Islamophobia to people’s attention. The alleged shooter, Alexandre Bissonnette, killed six men and injured at least 15 others at the Grande mosquée de Québec, in Quebec City. Some reacted with anger, others with shock—but for many Muslims, like me, there was only acceptance of the inevitable.

I’ve heard many people say, “How can something this hateful occur in Quebec?” But all I can think is, how can something like this not happen in Quebec?

Anti-Islam sentiments have been growing in this province for years. According to an article by Al Jazeera, in 2010, a bill was pushed forward in Quebec that aimed to ban women wearing the niqab—the Muslim veil—from using public services. The bill never became a law, but the debate about what a Muslim woman should be allowed to wear has amplified. From the hijab to the niqab, Quebec has always had a negative view of Islamic culture.

This was further shown in the Quebec Charter of Values in 2013, which aimed to ban religious symbols and attire from being worn by employees in the public sector. According to Global News, Barbara Perry, a professor at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology who studies right-wing extremist groups, said, “The rationale [former Premier Pauline Marois] provided for the Charter of Values was to minimize the role or the visibility of religion, but of course the focus was really on one religion.” The Charter of Values would have allowed the crucifix to remain in the National Assembly, the cross to stay on Mount Royal, and Christmas trees to remain in government buildings, according to the National Post.

A poll conducted last year by Forum Research showed that 48 per cent of Quebecois hold an unfavourable view of Islam, in comparison to the 18 to 28 per cent in other parts of Canada.

Groups like PEGIDA—which stands for Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisation of the West—continue to flourish in Quebec with a Facebook page that has over 18,000 likes and a neo-Nazi/white nationalist stance. The group is known for being anti-Islam and, according to the CBC, the leader of the Quebec chapter has said, “Islam needs to reform itself or leave the West.”

In November 2015, a man named Jesse Pelletier wore the Joker mask and uploaded a video to YouTube in which he held a gun—which later turned out to be fake—and threatened to murder one Arab a week in Quebec.

On Feb. 3, the same day a funeral was being held for the victims of the Quebec shooting, the Khadija Masjid Islamic Centre was vandalized.

A lot of people are arguing Bissonnette—who is a Donald Trump supporter—might have been influenced by the U.S. president’s Islamophobic rhetoric. But I don’t think that’s exactly it. The truth is, Quebec has a problem with Islam. People need to admit that Bissonnette might have been influenced by what he sees in this province—which is a dislike towards Islam.

After the shooting, I spoke to many members of the Muslim community and almost all of them were unsurprised by what happened. Sarah Shamy, a McGill University student, said, “I have been on edge for a while now and I don’t think it’s just because of Trump. Quebec has shown itself willing to accept ‘the other’ if the other is deeply similar to themselves. Quebec has a negative relationship with anyone who isn’t Francophone, white or Quebecois. I don’t feel safe as a Muslim here.”

Politicians and the media further stir ignorance and help paint a negative image of Islam in Quebec. Radio poubelle, for instance, often broadcasts segments that voice “concerns” about Muslim immigration and Islamic terrorism, according to the CBC. When people listen to these segments, it adds fuel to the fire. It’s impossible to ignore how it affects Muslims—it’s hurtful, unnecessary and not truthful—and it reinforces people’s negative image of us.

“I don’t feel safe here anymore,” said Javaid Malik, my father, who moved to Quebec in 1996. “I used to. But even before the shooting, I felt worried about attending the mosque. I noticed the unlocked door, and I was so nervous about praying that I tried to find a rock to protect myself in case someone tried coming in and hurting us.”

These sentiments of fear and lack of acceptance aren’t unusual for Muslims in Quebec. The province seems to be polarized already, with Quebecois separatists pitted against Anglophones. This tribal mentality creates a reality in which anyone outside of the group is strongly considered “the other” and is isolated. Muslims usually don’t fit into either category and are thus viewed as incompatible with the mold Quebec has shaped for itself. Our beliefs, our practices and our faith is so completely different from the norm that it becomes easier to reject us.

Zahra Tourki, a student at the Université de Montréal, said Quebec is close-minded. “All they do is think about keeping their language and French culture alive. They try to convert us into their modern way of living. Islamophobia is everywhere, and it’s sad that it took the shooting to make people wake up. As a Muslim, I will always feel like Quebec is not my place, as if I’m a stranger. I don’t belong here.”

It’s hard to come up with a solution that can end Islamophobia right away. But the first step to finding the solution is understanding where the problem comes from. It’s not just Donald Trump’s recent Muslim ban, or even ISIS—Muslims have been dehumanized in the media for a long time and that’s what led to the shooting.

Alan Conter, a journalism professor at Concordia University, believes that the media is responsible for creating open spaces—something they haven’t been doing for a long time.

“The media needs to be more open to exploring the diverse realities of Islam, and of other faiths and people who don’t hold faiths. The whole discussion of belief systems isn’t treated well,” he said. “There’s a tendency in Quebec of holding a sense of exceptionalism. People say, ‘It couldn’t happen here because we’re wonderful…’ In English Canada, people would bring up our diversity. In every society, people will try to explain away horrible things because it’s easier than looking into yourself and trying to find real root causes.”

What happened on Jan. 29 is a manifestation of a dangerous problem. A lot of Canadians believe that we’re safe from the discrimination that is more apparent in the U.S. We’re considered accepting, a diverse society, and we are—to a certain extent. But our sense of exceptionalism weakens our ability to address the negative side of our society. Quebec’s history of polarization, of subtle racism, has always existed but is rarely acknowledged. What Alexandre Bissonnette did is terrifying—but what’s even more terrifying is that there may be many other people just like him in Quebec who have developed a vicious, violent hatred for a religion they barely understand.

Categories
Opinions

McDonald’s doesn’t care about customers with allergies

Graphic by Thom Bell

How the fast food chain is screwing over customers with nut allergies

It did not occur to me that McDonald’s employs clowns as executives.

McDonald’s Canada’s decision to introduce a product that brings unpackaged peanuts and nuts into the restaurant is outraging many Canadians, myself included. The fast-food chain introduced the Skor McFlurry last Tuesday, and now warns customers their food may come in contact with peanuts, nuts and other allergens.

McDonald’s has been a go-to place for many customers and families with food allergies because it has been allergy-free and easy for many to access. For us Concordia students with these severe food allergies, we know how difficult it can be to find accommodating restaurants. We can’t eat at one place because they use peanut oil, and then another place can’t guarantee our safety. We all know the hassle. McDonald’s was the safest place we could go to when we needed a quick meal and didn’t want to worry about our allergies.

Not anymore. With this decision, McDonald’s Canada has told the 2.5 million Canadians living with food allergies to, essentially, stay away. It seems to me the company couldn’t care less about their customers with food allergies.

The problem here is not that they introduced a Skor McFlurry. The problem here is that it appears McDonald’s is making absolutely no effort to keep its new allergen-infested product away from other products.

There is also a big problem in the way McDonald’s Canada handled the situation. In a statement, the company said, “We have a long history of being sensitive to the needs of our guests with food allergies and this time will be no different, which is why we are communicating this important information.”

Anybody with half a brain could smell the lies pouring out of that statement. If McDonald’s Canada has a long history of making sure allergic customers stay safe, why would they change all that with one product? It is very different from the past considering they are no longer guaranteeing an allergen-free restaurant.

The most ridiculous claim is they believe communicating this warning to customers counts as remaining “sensitive” to their customers with allergies. Yes, because telling us we can’t eat there anymore really shows you care. They are make such statements simply to avoid liability and lawsuits. That’s hardly protecting us. They are protecting their multibillion-dollar corporation.

McDonald’s Canada has completely tarnished its reputation with this one decision. Many families and students like us, will no longer visit their restaurants, all because of a new McFlurry. I hope the executives who triggered this operation can sleep well at night, knowing they ruined some kid’s day, just so others could enjoy their Skor McFlurry. Having a clown as the company’s mascot is really suiting.

Categories
Opinions

Why journalists need to be paid

Graphic by Florence Yee

Journalism—as many of us at The Concordian know—is a competitive field with very few jobs available. Just recently, the Montreal Gazette announced it would be laying off more workers in the near future, according to the Financial Post. So with fewer and fewer jobs available, aspiring journalists will do anything to get ahead and that includes free labour.

It’s a conversation some of our editors here at The Concordian have had with the journalism department. Some professors believe unpaid internships are the way to go to gain experience, while others are adamant that we should all be paid for our work.

On Jan. 27, ESPN business reporter Darren Rovell sparked a lengthy conversation on Twitter after suggesting the Chicago Sun-Times newspaper ask students at Northwestern University to cover college basketball games for free. After numerous tweets telling him he was wrong for suggesting a publication should have students work for free, Rovell replied saying some of the best journalists got their start while doing so.

While this may be true, there is certainly a disconnect between the journalism of today and the journalism of the past. For starters, you just has to attend any journalism seminar in the country to learn that newsrooms are shrinking.

With the pressures of paying rent, food and tuition, finding time for an unpaid internship is close to impossible. If the only way to become successful in the industry is to become an unpaid intern, then only the most privileged people would be able to get ahead.

In Montreal, one of the places that offers unpaid internships is Bell Media. While these internships offer valuable experience that could make good journalists great, for some people, they simply aren’t an option.

Another dilemma young journalists face is the choice between exposure and money when it comes to freelancing. In an article by the International Business Times, Huffington Post U.K. editor-in-chief Steven Hull admitted to not paying writers for work.

“If I was paying someone to write something because I want it to get advertising, that’s not a real authentic way of presenting copy,” Hull said. “When somebody writes something for us, we know it’s real, we know they want to write it. It’s not been forced or paid for. I think that’s something to be proud of.”

Attitudes like the Huffington Post’s are tricking young journalists into writing for free. Asking to be paid is not disrespectful, it’s what you should be doing. If you are a journalist and your article is next to an ad, then in some way, shape or form you are making money for that publication and should be paid for it. Even if the publication you write for doesn’t have a huge budget, you should at least get a little something for your hard work.

Now you must be reading this and thinking “does The Concordian pay their writers?” The answer is no. Call us hypocrites, call us horrible names and compare us to Huffington Post, because we 100 per cent know we’re in the wrong.

As an editorial team, we unfortunately do not have the power to grant monetary bonuses to our contributors—our board of directors is in control of the finances. We’d like to end this editorial by asking our board to start providing financial stipends to our writers who demonstrate hardwork and consistency.

It’s time The Concordian emerges from this deep slumber and start dishing out some of that money buried deep in our swollen coffers.

As young journalists we shouldn’t have to settle for less just because our older contemporaries did. It’s 2017 and media corporations (including your university newspaper), needs to get with the times.

Categories
Opinions

Salacious scandal for Bell Let’s Talk

Graphic by Thom Bell

The Bell Let’s Talk campaign came roaring through our country last week, raising money and awareness for mental health issues. The campaign—one of the largest in Canadian history—raised $6.5 million through texts, phone calls and social media interactions that mentioned Bell Let’s Talk.

The money goes towards a variety of mental health initiatives in different regions across Canada. According to the Bell Let’s Talk website, the most recent funds were sent to the St. John Ambulance training program—to help integrate mental health training into emergency First Aid courses—and the Embrace Life Council program, a new mental health program by Nunavut’s Embrace Life Council, a non-profit suicide prevention organization, to name a few.

Here at The Concordian, we even made our front cover last week about the campaign, featuring Concordia Stingers hockey player Philippe Hudon, Concordia’s Bell Let’s Talk representative. We were proud of the piece and glad to contribute to this national conversation and help spread awareness on our university campus.

However, on Wednesday morning, several media outlets dropped a massive bomb. A story was published involving a Bell Media employee who was reportedly fired due to her mental health issues.

Maria McLean from Grand Falls, N.B. was working as a radio host for K93 FM when she met with her manager earlier this month. McLean presented her superior with a doctor’s note that stated she needed to take two weeks off to adjust to her new medication for her anxiety and depression. Later that afternoon, she was shocked to discover she had been fired from her post without any warning, according to CBC News. A representative from Bell Media refused to comment on the case, according to the same report.

It’s no surprise the story gained a lot of traction on social media, with many people wanting to abandon the Bell Let’s Talk campaign due to the media company’s hypocrisy. We even toyed with this thought ourselves.

However, it’s important to recognize that this story wouldn’t have gotten this much attention if it wasn’t associated with a giant media company in the midst of a massive mental health awareness campaign. Ideally, any company that deems mental health an illegitimate reason to need time off should be reported on and shared widely as well. It is not new that employers let their employees go for mental health reasons—this is a real issue. We need to start holding our own government accountable when it comes to funding mental health-related services.

We are calling upon Bell to launch a full investigation into Maria McLean’s case and release the report to the public. This is the only way to move forward and for the public to believe in the Bell Let’s Talk campaign in the upcoming years.

Here at The Concordian, we’ve decided to not abandon the campaign, even in the wake of this story. The work that Bell Let’s Talk has achieved is unprecedented, and we must take away the positives even in the wake of a scandal. We acknowledge Bell is a corporation with monetary and advertising interests, but it goes without saying that the campaign has been a huge catalyst in spurring a dialogue and spreading awareness about a complex issue.

Our masthead has never seen so many Facebook posts and Tweets from our social network describing their personal stories regarding mental health. We must recognize that many would not be courageous enough to talk about their experiences if it weren’t for so many others in their circle doing the same—this was initiated thanks to Bell Let’s Talk.

We encourage our readers to support the campaign, but more importantly, to keep supporting and talking about mental health, all year round.

Exit mobile version