The definitions of feminism and why it still needs to be applied in Canada today
I’m bringing up the “F” word again, and some of you may not like it. Some find it uncomfortable and are unable to situate where they stand on the matter. Some are passionate about it, while others are annoyed over how repetitive the topic is. However, seeing as we’re in the midst of Women’s History Month in Canada, I think it is fitting to once again open up the conversation about feminism.
Feminism is a difficult word to define. Google it and you get an endless amount of web pages trying to define it, outline the different types and argue whether or not we need to define it. After searching through more than 100 pages to find a worthy article, it seems Wikipedia provides the longest list of the different types of feminism, including mainstream feminism, intersectional feminism, ecofeminism and even Marxist feminism. It’s daunting to even try to define this complex term and it raises the question: can feminism really be defined?
Since I personally identify as a feminist, I believe feminism can be defined with a very simple explanation: feminism is the movement of equality for men and women—regardless of your ethnicity, religion, culture, age, profession, etc. I believe the need for feminism is due to society’s gender norms that continue to be applied today. Feminism is necessary because it breaks down these norms. However, this is my own interpretation and understanding. As mentioned before, there are several ways of interpreting feminism today, but it seems this multitude of ways leads some people to think there’s no way to simply define it.
Is it a movement that cannot be justified due to society’s indefinite perceptions, sexism and patriarchy? Throughout history, Canada has made great strides in applying laws to instill women’s rights, such as the 1883 Married Women’s Property Act that allowed women to have legal control over their earnings. Also, women’s right to vote was fully established nationally once Quebec jumped on the bandwagon in 1940. The Civil Rights Act later prohibited discrimination in the workplace. Equal pay was established in 1977, and abortion was made legal in 1969.
Back in 2015, when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was elected, he made the bold move to form Canada’s first gender-balanced cabinet. Many applauded his act and saw it as something obvious that should have happened years ago. But little action has been done to improve the state of feminism in Canada since then, or at least that’s how some see it.
However, women are still not treated the same as men. One in four North American women will be sexually assaulted in their lifetime, according to Sexual Assault Canada. And despite the equal pay law, women are still only making 72 cents to a man’s dollar, according to the Canadian Women’s Foundation. Furthermore, women of colour, women with disabilities, older women and women of specific religions and minorities face even more extensive oppression.
I personally believe the relation between what is considered “feminine” versus “masculine” has disrupted the freedom of choice to living independently. Why are women still struggling to find their voices in corporate, technological or political settings? Why are they worried about getting a job and starting a family?
This traditional understanding of gender norms must be rehashed since it’s one of the prime reasons feminism is still being fought for today. The application of human rights and respect is not being understood as rights for a “human,” regardless of gender. They are being applied as a division of rights: men’s rights and women’s rights. In order to combine this division into one issue, both women and men have to be more vocal about changing the way we view gender.
Parents must begin educating their children about the fact that the polarization between genders is wrong, and that it places unfair expectations on people. Society, as a whole, has to realize we are all entitled to make personal decisions, receive quality education and be respected. Until this is universally applied, the need for feminism will still exist.
Rates of fentanyl contamination rise as a more potent opioid hits parts of Canada
Naomi Atkin had heard all about the opioid crisis. For the last three years, the 22-year-old volunteered with harm reduction organizations in Toronto. Among her responsibilities was attending concerts and raves to provide a safe support system to anyone who might have been experiencing a bad drug trip. However, it wasn’t until this summer when her former boyfriend died of a heroin overdose, that the epidemic took on a new meaning for her.
“I’d never been personally affected by it before and had someone actually die,” Atkin said.
Thousands of lives have been lost in Canada because of opioid-related overdoses, spiking in the 2000s with an increase in abuse of prescription and recreational oxycodone, according to the Globe and Mail. While Oxycontin—the brand-name version of oxycodone—was removed from the pharmaceutical market in 2012, other opioids such as fentanyl and carfentanil have kept overdose rates high. Atkin’s home province of Ontario reported the second highest number of opioid-related deaths between January 2016 and March 2017, according to federal government statistics. This number, 865, was topped only by British Columbia, the province often deemed ground zero of Canada’s recent opioid epidemic. In April 2016, the province declared a public health emergency following a heightened number of fatal overdoses.
The number of opioid-related deaths in British Columbia was higher in the first six months of 2017 than it had been in that same time frame the year before. However, June saw the lowest number of deaths in 2017 in the province up to that point—a total of 111, which amounts to just under four deaths per day, according to the CBC. Despite the decrease in June, the presence of fentanyl in other illicit substances has accounted for an overall increase in drug overdoses in B.C. since 2012, according to the B.C. Coroners Service.
Fentanyl is a potent opioid pain medication typically available by prescription as a patch and about 100 times more powerful than heroin. However, it is no longer the strongest opioid being mixed with other drugs. Carfentanil—which is about 100 times more potent than fentanyl—was first detected on the streets of Vancouver in November 2016, according to the Vancouver Sun. A month later, Health Canada confirmed the opioid was found in Ontario, manufactured to resemble green Oxycontin pills. As little as 20 micrograms of carfentanil can be lethal—a little less than a pinch of salt, according to the Alberta RCMP.
In August 2016, the Calgary Police Service, the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency confiscated one kilogram of carfentanil at Vancouver Airport. The confiscated batch would have been enough to create 50 million deadly doses, according to the RCMP. Between September 2016 and June 2017, carfentanil was reported in Manitoba, Alberta, Ontario, Nova Scotia and in a Saskatchewan penitentiary, according to the CBC. While carfentanil has yet to be detected on the streets of Montreal, Global News reported that 209 grams of the substance were seized at the Montreal-Mirabel airport in January.
Of these two opioids, fentanyl remains the most commonly found in Canada. According to an investigation by The Globe and Mail, black market fentanyl is being manufactured in China and illegally smuggled across the Canadian border in packages weighing less than 30 grams—below the legal weight of a package border guards can open without the consent of the recipient.
Fentanyl’s low cost and high potency allows drug dealers to spend less and earn more if they cut the opioid into other drugs, most commonly heroin, to heighten their effects. Across the country, there was a 40 per cent increase in street drugs testing positive for fentanyl, Global News reported in October 2016. According to the CBC, there have been cases in Montreal of fentanyl being found in cocaine, MDMA (molly or ecstasy) and PCP, among other illicit substances.
According to Dr. Warren Steiner, who obtained his degree from McGill and has been practicing psychiatry since 1988, many of Canada’s opioid users originally got hooked on prescription painkillers.
“Doctors, as a group, over the last 10 to 20 years, have been very irresponsible in their use of prescription [opioid] painkillers, and that led to a big part of this,” said Steiner, who has been employed at the Montreal-based private rehab centre 360 DTX since its opening in 2014. Over-prescription of opioids facilitated the development of addiction among many patients, Steiner said. “Then you progress from the regular prescriptions—you start buying from the street, and you go up the ladder to the more and more potent drugs,” he added.
Included in this phenomenon is what Steiner referred to as “divergence of prescription.” In Canada, Steiner said a significant number of prescription painkillers end up in the hands of someone other than the person they were intended for. “It’s not the person they’re prescribed to who ends up taking them—they get borrowed, given away, sold on the streets,” he said. “Divergence of prescription is a big part of the drug problem, and physicians have to take responsibility—and we are. There are now courses and more and more articles and education for doctors to be much more vigilant in prescribing opiates.”
Regardless of the origins of such substance abuse, a key factor in the current opioid crisis is the frequency with which fentanyl and carfentanil end up mixed with other drugs. Based on the stories Atkin has heard, it is something she said can happen more often than most expect.
“A lot of dealers sell more than one type of drug—so someone who has a lot of cocaine might also be selling heroin or fentanyl,” she said, adding that this can lead to contamination of lesser drugs. Traces of fentanyl as little as three milligrams—while sufficient to trigger an overdose—will not be enough to evenly contaminate an entire batch of cocaine. As Atkin explained, this makes contamination less likely to show up with a drug test kit if only a portion of the batch is tested. “That’s why it’s important to be prepared,” Atkin said. “You never know when that could happen.”
Atkin recently began volunteering at a pop-up safe injection site in Moss Park in downtown Toronto because she wanted to be more involved in preventing fatal overdoses. “I think that nothing good comes to people who are using heroin because it’s just so dangerous—especially now,” she said. “I saw someone overdosing on the street just a few weeks ago.” Although she had a naloxone kit with her—the opioid overdose antidote—an ambulance arrived before she needed to use it.
“I thought about it afterwards, and even though it was such a scary experience, I would rather have been prepared for something like that, than not at all,” Atkin said. “It’s important to realize that anything can happen at any moment, and being prepared is better than the alternative.”
CLEAR SIGNS OF AN OPIOID OVERDOSE
Graphic by Zeze Le LinThe opioid epidemic flows from British Columbia, the province often deemed ground zero of Canada’s recent opioid epidemic. Graphic by Zeze Le LinGraphic by Zeze Le Lin
Cold, clammy skin. A limp body, seemingly deep in sleep. Slow breathing. A faltering or halted heartbeat. These are the symptoms of an overdose.
Imagine you and your friends are sitting around a coffee table snorting cocaine. A mid-party upper to boost your energy perhaps. You start off small, to test your tolerance. Your friend, on the other hand, snorts a larger line. Following that bump, your friend sinks back into the couch, looking dopey or at least quite out of it. They become unresponsive and look as if they’re settling into a deep sleep. They may begin snoring or choking, their fingernails or skin may turn blue, their pupils may grow small or their eyes will begin to roll back. Not only is it important to know that these are not the typical effects of cocaine use, it could also be life-saving to know that these signs are likely indicative of fentanyl or carfentanil contamination.
Death caused by an overdose can happen within minutes of ingesting the drug, although it often happens up to a few hours later after the user has fallen into a deep sleep. Nonetheless, overdoses need to be handled swiftly.
In a scenario like the one described above, call 911 immediately. Someone should check the person’s breathing—if it’s slow or shallow, inject naloxone to regulate their breathing. If naloxone is not available, administer CPR to help the person breathe until first responders arrive.
If the person’s breathing is compromised, a lack of oxygen can cause brain damage within minutes. “When you have a lot more of that substance in your blood, then other receptors are also triggered, and those receptors are decreasing the ability of the brain to breathe,” according to Dr. Sophie Gosselin, a medical toxicologist at the McGill University Health Centre. “Rather than breathing at 16 breaths per minute, some of these people breathe at eight breaths per minute, or four breaths per minute,” she said. “That’s not enough to give the body all the oxygen it needs and that’s when they go into a coma.”
If you incorrectly assess an overdose and inject naloxone, it will not harm the person, as naloxone does not induce a high—it only blocks effects of other opioids to the brain.
“A death from an opiate overdose is really someone falling asleep, losing consciousness and getting into a very deep sleep where they can’t wake up, even though they should feel the need to breath—they stop breathing and they die from that,” according to Steiner.
As Gosselin explained, when the brain does not have enough oxygen it strokes out and your heart starts to give out––sometimes the user will stop breathing all together.
“If a user experiencing an overdose has a stroke from lack of oxygen and is placed on life support, the damage has already been done,” Gosselin added. “If taken off life support, their body would not have the ability to sustain breathing alone.”
Although there are three categories of opioids—natural, synthetic and semi-synthetic—the effects these drugs have on the brain are the same. They all bind to opiate receptors in the brain. The difference is the degree in strength of each opioid.
Natural opiates, such as codeine and morphine, are commonly used to alleviate pain and accompany a variety of medical procedures. “Those activate the opiate system very mildly,” Steiner said, adding that these drugs activate only about five per cent of a person’s opiate receptors.
Stronger, semi-synthetic opioids, however, such as heroin and oxycodone, have a greater impact on receptors. “They bind very strongly to these receptors in the brain, and they really turn on the system,” Steiner said. This is what makes these substances highly addictive, but also more dangerous. “The opiate system affects the respiration and the heart, which is why people overdose and die.”
Naloxone is the medication used to counter the effects of opioids and is either injected or ingested as a nasal spray. It can reverse an overdose by blocking opiate receptors, essentially pushing the heroin or fentanyl off the receptors, Steiner explained. “[Naloxone is] something that can save many, many lives if it’s out there in the community.”
MONTREAL’S RESPONSE
The municipal government has been taking precautions over the last few months in preparation for a predicted influx of opiate overdoses. Safe injection sites were introduced at the beginning of the summer and, in September, the city announced an initiative to make naloxone more accessible.
An approximation of the amount of each drug that could induce an overdose. Photo by Alex Hutchins
Safe injection sites provide a space for users to inject drugs and, if there is a medical emergency, a healthcare worker employed at the site can attend to the person.
Two safe injection sites opened in Montreal in June: Dopamine in Hochelaga-Maisonneuve and Cactus in downtown Montreal. “For us, it has been a nine-year battle to open this site in our facility,” said Martin Pagé, the director of Dopamine. Pagé said another safe injection site is set to open in the Centre-Sud neighbourhood this fall. Once all three sites are open to the public, they are estimated to provide service for a total of 200 to 300 drug injections per day, according to Montreal Gazette.
After the centres close for the day—Dopamine closes at 1 a.m. and Cactus at 4 a.m.—a van drives around Montreal offering a mobile safe injection space. The service is called Spectre de Rue.
Safe injection sites exist in Vancouver, with plans to open others in Surrey and Victoria have been approved by the federal government. Ottawa opened its first safe injection site on Sept. 26 and Toronto currently has a pop-up site in Moss Park.
When asked if safe injection sites would encourage drug use or not, Steiner said, “People are going to use drugs and they’re going to use them badly, but you try to protect them. You can’t just say because someone’s a drug user, they deserve to die.”
On Sept. 5, Mayor Denis Coderre announced a pilot project to supply police officers and firefighters in certain boroughs with naloxone kits and training to use the antidote, according to the CBC.
Access to naloxone has been scarce in Montreal, as only four pharmacies in the city carry the antidote, according to the National Observer. Additionally, proper training on how to administer naloxone has been limited to first responders, community workers and staff at the city’s safe injection sites.
“It is an epidemic in B.C. and it’s an epidemic in Toronto and the states,” Steiner said. “I wouldn’t call it an epidemic [in Montreal], but it’s certainly a public health crisis, which we don’t want to become an epidemic.”
Safe injection sites provide the community with greater access to naloxone. However, some, like Pagé, believe there needs to be greater access outside of these sites.
Pagé said he believes naloxone kits should be distributed in Montreal. “We administer at the moment, but we do not give the kit,” Pagé said. “[Police and firefighters] should have had [naloxone] a long time ago. For us, the authorities are a bit late.”
“It’s going to come east,” he said, referring fentanyl and carfentanil. “There was no reason to think that [Eastern Canada] should be spared from this crisis.”
Recognizing and celebrating our nation’s progress, but understanding there’s still more to do
It has been 10 years since the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted on Sept. 13, 2007. As such, Montreal’s city council chose Sept. 13 to mark the addition of an Iroquois symbol to its city flag.
The city also committed to renaming Amherst Street—named after British general Jeffrey Amherst, who advocated for the use of biological warfare against Indigenous peoples in 1763. These were important and complex decisions, however, they are only part of a larger, ongoing conversation about Indigenous rights and reconciliation.
The debate surrounding the honouring of controversial historical figures in the public and governmental spheres has been an ongoing conversation in Canada for some time. However, it seems to have peaked in the wake of the Confederate monument discourse happening in the United States. While I certainly agree with the renaming of Amherst Street, the issue of consistency comes into question.
For instance, the Langevin block, which houses the prime minister’s office, was named after Hector-Louis Langevin, a father of Confederation and proponent of residential schools. Back in June, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced the building would be renamed because “keeping that name on the prime minister’s office is inconsistent with the values of our government.”
However, when confronted by the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario’s initiative to remove the name of John A. MacDonald—Canada’s first prime minister and a supporter of residential schools—from the province’s schools in August, Trudeau sang a different tune. According to CBC News, he said he believes this discourse is important, but “reconciliation is not just about the relationship between government and Indigenous people.” He said there are no plans for the federal government to remove MacDonald’s name from schools, and therein lies a sort of contradiction.
Some of the public’s reaction has been to label Trudeau’s Langevin block announcement and the Montreal city council decision as acts of virtue signalling. I don’t necessarily agree with that, yet when Mayor Denis Coderre proudly claimed: “If we want reconciliation, I don’t think we should celebrate someone who wanted to exterminate Indigenous peoples,” it was hard not to see his point. You can’t have it both ways.
It is important to recognize the work that led to Confederation. However, it is equally important to recognize that our nation was built at the expense of Indigenous people’s territory, culture and lives. Assembly of First Nations national chief Perry Bellegarde told the CBC that the actions of Trudeau and Ontario’s teachers signal an awakening in the minds of Canadians. “What’s hopeful for me is that Canadians are starting to get it,” Bellegarde told the CBC.
To be clear, I am not a member of the Indigenous community, nor do I mean to speak on their behalf. I believe in inclusion, empathy and reconciliation. I think Bellegarde’s words are quite poignant. This is indeed part of a slow awakening. Canada has come a long way. Two years ago, our leadership was hard pressed to even acknowledge a divide between Canada and Indigenous peoples. Now, as a nation, we are at least recognizing that our historical legacy is not perfect, and we are having a discourse to reconcile that past with the present.
I think the way forward is to recognize and celebrate the progress we have made, but not to believe—even for a second—that the past is in the past. The actions of our past have tangible, contemporary consequences. Progress is the sum total of acts of empathy, large and small. We cannot poison acts of goodwill just because they don’t address all violations at once. A single act cannot be comprehensive. But we can certainly be critical and hold our leaders accountable.
It is important to realize that total reconciliation of the past may never be fully realized, but we can work towards a more empathetic and active engagement with our nation’s past. The act of striving for a better relationship with your neighbour is certainly a noble pursuit.
A reflection on Canada’s national identity and why we should just be ourselves
The celebration of 150 years since Canada’s Confederation does not come without a few controversial questions. Amid the festivities, people from across the country have been denouncing the treatment of Indigenous peoples. As well, some people in Quebec—citizens and politicians alike—have reiterated the need for the province to be part of the constitution or to become a sovereign state.
While reconciliation and constitutional issues are of the utmost importance, I’d like to bring forward an aspect of Canada’s identity that’s often omitted. It’s an aspect that is crucial to what we’ve become in the century and a half since Confederation.
I’ve always been interested in the different political ideologies in Canada. It wasn’t until recently, though, that I realized there is a hidden one. One that pervades and homogenizes other ideologies so well that all lines are blurred, making us oblivious to it.
Indeed, I think there are not two but three main ideologies in today’s Canada: Quebec nationalism, Canada’s British roots and American exceptionalism. The latter proposes that the American economic system, political culture and democracy are uniquely rightful, thus making them the default model to follow. This ideology is certainly the most entrenched in our public discourse, as we see Canada becoming more similar to the United States.
American exceptionalism has positive and negative sides, depending on one’s position. For many Maritimers, the ideology is a denial of their deeply-rooted identity, while for some Québécois, it may reinforce republicanism and the sovereigntist sentiment, stemming from a shared sense of British oppression. But for both groups, it entails the takeover of their culture by mass consumption as sold by large media and corporations. That said, the Americanization of Canada likely serves neither Québécois nationalists nor Maritime loyalists.
The United States is currently walking down the road of isolationism and protectionism, a road that none of Canada’s identity groups are fond of. This is why I believe uniting to assert our right to political independence is the best thing we can do. In many ways, the current U.S. president has proven his values conflict with those of our country, and yet it is very difficult to stand up against our closest ally and neighbour.
Most of the time, when I ask someone what it means to be Canadian, the answer either has to do with multiculturalism or not being American. But to what extent is the latter true?
Our economies are integrated to the extent that we can’t foresee a future without a trade partnership with the United States. From NAFTA to Netflix, we are annexed now more than ever––the result of decades of neighbour-friendly policy making. I think this is concerning, given the political polarization in the United States and the looming threat of a war with North Korea. No matter how different we Canadians think we are, we may one day begin to see the downsides of such a close link with our southern neighbour.
I’m not here to tell anyone what kind of Canada they should strive for, nor am I here to lecture the United States. What I’m here for is to claim that we don’t have to be like Americans to be more favourable as a world power. We can make our own path, we can be ourselves and we can stand for what we want.
Our government should be more receptive to different identity groups in Canada than to the United States’s influence. It should take Canada for what it is: a politically and geographically complex place rather than an attempted replica of the United States. But the first step is for the population to read and learn about the past, and realize how Americanized Canada has become.
A ball hockey team celebrates winning a championship. Photo courtesy of Sean Guerriero.
Anybody can play ball hockey, and it’s making the sport grow across the country
Just imagine playing hockey without needing to learn how to skate. That’s ball hockey.
With the same level of intensity and excitement, ball hockey is a sport made to mirror Canada’s favourite winter pastime. Almost anyone can play, and it’s not just for kids in gym class or on the street, many adults also play.
Sean Guerriero, the vice-president of the Montreal Ball Hockey League (MBHL), said the sport is gaining popularity because it’s simple to play.
‘‘All you need to know is how to run and hold a stick,’’ he said. ‘‘If you like hockey, that’s the only prerequisite.’’
All you need to know is how to run and hold a stick. – Sean Guerriero
Many of the rules in ice and ball hockey are the same, but the games are played differently. In ice hockey, players can easily glide on their skates if they’re tired or a bit lazy. That’s not the case in ball hockey. The pace of the game relies on players keeping their feet moving without the luxury of an icy surface to propel them forward.
‘‘It’s a big workout,’’ Guerriero said. ‘‘If you’re not backchecking on [the play], you’re called out on it.’’
For university students looking to release stress, Guerriero said ball hockey is a fantastic sport. “It’s a great endorphin-releaser because of the toll it takes on your body to run 200 feet,” he said.
A ball hockey player carries the ball along the boards during a game. Photo courtesy of Sean Guerriero.
The biggest rule difference between ice hockey and ball hockey is the floating blue line rule. In ice hockey, the offensive zone ends at the opponent’s blue line. In ball hockey, the offensive zone goes all the way back to the red line, at centre ice. So the attacking team has half the ice to set up and make a play. It leaves a lot more space and creates a type of game that, according to Guerriero, relies on possession.
‘‘You gain the zone, you pass back to the point, you open up space,’’ he said. ‘‘The best players in the world don’t run that much.’’
However, ball hockey players still have the same passion for their sport as those on the ice, and it makes a great alternative for those who cannot play the winter version.
‘‘Across Montreal, hockey is a huge part of our culture, and it’s a great way to enter that culture and participate in it without having to learn how to skate,’’ Guerriero said.
In Montreal, ball hockey participation is growing fast. When Guerriero became VP of the MBHL in 2011, the league used hockey rinks in the summer, and didn’t have winter seasons. But a few months later, the Club West Island built an indoor ball hockey rink, open all year. So the MBHL started playing in the winter. Since then, Guerriero said the number of teams has grown from about 30 to around 120, and the MBHL operates year-round with over 3,000 players.
‘‘It’s caught on as more of a year-round sport than just a summer sport,” Guerriero said.
The MBHL took a major hit when the Club West Island closed in 2016, but they bounced back by moving their rink inside a golf dome in Kirkland. On top of that, Montreal’s first five-on-five ball hockey-specific arena, Le Rinque 2.0, opened in April. For Guerriero, having more places to play and grow the sport brings it closer to his dream.
‘‘Our ultimate goal as a sport is Olympic presence,’’ he said. ‘‘To see Team Canada play ball hockey at the Olympics would be a dream come true.’’
Almost a year into its legalization, medically assisted suicide is still something to be fought for
In June 2016, medically-assisted suicide, which is the act of suicide with the aid of a medical practitioner, was legalized in Canada. We are approaching the one-year mark of that decision, yet some people still strongly oppose it and feel that it should be illegal.
I think that in a civilized and democratic society, people should have complete autonomy over their actions so long as they don’t intentionally harm other people. Every major decision in a person’s lifetime should be up to the individual, since only they know what’s truly best for them. In a country that values freedom and individuality, a person’s right to death should be as sacred as their right to life.
A survey by the non-profit organization Dying With Dignity Canada showed that, in 2014, 84 per cent of Canadians supported assisted death. This includes euthanasia—when a patient agrees to die by the hands of a physician, and assisted suicide—when a patient dies by their own hands, but by means given by a physician. According to the Toronto Star, about 200 Canadians went through the process of physician-assisted suicide by October 2016, following its legalization.
However, The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is a Canadian organization active in posting anti-euthanasia content on their website, in hopes of changing legislation to make it illegal again. A look through their website reveals anxieties around the possible abuse of power on the part of physicians, and the potential inability of those suffering to make a logical choice about whether to live or die.
Groups that are against medically-assisted death tend to think decriminalizing it is a slippery slope which leads to a society “where the vulnerable are threatened and where premature death becomes a cheap alternative to palliative care,” according to an article in The Economist titled “The right to die.” However, it is extremely unlikely this will happen because the essential purpose of legalizing medically-assisted death is to give people authority over their own lives. The idea that it could lead to people being unjustly killed is inconsistent with the movement’s core goals.
The current laws in Canada are extremely restrictive. The legislation around medically-assisted death puts a lot of emphasis on ensuring the autonomy of the patient. According to the End-of-Life Law and Policy in Canada website, patients must make “a voluntary request for medical assistance in dying that, in particular, was not made as a result of external pressure.” To say that legalizing medically-assisted death is a path towards injustice is incorrect because it is actually a step in the opposite direction.
According to the same article in The Economist, “places that have allowed assisted dying suggest that there is no slippery slope towards widespread euthanasia. In fact, the evidence leads to the conclusion that most of the schemes for assisted dying should be bolder.”
Canadian legislation ensures a patient isn’t able to go through with the whole process hastily. According to the End-of-Life Law and Policy in Canada, in Canada, in order to receive a medically assisted death, patients must submit and sign a written request to end their life in front of two witnesses, 10 days before death. Two physicians must also agree with the written agreement, which confirms the patient has an incurable medical condition that is in an advanced state and that death is foreseeable. Patients need to also be aware of other potential palliative care options.
In the end, adults should be allowed to make their own decisions, even if these choices have extreme consequences. The rhetoric around decriminalizing medically-assisted death shares many similarities with the debate concerning abortion laws. If we want to talk about slippery slopes, we should consider the ones lurking behind legislation that limits people’s autonomy over their own lives in relation to what they can and can’t do with their bodies.
In the February issue of their monthly anti-euthanasia newsletter, the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition cited an article by Metro News that claims many physicians are unwilling to perform euthanasia on their patients. Based on this article, they concluded, “killing another human being is counter-intuitive to our human nature … Death with dignity is not attained by a lethal injection—it is attained by dying comfortably within a community of caring and supportive people.” Aside from the fact that medically-assisted death can still be “within a community of caring and supportive people,” I think it is up to the individual to decide what dying with dignity looks like.
It is fine if physicians are uncomfortable with the idea of suicide since the desire to live is a personal issue. It is nearly impossible for someone who doesn’t want to end their life to understand the mentality of someone who does. We should offer as much help to people as we can provide—be it through medication, therapy or other treatment—but ultimately, people should be allowed to make their own decision regarding whether or not they feel like their life is worth living.
Not everyone’s views on death are the same. Some see it as the worst thing that could ever happen to a person, and as something that is to be avoided for as long as possible. This is a valid point of view, but it is by no means universal. If someone truly believes death is more desirable than suffering, then who are we to stop them? Everyone has had unique life experiences that contribute to their worldview and personal philosophy, and they should be allowed to act according to it. Just because others don’t agree with their choices is no reason to limit their ability to make these choices.
As long as someone is deemed mentally stable by a qualified psychiatrist to make such a weighted choice, then if someone definitively decides they want to end their life, we should take them very seriously and allow them to make that decision.
CBC’s Radio-Canada’s new poll shows that Canadians aren’t as accepting as they seem
In February, a poll done by CBC’s Radio-Canada asked Canadians about their stance on a series of issues, specifically about populism and xenophobia. The results revealed that our so-called far and wide land that is “free” is not as hospitable as one may think.
Out of 2,513 Canadians surveyed for this poll—1,024 of whom were from Quebec—74 per cent of respondents answered they would “very” or “somewhat” welcome the act of screening immigrants on their values to determine if they coincide with those of Canadians.
Sixty per cent of Canadians believe refugees are great additions to our society, and 83 per cent feel they enhance our cultural diversity. However, when asked again if Canadians would be open to enforcing a Muslim ban, a quarter of them answered they would “strongly” or “somewhat” accept such a motion.
Is this really shocking? No, it shouldn’t be. Realistically speaking, as much as we would like to deny these discomforting revelations and promote that we are the overly-polite nation that accepts everyone, it’s time to face reality. Canadians are scared, Canadians are judgemental and Canadians, just like everyone else, are easily influenced. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that Canada is very much reflecting xenophobic characteristics when those characteristics are so prominent in today’s news.
In another survey done by the Angus Reid Institute (ARI) in 2014, Quebec’s results were just as negative. The survey, conducted with the help of The Province, a branch of the Postmedia Network, the Laurier Institution and the Canadian Race Relations Foundation, asked Canadians about their views on radicalization and homegrown terrorism. When it came to questions about whether people were supportive of religious symbols or religious clothing in public, Quebec scored the lowest for all Muslim symbols, such as the niqab and the hijab. The crucifix was the most accepted symbol, nationally.
It’s only human nature these views seep into our consciousness. We absorb what we are surrounded by. We live in a world saturated with overly-dramatic and mostly-negative media and we are instinctively accustomed to form likes and dislikes through personal experiences with particular people. We are drawn to what is familiar rather than unknown. Hence, our biases and escalated fear.
Take, for example, the rise of hate crimes in Canada. According to Mélanie Lajoie, Montreal police spokesperson, in Montreal alone, 81 hate crimes were reported in 2013, 89 in 2014, 112 in 2015, and we closed off 2016 with 137. Furthermore, entering the new year, 14 hate crimes were reported just after the Quebec City mosque shooting, already a 10th of last year’s total.
Sadly, even our nation’s leaders seem to be in the same boat. Racing to become the next leader of the Conservative Party, exhibiting Trump-like qualities, Kellie Leitch has proposed a method of screening newcomers to Canada, in order to make sure foreigners’ values reflect those of Canadians. On her campaign’s website are the values: equal opportunity, hard work, helping others, generosity, freedom and tolerance.
Insinuating these values only belong to Canada, and not to other nations, is insulting. Leitch, as well as her long-lost twin, Trump, seem to have a strategized method of targeting minorities, particularly Muslims, who are already marginalized and feared for no reason. They instill fear and anger into their supporters. Knowing that people’s emotions are sometimes stronger than common sense, the tactic works, and an increase in xenophobia ensues.
Does this mean we’re doomed? Not at all. Luckily, these sentiments can change, and it is up to us to educate ourselves and challenge in how we see and treat different cultures, religions and ethnicities. We can then feel confident in being known as a country for its inclusiveness, hospitable nature and multiculturalism. When we surround ourselves with different types of people, experiences and environments, we not only develop tolerance, but we develop further knowledge of the world as a whole.
It is not too late for Canadians to take a step in the right direction, and to learn, most importantly, to live with one another and appreciate our differences.
Canada’s Supreme Court Chief Justice discusses pivotal moments in Canada’s history
Canada’s first female Supreme Court Justice Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, was invited to speak at Concordia on March 16.
In commemoration of Canada’s 150th birthday, Concordia’s Workshops on Social Science Research (WSSR) organized the talk with McLachlin to discuss her five defining democratic moments in Canadian history. McLachlin, who is the longest-serving Chief Justice in Canadian history, addressed hundreds of students, professors and alumni at Grey Nuns.
“My first choice is, not surprisingly, the Confederation of Canada in 1867. The creation of the new dominion of Canada was the quintessential defining moment of the country,” McLachlin said. “These values established, from the beginning, Canada’s character, and a generation of people have expanded them.”
McLachlin identified three democratic values enshrined in the Canadian Constitution since its conception: democracy, federalism and respect for diversity and minorities.
She said the second defining moment in Canadian history was the decision of the judicial committee of the Privy Council during the Persons Case. “This case established that, in Canada, all citizens are equal,” McLachlin said. Prior to the Persons Case in 1929, only men were considered persons. The 1929 Supreme Court case ruled that women could also hold public office, she explained.
“The decision is seminal because it enunciated two principles that I believe are central to our Canadian democracy. First, all people are equally entitled to participate in democratic government. Second, that Canadian Constitution enhances Canadian democracy, and [the Constitution is] a living tree capable of growth and expansion,” McLachlin said.
The third defining moment was the patriation of the Constitution and the adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, McLachlin said.
“This moment signaled true independence for our country, and reaffirmed the principles of democracy, federalism and respect for minority rights inherent in the BNA Act in 1867, and constitutionalized individual and group rights for all Canadians,” she said.
“Thirty-five years later, I believe that most people would say that patriation of the Constitution was vital to our country’s democratic growth, and the Charter has stood the test of time,” McLachlin said. “The Charter has become part of the Canadian identity. Polls tell us that Canadians take pride in the Charter and see it as a fundamental defining element of Canadian democracy.”
The Chief Justice’s fourth defining moment was the recognition of the rights of Canada’s indigenous peoples.
“Section 35 of the Constitution Act 1982, for the first time, guaranteed the rights of Canada’s indigenous people,” she said. Section 35 provides constitutional protection to the Aboriginal and treaty rights of Aboriginal peoples in Canada.
“In the years that followed, court decisions fleshed out treaty rights and indigenous rights, through judicial practices, economic activity and cultural and religious practices.”
“The Supreme Court held that indigenous rights must be respected, in the pursuit of fair and just reconciliation between Canada’s aboriginal peoples and the descendants of Canadians who came later,” McLachlin said.
The fifth defining moment of Canadian democracy was the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada during the Quebec referendum in 1995. This decision was regarding if Quebec could unilaterally secede from Canada, under Canadian and international law.
According to McLachlin, the secession reference was a landmark case on whether states or provinces could unilaterally secede from a country. Countries around the world have looked at it as a reference case.
During the question and answer period, McLachlin said she would love to see more minorities in more government positions.
“Justices are chosen from the senior ranks of the practicing lawyers of the judiciary, but we have only seen large numbers of minority cultures coming into the judicial ranks in the last decades,” she said. “So I am confident that, as time passes, this deficiency will be remedied.”
Former prisoner and activist faces threat of torture and murder by Iranian regime
A crowd gathered across the street from the Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) office in support of Roghayeh “Mina” Azizi Mirmahaleh, a 60-year-old human rights activist from Iran. She recently had her application for her Canadian refugee status revoked and will be sent back to Iran on Feb. 28.
Bahrami, in the brown jacket, next to her mother Azizi Mirmahaleh. Photo by Savanna Craig.
“Keep Mina here! Keep Mina here,” chanted protesters as they stood opposite CIC in downtown Montreal on Feb. 21, urging Canadian Immigration not to deport her.
Sahar Bahrami, Azizi Mirmahaleh’s daughter, said the Iranian regime knows Azizi Mirmahaleh’s identity and of her political activism in Canada, which would result in her mother facing torture, imprisonment and execution if she were forced to return back to Iran. Azizi Mirahaleh was imprisoned in the 1980’s for three years due to advocating for human rights, women’s rights and free elections in Iran.
“[The regime] executed her husband in 1988 in a mass execution,” said Bahrami. “She has participated in protests [in Canada] against violation of human rights in Iran.”
Photo by Savanna Craig.
Azizi Mirmahaleh moved to Canada in 2012 after receiving a temporary resident visa, acquired by her daughter. However, when she registered for refugee status in late 2013, Azizi Mirmahaleh’s application was revoked. According to the CBC, in January a Canadian Immigration officer determined she was fit to go back to Iran.
Her lawyer Stéphanie Valois told Radio-Canada that, on Feb. 17, Azizi Mirmahaleh filed for a request to stay in Canada, in the wake of being denied refugee status.
Azizi Mirmahaleh was among the crowd of protesters, and she eventually went into CIC to speak with an immigration officer about her flight to Iran on Feb. 28.
Azizi Mirmahaleh entering Citizenship and Immigration Canada. Photo by Savanna Craig.
According to the Journal Métro de Montréal, Valois said Azizi Mirmahaleh was arrested following her appointment at CIC on Feb. 21, due to immigration officers suspecting she would not arrive for her flight next week.
“We do not support deportation of any political refugees right now, so we’re here to make it very visible and so our voices are heard,” said Sherry Guppy, an organizer of the event, who is also on the NDG Senior Citizens Council where she met Bahrami and Azizi Mirmahaleh.
Guppy said she has been working with Azizi Mirmahaleh and her daughter for the past nine days since they approached the NDG Senior Citizens Council for aid.
Gubby among other activists mobilizing across the street from CIC. Photo by Savanna Craig.
“They’ve needed a lot of support, so we’ve just been trying to mobilize in any way that we can. We’ve been traveling around, going to see different political constituents and rallying,” said Guppy.
“It’s a human rights issue. Mina is a human rights activist,” said Guppy. “Human rights, regardless of what your politics are…it’s very basic and it’s very fundamental to our safety here and everywhere in the world right now.”
Guppy said it is vital to mobilize in circumstances such as this, as many people around the world have their human rights in jeopardy.
There is a petition available for advocates, which calls upon Ministers with power to stop Azizi Mirmahaleh from being deported.
For more information and updates on Azizi Mirmahaleh’s case, visit the Facebook group “Stand With Mina.”
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.
How Canada is quickly becoming a surveillance nation
It is not uncommon for us Canadians to compare ourselves to our American neighbours. Often, we consider ourselves better off, especially when looking at an issue like national surveillance and privacy concerns for the general population.
In May 2013, American whistleblower Edward Snowden fled to Hong Kong and published an array of classified documents, detailing the American government’s abuse of surveillance power. We scoffed at the unlawfulness of our neighbours to the south, yet are we really any better?
In the past few months alone, two cases of very controversial police action regarding surveillance in Canada were made public. These cases, both occurring in Montreal, have forced many, myself included, to question the power of the police as well as the amount of freedom we think we have.
At the end of October 2016, it became apparent that the mobile phone of La Presse journalist Patrick Lagacé was being tracked for several months prior, by the SPVM – unbeknownst to him – in an attempt to identify some of his sources. The 24 separate warrants the police issued allowed for them to legally conduct this highly controversial operation.
“The new powers that the police have to surveil Canadians are absolutely horrifying. They’re basically limitless, there’s very little oversight and, when that happens, the system will be ripe for abuse, and this is just an example of how it’s abused,” said Tom Henheffer, the executive director of Canadian Journalists for Free Expression (CJFE) in an interview with CBC News.
The other case occurred in September of last year, when Michael Nguyen, a journalist with the Journal de Montréal journalist had his computer seized by the Quebec provincial police, after they believed he hacked their website to obtain information about a judge’s abusive behaviour. Nguyen and George Kalogerakis—the managing editor of Le Journal—are strongly condemning the actions taken by the Quebec police via multiple interviews with the media.
“I can tell you that our reporter did not break any laws to get his story,” said Kalogerakis in an interview with the Toronto Star. “We do not break laws at the Journal. We will contest the validity of the search warrant as far as we can.”
It is completely unacceptable, in my opinion, for the police to conduct themselves in this unethical, privacy-breaching manner—not because I am a journalism student, but because I am a human being with morals. The worst part is the police’s actions in the two abovementioned instances were completely legal because they obtained permits from the courts—and that worries me. How much privacy do we really have as Canadians?
While some may argue that journalists should realistically expect some interference from the police, these incidents of surveillance are deeply disturbing. Journalists are supposed to ask the difficult questions and investigate. How are we supposed to perform our duties when those in power are establishing a state of fear and intimidation?
In Edmonton, for example, the police recently admitted to using International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI) catchers, also known as “stingrays,” according to CBC News. These devices allow the police to essentially eavesdrop on any cell phone call within range of the device.
This sort of technology breaches privacy and violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Privacy Act passed, which was adopted in 1983 and serves to protect Canadian citizens from surveillance. It allows the police to easily gain access to the private conversations of any individual, and this is just not right. Where do we draw the line between security and privacy? I can only imagine what the police will be allowing themselves to do next in the name of surveillance, if we continue on this path.
So far, Canada’s two largest police forces—the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP)—are refusing to confirm whether they use these devices, which work by picking up on the cellphone signals of people nearby. Both forces declined to comment when questioned by the Toronto Star with regards to their possible use of “stingrays.” The fact they haven’t denied it leads me to believe they may be using this technology, and it is worrisome.
It is our duty as Canadians and citizens of a democracy to question those with power and always fight for our rights and freedoms.
As Edward Snowden said, “Arguing that you don’t care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don’t care about free speech because you have nothing to say.”
Space Concordia shares its victories with the rest of the university
Space Concordia have just returned from several summer competitions, including a first place win.
Space Concordia’s team placed first in Canada during their first competition of the summer— the Canadian Satellite Design Challenge (CSDC), which was held on June 16. This competition requires teams to design and build a small research satellite known as a “CubeSat” or a “nanosatellite.” After construction, the satellites must undergo full launch qualification testing.
Eight Canadian Universities participated in this challenge, including Montreal’s Polytechnique, who landed in third place. Space Concordia President Nicholas Moore said Montreal dominating the podium was a first for the city.
The second competition Space Concordia attended was the International Rocketry Engineering Competition (IREC), which lasted a week and wrapped up late this August in Utah. The Concordia team brought back the second place prize, while École de Technologie Supérieure (ETS) finished in first place. This international competition brought together more than 50 schools from around the world to design rockets capable of reaching an altitude of 3048 meters or higher. Space Concordia’s rocket, Aurelius, flew to 3395 meters and was recovered less than a mile from the launch site, showing the quality of the research done prior to the construction of the rocket. . Space Concordia’s rocketry division won second place with Aurelius.
When not competing, the club was working on a different project: Icarus. Icarus is the group’s first attempt at creating a flying high-altitude balloon. These types of balloons are designed to expose equipment and scientific charge, which is a unit of matter, in near-space areas. The two balloons they created reached an altitude of 24 kilometres, extending halfway through the stratosphere.
In addition to this project, the club is currently developing a ground station to communicate with satellites.
Moore also mentioned some of the new projects that the club has planned for this year. “The rocketry team is planning to feature a pitted tube that will stick out of their rocket,” he said. “This tube will be placed right up the top of the rocket, taking air samples for more accurate airspeed.”
The club is divided into three categories: rocketry, spacecraft and robotics.
The rocketry division participates at the IREC every year. The competition challenges teams to send a 10 pound experimental payload, which is a type of satellite, to an altitude of 3048 meters before returning the entire rocket safely to the ground.
The spacecraft division concentrates on the design, construction and operation of satellites. The team is also divided into a space group, whose dedicated to building the satellites and a ground group, who works on operating and communicating with these satellites from Earth.
The club’s final division, robotics, has four main subdivisions: software, power, electrical and mechanical. Their main competition is the University Rover Challenge (URC) in southern Utah. This competition challenges the teams to design and build the next generation of Mars rovers—ones that will eventually work alongside astronauts exploring Mars. This competition is organized by the Mars Society, a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting human exploration and settlement of the red planet.
Moore invites all students from the university to join the club. He said all undergraduate students—in any field of study—have a place at Space Concordia. From those attending John Molson School of Business to students studying the arts, Moore said that they can be a valuable addition to the club.
Students who wish to participate in Space Concordia projects are welcome to visit their office in the Hall building, on the 10th floor (1029.7).
