Tag: opinions

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.

Categories
Opinions

Responding to deceitful conservative views

Graphic by Florence Yee

Why supporting Milo Yiannopoulos is wrong and unjustified

“Facts don’t care about your feelings,” said Ben Shapiro, an American conservative political commentator, author and attorney. The same quote closed the article titled “Weighing in on a controversial book deal,” published in The Concordian on Jan. 17. Oddly enough, the opinion piece had nothing to do with facts. Nor Yiannopoulos’ book deal, actually.

The piece discussed the “silencing” of free speech—particularly right-wing, conservative speech—and used Milo Yiannopoulos’ Twitter ban as an example. Let’s use the same example to illustrate how free speech was not silenced, and how political correctness was definitely not to blame in this situation.

The tweets that preceded Yiannopoulos’ ban from the platform were directed at African-American actress Leslie Jones. She had been the victim of verbal racist attacks on Twitter after starring in the recent blockbuster reboot, Ghostbusters. This occurred a month before her website was hacked, leading to a leak of personal pictures and private information, including her phone number and Twitter password. Yiannopoulos referred to those racist attacks as “hate mail,” saying that “everyone gets [it],” reported the Independent. In other words, he was telling her to simply get over it.

Bold words, coming from a white man. As a woman of colour, I can definitely tell you that “getting over” racism isn’t easy—or possible at all.

Yiannopoulos’ statement was excusing hate speech, the hateful comments directed at Jones were somehow justified—by a flawed notion of freedom of speech—and that she was in the wrong for calling out her attackers.

It seems as though many forget that hate speech is not, in fact, free speech. We’re so quick to defend freedom of speech, yet we often forget exactly what it entails.

One of the earliest definitions of the principle dates back to the 1720s, written by British writers John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, who used the penname Cato. They referred to freedom of speech as “the Right of Every Man, as far as by it he does not hurt and control the Right of another.” In simpler terms, freedom of speech prevails as long as one doesn’t hurt or control the rights of another.

Now, the concept of one’s rights being “hurt” by someone’s speech is rather abstract. It is clear, however, that racism does infringe one’s rights. The first article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights,” and the second also mentions that “everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind,” including race. The twelfth article further specifies that “no one shall be subjected to […] to attacks upon his honour and reputation.” Seemingly, speech that would encourage or excuse any of these attacks, especially targeted at one’s race, would go against these rights.

It seems pretty obvious racist speech is inappropriate—and therefore, someone spreading such sentiments should be held accountable for their actions. Hate speech isn’t free speech—it’s damaging and has to be stopped.

Shutting down Yiannopoulos’ Twitter account was a justified move. Belittling racism is just as bad as spreading it. Action has to be taken against it. It isn’t a question of political correctness, where we avoid to offend, but of simple common sense and respect of another’s fundamental rights.

Graphic by Florence Yee

Categories
Opinions

A better life for animals can be found outside of zoos

Graphic by Thom Bell

The horrific reality of zoos and why we should completely ban them

The zoo has always been an exciting place for people to see great wild animals from around the world, but in the comfort of their suburban cities. However, many zoo-goers ignore or don’t think about the well-being of these animals in captivity. They don’t realize they are supporting institutions that subject animals to mistreatment and poor living conditions.

I’m strongly against zoos and I believe more people need to hop on this bandwagon. Since the death of SeaWorld’s captive orca, Tilikum, featured in the 2013 documentary Blackfish, I’ve decided it’s time to create awareness about the horrific effects zoos have on the animals they hold captive.

Although Blackfish depicts the tragic deaths of SeaWorld employees as a result of Tilikum’s abnormally aggressive behaviour, the documentary gets to the core of the issue. The film begins with footage of the horrific capture of wild orcas. Viewers see these gigantic mammals confined to tiny pools, sometimes two per tank, where they are forced to socialize, mate and are trained to perform tricks.

The film sheds light on how these killer whales become so vicious and violent, highlighting the physical abuse they experience from tankmates and the self-inflicted injuries resulting from psychological trauma. These animals cannot survive in cages. Numerous documentaries show that whales are intelligent and highly social creatures, capable of feeling a wide spectrum of emotions and pain.

A killer whale can grow up to 32 feet long, according to National Geographic—it’s clearly not meant to be held in a tiny enclosure with other whales of that size. According to Whale and Dolphin Conservation (WDC), a charity organization dedicated to protecting whales and dolphins, 163 orcas have died in captivity since 1961.

I’ve argued about zoos with several people and heard responses such as: “zoos are important for educational purposes” and “animals live longer in captivity than they would in the wild,” among others. Frankly, those are bullshit excuses. There are ways to educate ourselves and children about wildlife without having to capture wild animals and confine them in unnatural, tiny enclosures. Take Granby Zoo or the Biodome, for example. Yes, those are both fun places, but last time I checked, Quebec didn’t have a raging population of penguins and lions. Children and people in general don’t need to see the animals in person to learn about them, so removing them from their natural habitats is disruptive to the animals themselves and is unnecessary. Quebec isn’t the native environment of giraffes, polar bears, seals or boa constrictors so it isn’t right to ship them over here just so people can stare at them as they sit in cages.

Zoos are for show, plain and simple. You can see the animals are unhappy based on their behaviour, and unfortunately they develop mental illnesses. “Zoochosis” is a mental illness animals in captivity develop and it leads to disturbing and self-harming behaviours such as pacing, starvation and banging their heads against walls and glass, according to the anti animal cruelty organization PETA.

The goal of zoos is to put on a show and make money. In comparison, animal sanctuaries and conservation centres focus solely on protecting and supporting wildlife. These centres help in rehabilitating wounded animals until they are well enough to be released back into the wild. They care about the animals’ well being, unlike zoos.  From the Sloth sanctuary in Costa Rica to our very own chimp sanctuary, Fauna Foundation, located near Carginan, QC, there are hundreds of specialized facilities for taking care of animals with staff who are trained to do so.

The China Conservation and Research Center for the Giant Panda, for example, helps with the reproduction of the once-endangered giant panda, with the goal to successfully releasing them safely back into the wild, according to National Geographic. According to the director Zhang Hemin, the centre’s most important goals have been panda breeding and making sure “there’s a good habitat to then put the pandas in.” The animals that can’t be released into the wild have a safe environment to live in—one that mimics their natural habitat—and they receive special care when needed.

Rather than a zoo, whose prime goal is to make money, a sanctuary or conservation centre works to educate the public and rehabilitate animals, without endangering or harming them. It’s vital that we think about the harm and damage zoos cause to animals who deserve to live freely in their natural habitats.

Zoos are sad and unethical. Seeing these incredible creatures locked up in these small cages, pens and tanks—where they are forced to live until they die—is heartbreaking. It’s a miserable life, and they deserve better. So next time you go on a day trip to the zoo to check out the wildlife, look at their faces, watch their behaviour and remember that that’s not how animals are meant to live. Think twice about giving your money to facilities that don’t care about the animals they are responsible for.

Categories
Opinions

Is capital punishment necessary in North American Society?

Graphic by Thom Bell

A discussion regarding the future of crime and punishment    

For those who aren’t aware, 21-year-old Dylann Roof is the person responsible for killing nine people in the Charleston Church shooting. This horrible event occurred in June of 2015, yet Roof only received his sentence in December 2016. The court ultimately issued him the death penalty.

The decision to invoke capital punishment has been one of a lot of controversy, and for good reason. Roof is the first person in America to face execution for a federal hate crime according to a report by CNN.

The death penalty has a history of being an overwhelmingly divisive practice, at least since 1845, when Michigan became the first state to ban executions. Since then, individual states have been faced with the choice of whether or not to issue capital punishment. In researching the various arguments for and against the death penalty, I’ve seen greatly differing opinions.

Let’s look at the case of the Charleston shooter for example. During his trial, Roof pleaded guilty, showed no remorse for his actions and was deemed psychologically stable enough to be taken at his word, according to the same CNN report. It is virtually undeniable that he shouldn’t be allowed to remain a part of society, since he threatens the freedom and safety of other members in it.

So that leads to the big question: should capital punishment be a viable option for criminals who are a threat to our society?

Roof himself said the Internet greatly influenced his actions according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, since it gave him access to radical, hate-filled websites that shaped his views. There’s no doubt he was fully aware of his action, and we should certainly hold him accountable. However, if he was influenced by people online, then isn’t it reasonable to punish them as well? My point is that Roof is the product of an entire community of hate—killing one of its members doesn’t stop the community. In fact, it probably even fuels their hate.

So what should we do to prevent future hate acts? It would likely be more productive for society to rehabilitate Roof, and try to make him see the wrong in his actions. He is a manifestation of the very real problem of racism in the West. By killing him, we are in effect sweeping this problem under the rug. If we view racism as a disease, then what we need is to develop a cure or treatment to address the problem head on, rather than killing those who have it.

Legal punishment should deter other people from committing the same crime in the future. Deterrence theory—created by American political scientist John J. Dilulio—claims a punishment is effective when it is 1) certain to happen, 2) is issued immediately after the crime and 3) is severe. Capital punishment is definitely severe, but it doesn’t meet the other two criteria so it’s effectiveness is definitely questionable and debatable.

There is a point when no punishment is capable of deterring someone from committing a crime. In my opinion, the argument that death is a more effective deterrent than the alternatives, and will result in less crime is false; since death is something that we have no concrete knowledge about, it exceeds the fear a person is capable of feeling.The difference between life in an American prison, and death, isn’t one that is going to make a difference to anyone, because they’re both so unimaginably undesirable.

One side argues that killing Roof will make it easier for the victims’ families—and the American society—to cope. But isn’t that only teaching people that revenge is an appropriate way to deal with grief? It seems no more logical to fight murder with murder than it is to fight fire with fire.

Capital punishment only perpetuates the cycle of hate, which doesn’t fix the problem. If we truly want things to change, we need to respond with the desire to understand one’s situation and help them. As hard as this may be, I believe it is the only way to grow and eventually overcome the horrible problem of racism.

The death sentence is an emotionally-driven decision, and I don’t believe emotion belongs in the judicial system. We can’t confuse justice with revenge. With hate crimes being a prominent problem, we need to dissect and attempt to fix—rather than eliminate it, so we can progress and learn how to prevent similar cases in the future.

Graphic by Thom Bell

Categories
Opinions

Trudeau’s language gaffe

Photo by Andrej Ivanov

The sun barely emerges through the grey clouds, as darkness covers the entire city. Pale creatures with chalky skin wander the streets, seeking shelter from the frigid elements.

Let’s face it, January is a tough month and everyone’s morale is usually running low. Luckily, our university offers psychological services to help students get through these troublesome times. Many individuals on our editorial team have utilized these services and the councillors have helped many of us.

We don’t realize how lucky we have it though, considering we have access to all these services in English. The same can’t be said for the rest of Quebec, where many health services are solely offered in French.

This issue came to the forefront at a town hall meeting last week in Sherbrooke. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau descended on the small city located 150 km outside of Montreal to answer questions from the public, in an attempt to boost his public appearance.

During this meeting, a woman named Judy Ross stood up and brought this issue to the forefront and asked Trudeau, in English, why it was so difficult for anglophones to get access to mental health services in their native language, according to CBC News.

Following Ross’ question, Trudeau answered her question in French. He said: “Because we’re in Quebec, I’ll answer in French.” This response infuriated many from the anglophone community in Quebec.

Now we don’t want to ignite a language debate, but considering Concordia is an English university, we have to stand up and say something.

Trudeau, who openly defends bilingualism, made a giant hypocritical misstep at this town hall meeting.

Here at The Concordian, we are upset to say the least. It appears Trudeau is not concerned about the plight of anglophones in Quebec and even had the audacity to insult Judy Ross by responding in French. How can we trust the PM when his missteps create these giant ripples that divide our society?

In Quebec, language has always been at the forefront of debate. Bill 101 and language laws are something that every Quebecer knows all too well. As anglophones, and even as francophones, Quebec can be a very difficult province to navigate.

For example, according to CTV News, in 2012, the parents of a two-year-old girl in Vaudreuil made a complaint against the province’s ambulance service because a paramedic refused to speak English while treating their daughter who had just suffered a seizure. When the ambulance arrived on scene, the paramedic said, “Non, moi je parle français.” It is instances like this that prove how problematic the language issues are in this province.

By not answering that question in English, Trudeau has ultimately contributed to language tensions that have been tearing this province apart since the rise of sovereignty. Anti-Anglo sentiment is very real in Quebec and to see it from our own prime minister, who is supposed to represent all Canadians, is utterly appalling.

So The Concordian demands for the government to offer mental health services in English, because these services are absolutely vital for the English-speaking community and for the Concordia student body, if they seek help outside of our campus.

Categories
Opinions

Feeling dreadful about our bodies

Graphic by Thom Bell

Body shaming is an omnipresent form of bullying enforced by the media

“Is it my fault? How could it not be my fault?”    

This stream of thought has run through my mind many times, pushing me to rigorously restrict myself and give in to unhealthy eating habits.

2017 has not failed to remind me of my poor diet. Several gym ads have already started to stress me out by guilting me into working out and get my beach body underway.

This constant reminder and underlying guilt is experienced daily by many. It is what I like to call “passive body shaming.” It occurs when the media perpetuates an ideal, often unattainable body type via commercials and advertising, in turn making you feel bad or guilty of your own appearance. This form of bullying takes many shapes and can have a serious physical and psychological consequences . Body shaming is highly common in schools, the workplace and public spaces. It affects individuals who don’t think they meet beauty standards established by the media. There is often a double standard—women are judged more often and earlier in life than men, according to a study conducted by the Rudd Center for Food Policy of Connecticut University.

Beauty standards shaped by the media play an important role in how we see ourselves, and the standards are different depending on where one comes from, their culture, or their gender. The first time I experienced fat shaming was in junior high when I moved to a new town. At the time, what led the bullies to lash out was the environment. This rich Parisian suburb had a different standard of beauty and body image compared to the countryside where I was originally from. My body was rather buff, from years of rock-climbing and snowboarding, whereas my female classmates were thin and gentle-looking.

It’s not only the students who are bullying, as the Rudd Center study states. They are also teachers, parents, colleagues, superiors and strangers who create daily stress and insecurity for many. While some perpetrators might use body shaming to motivate the targeted individual to lose weight, it often has the opposite effect. In fact, body shaming lead to induced anxiety and depression, as well as binge eating and embarrassment of exercising, according to the New York Times.

From my own experience facing judgement from strangers and the dirty looks I have gotten when I was eating by myself has forced me to be more self-conscious while I snack. I remember being told: “Maybe if she didn’t eat so much she would look better.”

For years, the media, strangers and classmates have shaped my vision of the perfect body type. Their so-called “helpful” comments, including the generic “just take smaller quantities,” “exercise more” or the great “you just need to control yourself,” have done more harm than good.

Today, if someone asks me what kind of body type I would ideally want, I will mention Korean pop idols for their slender bodies. My own standard of beauty has been incredibly influenced by the media, and it is also a standard that is physically unattainable. To overcome body shaming, one needs to be confident and practice self-love. Ending the constant competition and comparison regarding body types will empower and tighten communities.

Categories
Opinions

Dealing with terrorism and empathy in a climate of fear

Graphic by Florence Yee

Are Middle Eastern lives worthless in the eyes of the Western world?

On New Year’s Day, 2017, a gunman entered a nightclub in Istanbul’s Beşiktaş district. Seven minutes later, 39 people lay dead and the attacker escaped into the crowd.

I learned of this attack through Twitter. However, I was hard pressed to find any other concrete information from major news sources. A Canadian even died in this ISIS attack and yet barely a passing glance was made.

Why is this? Why is an attack in Paris “an attack on all humanity,” as President Obama called it, while attacks in non-Western nations barely make it out of the newsroom? The answer is complex.

One could assume that Turkey, a country seen as a nexus between the East and West, perhaps shares the perceived characteristic violent connotations of its Middle Eastern neighbours. This, I think, is only half right. It is certainly true that Turkey has a history of terror attacks—primarily from Kurdish rebel forces—an ethnic minority who’ve been pushing for cultural and territorial independence for decades.

ISIS has recently been wreaking havoc across the nation, as the Syrian civil war spills across the border, with 415 Turkish civilians and soldiers having been killed since June 2015, according to The New York Times.

Yet, Turkey is also considered by many to be a “Westernized nation,” the strongest member of NATO next to the U.S. and a secular democracy. So why aren’t acts of terror in Turkey and other non-Western nations treated like world-shaking events as they are in Paris, Brussels or Berlin?

As Molly Crabapple of The Guardian wrote, the West is conditioned to perceive Middle Eastern lives are “cheap.” To a certain extent, I am inclined to agree with this perspective. For instance, on November 12, 2015, two suicide bombers killed 42 people in a Beirut market. This attack was reported by western media but focused on the fact it was an “explosion in a Hezbollah stronghold,” rather than an ISIS attack against innocent civilians, according to The New York Times.

Presenting this attack and countless others in the Middle East as routine incidents of sectarian violence has the effect of normalizing violence in that region rather than showing us what it truly is: a robbery of innocent lives that is worthy of our attention.

However, the responsibility for this normalization is not solely at the feet of the mass media—the public plays a part in effacing the significance of these attacks. Social media is a perfect example of such a disparity in empathy. The Charlie Hebdo and Bataclan attacks in Paris in 2015 both elicited mass public outcry.

This sympathy manifested itself in the hashtags #jesuischarlie and #jesuisparis. In addition, attacks in Brussels and Berlin in 2016 garnered similar responses. But where was the outcry and mass public support following terrorist attacks in Nigeria, Turkey, Lebanon and Iraq, many of which occurred within weeks or days of the Parisian and Belgian attacks?

I asked this exact question on social media—Facebook specifically. What was surprising to me is the fact that all of respondents acknowledged the lack of media and public sympathy for non-Western victims of terror. They almost unanimously felt the reason for the lack of empathy was that they could see parts of themselves in Western nations but not in others.

For example, Paris is iconic and romanticized in the West. One respondent said she could imagine herself at the Bataclan the night it was attacked, in much the same way she could see herself at the Metropolis here in Montreal. But why doesn’t the New Year’s attack at an Istanbul nightclub elicit a similar response? Surely Turkish people enjoy music, friends and life just as much as Parisians and Montrealers.

The reasons behind such a lack of empathy are many and hard to capture in an article of this length. However, I believe that thinking about these questions is a good exercise for broadening our worldview and opening our hearts and minds beyond what is familiar and comfortable to us. In other words, this an opportunity to cultivate a sense of empathy for those deemed different from us.

With ISIS committing atrocities on what seems like a weekly basis, lack of empathy and a belief that violence in the Middle East is “just how things are over there” are a threat to the values we claim to hold and the lives of those fleeing places like Syria and Iraq. Such beliefs only feed the rhetoric which equates Muslims with terrorism. We owe it to ourselves and our fellow human beings to be cognizant of such gaps in our empathetic compass, and to directly address these issues. If not, how can we truly deny that we consider Middle Eastern lives “cheaper” than our own?

Graphic by Florence Yee

Categories
Opinions

Let the river runneth red

Graphic by Florence Yee

Let’s talk about periods

The wind howls as the full moon creeps out from behind the clouds. A dark presence is awoken during this sacred time as the evil brews within the human species. Suddenly, women start to bleed from their uteruses and their minds become enraged with foul, demonic fantasies. They become unstable for about a week and all hell breaks loose.

Menstruation is often regarded in this light, painted as a savage and primitive burden that makes women seem weak and dirty. Here at The Concordian, we hope to combat this medieval narrative. Menstruation is a beautiful and natural process that should be celebrated instead of shunned.

Our university is making great strides regarding access to feminine hygiene products. The Arts and Science Federation of Associations (ASFA) recently proposed a plan to provide free feminine hygiene products in all member associations (MA) offices to students. According to our news team, this proposal includes purchasing an estimated $2,000 worth of products available for faculty and staff to access for free. From our understanding, the proposal will be decided upon in February. We see no reason why it shouldn’t be unanimously approved by voting members of ASFA.

Health Services have always provided free feminine hygiene products, but rumour has it that they can sometimes run out—meaning women are forced to make a quick trip to the local pharmacy.

The Concordian believes all women should have access to affordable menstrual products, because women shouldn’t have to shell out the big bucks for something completely natural out of their control. In July 2015, the federal government removed the GST (goods and services tax) and the HST (harmonized sales tax in applicable provinces) on tampons and other feminine hygiene products, according to the National Post.

Across the globe, the situation is more dire, however. For example, women in Iran don’t even have access to tampons because it’s believed they will rupture the hymen and destroy their virginity, according to an article in Women’s Health. This means they have to use pieces of cloth and diapers to absorb the blood considering pads are difficult to come by. The subject is so taboo that women can’t even publically discuss the topic without getting in trouble with the religious police, according to the same article.

In Latin America, specifically in countries such as Argentina and Venezuela, the economic instability—mainly the depreciation of their currencies—has triggered a mass shortage of goods, especially tampons and other feminine hygiene products. This means women must resort to buying these goods on the black market for a highly inflated price, according to The Guardian. If the shops do get a shipment of tampons, women normally have to queue on the street for several hours just to purchase a small box, which is also at a highly inflated price, according to the same article.

And don’t even get us started on the male reaction towards menstruation. How many times have you told a dude you were on your period and suddenly he made a series of judgements and observations about you? Maybe the person said “oh, well that explains why you’ve been so moody lately,” or, “too much information, I don’t need to hear about that.”

Women have been getting their period since the beginning of time—why should this be a subject that makes a lot of men uncomfortable?

We applaud ASFA for working towards making female hygiene products more accessible to all students, and breaking away from the stigma that periods cannot be openly discussed.

Graphic by Florence Yee

Categories
Opinions

Weighing in on a controversial book deal

Graphic by Florence Yee

Conservative journalist Milo Yiannopoulos gets major publishing deal

Outspoken media figure Milo Yiannopoulos has once again found himself at the center of a controversy, as he signed a lucrative publishing deal.

Yiannopoulos is a right-wing journalist for Breitbart News. According to several sources, including the Los Angeles Times and The Guardian, he signed a new book deal with Threshold, a conservative subsidiary of the Simon & Schuster publishing house, worth a reported $250,000 USD.

Yiannopoulos was banned from Twitter a few months prior for allegedly harassing Ghostbusters and Saturday Night Live star Leslie Jones, tweeting that she was “barely literate,” and should tolerate the racist online abuse she was enduring at the time.

He has said many things that are considered offensive; has openly criticized the Black Lives Matter movement and has voiced his utter distaste for feminism. While I personally don’t agree with everything Yiannopoulos says, I do admire his gall and his confidence to stand up for what he believes in.

I myself tend to lean right and, in this day and age, being a conservative is often viewed in a negative light.

Especially in a time of political correctness, it’s difficult to have an open and honest discussion without being silenced for stating our own thoughts.

I applaud the publishing house Simon & Schuster for standing up for free speech, standing by Milo Yiannopoulos and giving a conservative a platform to voice his opinions.

As for the Twitter ban, it seems the conservatives are the only targets. For example, Laci Green, a notable feminist, tweeted “We are now under total Republican rule. Textbook fascism. Fuck you, white America. Fuck you, you racist, misogynist pieces of shit,” after Donald Trump won the presidency. Sounds pretty hateful to me, so why isn’t Lacy Green banned from social media?

Let’s turn our attention MTV now. The channel recently produced a video called “2017 Resolutions for White Guys” that targeted white men and explained how they can “improve” in the new year. The video was later deleted by MTV, but it was one of the most offensive videos I have ever seen. Yet, this is seen as okay because of political correctness—because if you’re white, it’s fair game. Can you imagine what would happen if I, a white male, made a video called “2017 Resolutions for Black Guys”?

Free speech is a symbol of Western values—values that millions have died protecting. It disappoints me that we forget how the world was nearly destroyed when we fought against fascism and the silencing of free speech in Germany, Italy and Japan more than 70 years ago.

Political correctness is killing us. It kills our society and it prevents the free flow of ideas. It needs to stop and it needs to stop now. English crime writer Phyllis Dorothy James put it best: “I believe that political correctness can be a form of linguistic fascism, and it sends shivers down the spine of my generation who went to war against fascism.”

Yiannopoulos is a character, that much is true. And as a person who enjoys political discourse, and discourse in general, I will be buying his book when it comes out in March. Free speech can never be silenced. As political commentator Ben Shapiro said, “Facts don’t care about your feelings.”

Graphic by Florence Yee

Categories
Opinions

Hey Big Brother, are you listening in?

Graphic by Thom Bell

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.”

Graphic by Florence Yee

Categories
Opinions

A plea for help and patience

Graphic by Florence Yee.

Fighting misogyny one step at a time in an ever-changing climate

One aspect of being a teacher people don’t often talk about is bodily awareness. In other words, you are conscious of the way people may be perceiving your body and how they may be possibly judging you. The effect varies from person to person.

As a female teacher working in a male-dominated program, I am incredibly aware of my femininity when I’m up in front of a class. I can’t help but focus on how my clothes fit me and how become self-conscious about certain parts of my body. This awareness, to me, is usually neither positive nor negative—it is just there.

However, since Donald Trump won the United States presidential election, I no longer feel this awareness solely in situations where I am surrounded by men. I feel it all the time, and it is no longer a neutral feeling but a negative one. I have become self-conscious of being female.

I carry an invisible weight with me everywhere I go—sometimes it intensifies out of nowhere, like a panic attack. I’ll be at home working and suddenly wonder if my research will be taken less seriously because I am a woman. I’ll hear men debating about abortion and instead of responding rationally like I normally would, I become consumed by rage that people who will never be in that situation are trying to tell me what I can do with my own body. I’ll walk through the halls of my school and hear a male student tell a female student, “you only think that because you’re a woman.”

I am tired. I am so very tired. And I succumb to the inescapable thoughts circulating in the darkness of my mind: “I am not a human being…I am a woman.”

I have always been proud to be female. By being a proud and successful woman, I always felt I was proving to the world that women can do anything we set our minds to and I never backed out of a fight to prove it.

Now, however, I feel like an injured lioness who needs to retreat in order to heal my battle wounds. I used to feel powerful but now all I feel is overwhelmed, and I wonder if other women and other groups targeted by Trump feel the same—like we’re being stripped of our humanity. Or perhaps, we never had it to begin with—it was all an illusion.

Donald Trump sets a precedent for saying and doing atrocious things, such as saying blatantly misogynous remarks about women and openly calling Hillary Clinton “a nasty woman.” We need to ban together and say that it is not okay. This is why I ask that, if you see someone being the target of violence, whether verbal or physical—intervene.

If you have a friend who is particularly affected by the events and rhetoric in the U.S, be patient and understanding with them. In a world where blatant misogyny, racism, xenophobia, homophobia and hate are on the rise, it is more important than ever to accept, love and support each other.

As my greatest fictional hero, Captain Jean-Luc Picard, captain of the starship Enterprise in Star Trek the Next Generation once said, “We think we’ve come so far. Torture of heretics, burning of witches, is all ancient history. Then, before you can blink an eye, suddenly, it threatens to start all over again… vigilance Mr. Worf. That is the price we must continually pay.”

Graphic by Florence Yee

Categories
Opinions

Rising from the ashes of 2016

Graphic by Thom Bell.

As the confetti fell and the alcohol flowed on New Year’s Eve, many were celebrating the end of a tumultuous year marred by celebrity deaths, terror attacks and a shocking presidential campaign.

Many of us are still in shock, but we must begin to move forward, place our faith in 2017 and hope this year spurs change and prosperity. We must also look to the things we can control, namely things happening on our campus.

So this editorial is taking an unorthodox approach, voicing some changes our newspaper wants to see around campus.

1)   No more shady student politics

In 2016, we saw the Concordia Student Union (CSU) go through some turbulent times, especially when their finance coordinator resigned under allegations of transphobic and queerphobic behaviour. It’s frustrating because we—the students—supported ACT Together and voted them into the CSU, only to find out we were supporting a nefarious individual. Moving forward, we need to ensure student politicians are properly vetted and that we are asking the right questions. We cannot afford to elect another individual—or political party for that matter—with toxic skeletons in their closets.

2)   Classes focusing on indigenous issues

Concordia offers a wide variety of courses, but oftentimes it can be hard to find a course that focuses mainly on indigenous issues. Although there are a handful of courses offered by the history department and there is a department of First Peoples Studies, we want to see more. The university needs to integrate more courses and hire more First Nations professors who can synthesize their thoughts and experiences in lectures.

3)   Transparency from the administration

Do you all remember the drama regarding international students and how the university tried to increase their tuition? It seems like the university tried to pull a fast one on us, but we—the students—are savvy and were able to campaign and put pressure to block the vote from going through. All we ask is for the administration to be upfront and honest with us, so we don’t get blindsided and have to write angry op-eds. We want to see more of a dialogue between the upper echelons of the bureaucracy and the students—after all, we are all key players in this symbiotic relationship.

4)   Divestment from fossil fuels

The Concordian has previously reported the university holds investments in the fossil fuel energy sector. Bram Freedman, president of the Concordia Foundation, told the Montreal Gazette in 2014 the university has an endowment—a pool of investments—worth around $130 million, but would not say how much money is invested in the fossil fuel sector. According to Divest Concordia, however, the university invests roughly $11 to 12 million in fossil fuels and related industries. For years, students have been advocating for the university to wash its hands of this toxic tar and invest in environmentally-friendly sectors. We understand it’s hard to liquidate all holdings of fossil fuel investments, but we also understand the plight of the students, for it’s hard to grapple the fact that our institution is directly involved in a polluting energy sector. We think there should be an open dialogue between the administration and the students who push for divestment so we can create a university we are all proud of, not one that has its hands in the tar sands.

Exit mobile version