Tag: opinions

Categories
Opinions

Editorial: Cuba

We were at the office when our phones buzzed with a series of notifications, as news of Fidel Castro’s death spread across the world on Friday. The media reacted and suddenly CBC and CTV News had correspondents on the ground in Havana interviewing Cubans in mourning, while also producing segments recounting the dictator’s long, politicized life.

Back home, several social media users—including Concordia students—were sharing their sadness and grief online, reacting as if the Dalai Lama or Mother Teresa had just died.

There’s only one problem though—Fidel Castro was no saint. He was a cruel dictator who oppressed and terrorized the Cuban people for nearly 50 years. Anybody who remembers him fondly is ignoring his trail of human rights violations, while openly supporting a communist regime.

In case you have no idea who we’re talking about, Fidel Castro was the communist leader of Cuba, the island nation just 90 kilometres south of the Floridian peninsula. Yes, the same island where you go on vacation every winter with your family and complain about the ‘gross’ food afterwards.

According to several biographers, Castro was born in 1926 and grew up near Santiago de Cuba on his wealthy father’s sugarcane farm. He reportedly threatened to burn down the farm on several occasions in his adolescence unless his father increased his worker’s wages, demonstrating his dedicated advocacy.

Castro studied law at the University of Havana and was very critical of Fulgencio Batista, Cuba’s president and dictator in the 1940s and 50s. In 1959, Castro successfully led a socialist revolution, overthrew the Batista regime and began to consolidate power.

The United States—which supported the Batista regime—condemned the revolution and placed economic sanctions on the island, with the CIA failing several times to assassinate Castro. In 1961, a group of about 1,400 Cuban dissidents tried to regain control of the island by landing in the Bay of Pigs. Castro’s revolutionary forces ended up repelling these American-backed invaders, and the world watched this tiny island repel a mighty imperial power.

Relations with the United States reached an ultimate low in 1962, when the CIA discovered the Soviets were sending nuclear warheads to the island. From Oct. 14 to 28, the world teetered on the verge of nuclear war, during what became known as the Cuban Missile Crisis. Nikita Khrushchev—the leader of the Soviet Union—eventually agreed to remove the warheads from the island, averting a catastrophe was averted.

Cuba has always been the underdog fighting the almighty imperial and capitalist superpower, and at a first glance, one might think Cubans a sweet deal. After all, the literacy rate is almost at 100 per cent and the country has free universal health care, with an average of 6.72 doctors for every 100 people, compared to the United States’ 2.45 doctors for every 100 people, according to CBS News Sunday Morning.

Despite these positive aspects, we cannot forget Cuba’s past and present human rights violations. Over the last 50 years, more than 3,100 known executions by firing squad have taken place, usually targeting political dissidents, according to the nonprofit organization Cuba Archives.

There were also 6,200 arbitrary detentions between January and August 2015 alone, meaning political dissidents are continuously persecuted for speaking out against the communist state, according to the Human Rights Watch. The total number of political prisoners over the last 50 years is unknown, but likely very high.

Don’t even get us started on Cuba’s policy regarding homosexuals. In the years following his takeover, the police began rounding up gay men and placing them in work camps called Military Units to Aid Production (UMAP) according to The Daily Beast. Although these camps closed in the late 60s, homosexuals were still persecuted by the regime afterwards and were fired from their jobs and weren’t allowed to join the Communist Party, according to the same source.

During the 80s when the first cases of HIV were discovered on the island, the government responded by establishing sanitariums, which were quarantine centers that kept patients away from the rest of society, according to the New York Times. These sanitariums were referred to as “pretty prisons,” by Jonathan Mann, the first AIDS director at the World Health Organization, and were seen as a direct threat against the LGBT minority within the country.

Let’s not overlook the number of Cubans living in America either. According to CBS News, there are around 1.1 million Cuban Americans in the U.S., meaning one tenth of the Cuban population has fled the island nation to seek refuge in America.

This exodus proves that life isn’t great for everyone on the island. So next time you like a Facebook status or reminisce about Castro’s glorious achievements, think twice and remember he’s no angel in a revolutionary uniform.

Categories
Opinions

There’s no humour in stereotyping

Why having a sexist sense of humour is dangerous as an educator

The one thing most students can agree on is that your professor will either make or break your overall experience in a class. Genuinely interesting content can be ruined by a monotonous, non-engaging professor, or a tedious, boring subject can be brought to life by an engaging teacher.

But what do you do when your overall experience in a class with a prof was treacherous, flabbergasting and just downright insulting, yet some of your classmates enjoyed the course for the very same reasons you despised it? Well, for starters, you write an article about it.

Last winter, during my first year at Concordia, I took MARK 201: Introduction to Marketing Strategies as an elective, thinking I’d enjoy it. From an objective standpoint, I did enjoy the content of the class, the projects and all the different types of networking that came from it. It was all extremely interesting, however, attending lectures became not only a chore I grew to despise, but listening to some of the things the prof would say were both shocking and saddening.

A male professor who has been part of the department for many years ended up being my professor for those long, cold, dreary winter months. In a nutshell, he had an ostentatious sense of humour that was almost solely comprised of sexist jokes.

As a disclaimer, I should mention I don’t have any recordings or documentation of my experiences in this class—this is a personal recount. However, if I did possess any I’d likely have enough content to fill an entire book with the number of times this professor degraded his wife and their marriage, and even mocked his own children in front of our class of more than 150 students.

The professor would joke about how, once you’re married, your wife never touches you and about how a man needs to keep his wife happy, or be prepared for the worst—to which he’d allude to that the only way to satisfy a wife is by buying expensive baubles. Literally, every class, multiple times per class, jokes of this nature and worse were made with zero regard for how his students felt about them.

The worst part about these jokes wasn’t how stereotypical they were about women, but how much the class actually laughed along with them. Sometimes it was a mixture of males guffawing and women giggling, although it is safe to say women, generally, weren’t the ones to laugh.

The professor’s jokes also went far beyond his wife and his marriage—any class discussion about cosmetics, accessories or even cookware was partnered with a slew of one-liners and anecdotal stories about women and their follies. He even made blonde jokes. Yes, a professor working at a progressive, liberal and an otherwise amazing educational institution in 2016 truly thought blonde jokes appropriate during a lecture.

One particular instance stands out in my mind as the moment when any of my remaining respect for this professor was catapulted out the window. The class was having a discussion about the marketing strategies of CAA, the roadside assistance service. The professor started pitching CAA’s services to the class by describing a scenario in which a person has to call for help because their car has broken down. He said women benefitted most from these services, indicating that at some point, every woman would find themselves stranded on the side of the road with a broken car they essentially knew nothing about, without a man at-the-ready to save us.

To my absolute shock, this comment was met by either giggling or absent-minded head nodding by a good number of my classmates, both male and female. I remember feeling two things: first off, I was really disappointed a professor would make such an ignorant, blanket statement so casually, particularly because I worked at an auto repair shop. The second thing I remember thinking was I was probably taking this too harshly, and I shouldn’t speak up, even though I had a personal experience that would disprove what he said.

Thankfully, a girl sitting ahead of me raised her hand and said, with applaudable sass, that women are just as capable of fixing cars as men. Hats off to you, girl. This reaffirmed that others likely felt offended or fed up with the jokes this professor was making, that this wasn’t simply me needing to learn how to take a joke.

There’s a time and a place for certain types of jokes. I mean, I think we can all admit to smiling at a properly-executed or well-timed “…in the kitchen” or “my wife…” joke at some point in our lives. However, for a professor to employ that sense of humour in every one of his classes with absolutely no consideration for how it will affect the overall educational experience of his students is completely unacceptable.

Categories
Opinions

Don’t just stand there, do something!

Understanding the bystander effect and the impact on our society

I like to think in a situation of urgency I won’t just stand around and watch, but rather, get involved and try to help. I hope everyone has the same mentality, so that if, god forbid, I’m in trouble and out in public, someone will have the decency to help me.

Unfortunately, this is often not the case. According to a report by CBC News, a homeless man staggered into an oncoming train and lay bleeding on the edge of the station platform tracks for 16 minutes before help arrived. It occurred at Langelier metro station in Montreal. The article references the bystander effect as the reason why no one called for help sooner.

According to the article, the “bystander effect” refers to when a crowd of people don’t react or don’t get involved in a situation where someone’s life is in jeopardy—there is this notion that we think someone else will act instead. As a result, no one acts at all because everyone thinks someone else will.

A lot of people might be familiar with the famous murder of Kitty Genovese in 1964. She was a young woman who, on her way home in the early hours of the morning, was attacked by a man in an alley. As she was being stabbed repeatedly by her assailant, she screamed and cried for help.

The investigation reported that, out of the 38 neighbours who heard her screams and who basically bore witness to the situation, no one called the police. According to Psychology Today, their excuses were all the same—they figured someone else would do it.

Which brings me to my story. Last week, I was heading to my afternoon class at the Loyola campus and, just as I was about to get off the bus, I heard shouting from the back of the crowded bus. Although my earphones were blasting music, I was able to hear the sound of someone yelling for help.

Distinctly, one of the voices shouted, “Someone call 9-1-1.” This prompted me to remove my ear buds, run to the back of the bus. Ten years of lifeguard experience have given me the instinct to engage and the training to deal with an emergency situation.

As I was on the phone with a 9-1-1 operator, I looked around and saw at least a dozen people just standing around watching. The bus was absolutely full of people but they were all just standing around, trying to see what the commotion was about and get a peek at the action.

In an age when virtually everyone has a cell phone, I was astounded that no one closer to the situation chose to respond and call emergency services. I was about to step out of the bus, yet I managed to run to the back of the bus and act before anyone else did.

After speaking with emergency services, I stood in front of two women who were kneeled beside the young man lying on his back on the floor. They were the ones who had been yelling for help. Although the man’s eyes were open, they were unfocused and he wasn’t moving. One of the women, who announced that she was a student nurse, was taking his vitals. She told me he had been seizing and was now coming down from his seizures.

I was patched through to the paramedic on route to our location. He asked me a few questions about the young man’s condition, so I told him about the seizure. The ambulance driver asked me to follow the man’s breathing patterns. Every time I saw him take a breath in, I was to say “yes” so that the ambulance driver would know what condition he was in and whether he was breathing okay.

By this time, the bus had emptied, so myself, the student nurse, the man and the bus driver were the only ones left.

As we waited for the ambulance to arrive, I sat with the student nurse beside the young man to reassure him and calm him down as he regained full consciousness. At this point, the student nurse told me I could go. I asked a few times if she was sure and, after she reassured me it was fine, I left.

I wasn’t scared during the whole ordeal. I remember feeling very calm. After I left the scene, my heart was racing as I knew I was on some sort of adrenaline high.

I definitely felt frustrated at the very beginning, simply because I was the furthest from the situation, yet, I was the one who rushed back to help. Even though there were plenty of people closer who could have called 9-1-1, no one bothered. I was impressed with myself because I know I could have easily been another bystander who did nothing.

This brings me back to the bystander effect. We all seem to have this mentality of “someone else will do it.” We think, since there are plenty of other people around, someone else is bound to react first. But that won’t always be the case. Frankly, it’s scary to see how delayed of a reaction people have, or the blatant hesitation that results in a person doing nothing.

The young man is fine. I even saw him again the other day on the bus. However, this doesn’t excuse those who just stood around and watched the situation unfold. We all need to be more aware of what’s going on and be willing to help.

Getting engaged in a potentially urgent situation can be scary and it takes courage to do so. However, we’ve all got it in us and just think, wouldn’t you want someone to come to your aid if you needed it? The fact that there are incidents where more people stand around watching rather than helping is frightening.

Categories
Opinions

Why discontinuing male birth control wasn’t sexist

Examining the prospect of a male contraceptive in a female-dominated market

When it was revealed the male participants complained about side effects similar to those of female birth control methods and menstruation in general, many started assuming the medical community had devious sexist motives behind canceling the study.

The new method of birth control involved injecting a concoction of hormones near a man’s genitalia. The concoction, if successful, would reduce the man’s spermatozoa to one million per milliliter.

Looking into the incidence rate of side effects helps dispel rumours of sexism. Participants reported over 900 cases of side effects related to the contraceptive. Nearly half (45.9 per cent) of men experienced acne, 38.1 per cent experienced increased libido and 16.3 per cent experienced emotional disorders.

According to a report by Vox, Dr. Jen Gunther said the side effects in this study occurred at a much higher rate than in comparative studies for women. The Mirena IUD—a device inserted into the uterus and serves as a form of contraceptive—only saw 6.8 per cent of participants report acne.

Other reported side effects in the male birth control study included eight men being rendered infertile for over a year, including one man who is still infertile today.

Women have a plethora of birth control options, including the oral pill, the NuvaRing, IUDs, the shot and more, which offer benefits apart from pregnancy prevention. More regulated periods, less painful periods and acne reduction are just a few of the benefits women experience when using hormonal birth control.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, which specializes in sexual and reproductive health, saw 58 per cent of all contraceptive pill users—the most common birth control method for women—use it for noncontraceptive reasons. In fact, 14 per cent use it for exclusively non-contraceptive reasons.

On the flipside, men are limited to two methods: condoms or vasectomy. Neither method provide them with extra benefits, nor does the newly proposed injection method.

Many articles have painted men as weak due to the discontinuation of this study. However, the data collected revealed that, at their final visit, 82.3 per cent of men were willing to continue using this method. Women, on the other hand, were less keen, with only 76 per cent willing to continue. Male weakness is therefore not the issue.

The study suggests the method was 96 per cent effective. However, this success rate was calculated using data only from “continuing users,” meaning couples who completed the study, and only assessed the method’s success within 24 weeks.

A closer look at the study shows only 274 of the 320 men who received at least one dose of the contraceptive method had their sperm counts lowered to the acceptable level. That is an 85.6 per cent success rate—far lower than other contraceptive methods on the market. So low, in fact, I would not trust it as my sole method of birth control.

Medical standards have improved throughout history. According to an article by the FDA, the first contraceptive pill was approved prior to the FDA’s knowledge of the dangers of thalidomide or the passage of the 1962 Drug Amendments. This, they claim, would have made the pill much harder to approve.

In the 1950s, according to the FDA, pregnancy and childbirth were much more dangerous, and so more risks were worth it to prevent pregnancy. Furthermore, one of the riskiest side effects of the pill—blood clots—was not linked to the pill until more than a decade after it was approved.

Women do indeed take on a disproportionate amount of risks and responsibilities when it comes to birth control, and I strongly hope one day we can find better options for both men and women. But we shouldn’t lower our current medical standards to 1950s-levels in the name of equality and fairness. That will only harm more people.

Sources:

The study: http://press.endocrine.org/doi/pdf/10.1210/jc.2016-2141

Guttmacher: https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/contraceptive-use-united-states

Vox article: http://www.vox.com/2016/11/2/13494126/male-birth-control-study?0p19G=c

FDA article: http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WhatWeDo/History/ProductRegulation/SelectionsFromFDLIUpdateSeriesonFDAHistory/ucm092009.htm

Graphic by Florence Yee

Categories
Opinions

Editorial: Standing in solidarity with trans communities

Photo courtesy of HNewberry.

Over the last few years, trans issues have gained a lot of traction in this country. This past week, many people from all over the world came together for Transgender Awareness Week, with hopes to address and educate people on the issues the trans communities face. The Canadian population has slowly become more aware of trans people and issues that impact this diverse and ever-expanding communities.

Our own campus is quite inclusive and open, and we have several groups, including the Centre for Gender Advocacy and Queer Concordia, constantly advocating for LGBTQ+ rights within our community. We here at The Concordian applaud them for the amazing work they do.

This aside, the amount of violence and discrimination towards trans individuals across the world is absolutely staggering and disturbing. Every 31 hours, a trans individual is murdered somewhere in the world, according to the Trans Murder Monitoring Project. There have been 137 murders in North America alone between January 2008 and December 2015, according to Transgender Europe (TGEU).

If we look at the data provided by TGEU from a broad perspective, Central and South America have the highest rates of trans murder, with more than 1500 homicides in the last five years. These figures only represent murders that were reported. The number is probably a lot higher due to the fact that many trans murders go unreported, especially in third world countries, according to TGEU.

Furthermore, there were 21 trans deaths so far this year in the United States alone, according to the Human Rights Campaign (HRC). The organization reported these deaths were due to gunshots, stabbings and physical attacks, and the rates are higher when looking at trans individuals of colour.

Transphobia is not just some term loosely thrown around in the media—it is a real issue that impacts individuals on a daily basis, and poses a real threat to their very existence in our society.

In a powerful op-ed for The Guardian, Meredith Talusan stated that simply being trans makes individuals a target in our transphobic society. Talusan goes on to say that transphobia is omnipresent and can present itself a variety of forms, even from loved ones. She even stated a trans woman, she’s experienced discrimination from straight men who believe she’s “fooling them” and does not have the right to occupy the same spaces as a cisgendered woman.

Here at The Concordian, we find these transphobic incidents completely unacceptable and upsetting. Just because someone doesn’t understand the basics of trans issues, does not mean they have the right to ostracize and marginalize them from the rest of society. Now is the time when we must work tirelessly to continue to educate the public and prevent any form of transphobia.

Just this past May, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau introduced Bill C-16, which would allow individuals to freely express their gender and would protect them from “discrimination and hate,” according to CBC News.

Last week, Bill C-16 was passed in the House of Commons, meaning our government has took a giant stride towards protecting trans individuals in Canada. The Concordian is incredibly proud of this bill, but we urge the entire student population to educate themselves on trans issues and fight transphobia wherever and whenever you come across it.

If we listen to the wise words of Deepak Chopra, “Nothing brings down walls as surely as acceptance.”

Categories
Opinions

Uber: A win-win or a catch-22?

Taking a look at Uber’s devious practices in the business community

Last month’s cat-and-mouse game between Uber drivers and Bureau du taxi de Montréal (BTM) officers led to confusion, tension, vehicle seizures and even arrests.

BTM claims Uber drivers cannot offer paid rides without a taxi-driver’s licence or permit. Despite this legal grey area, Uber offered to pay their drivers to disobey the Quebec law. The resulting animosity between both groups is leading to groupthink, whereby Uber and taxi supporters irrationally conform to the views held by their own in-groups at the expense of actual facts.

As a fellow digitally literate young professional, I can see why it is so easy to buy into this hype and jump on the Uber-wagon. It’s a convenient, flexible and affordable transportation solution for many customers. Uber also allows common drivers to cash in on their otherwise non-monetized driving skills. In fact, the company claims a driver can earn up to $90,000 a year. So, how is this sharing economy not a win-win?

The problem lies in the dynamics of the relationship between Uber and its drivers. It is in Uber’s best interest to hire as many drivers as possible to keep up with the growing demand. Uber promises drivers a business-to-business (B2B) partnership, whereby Uber and drivers grow the brand ‘together’ to attract more consumers. As such, drivers feel solidarity with Uber, even though Uber is the sole owner of the brand.

This ambiguity in roles created by drivers’ illusory belief in an equal partnership precipitates a business dilemma. As Uber scales their product, which consists of others’ labour and transactions, less consideration is attributed to drivers’ needs. For this reason, a dissociation within this relationship is inevitable.

Photo by Núcleo Editorial.

So, how about that advertised $90,000 annual salary? Not surprisingly, a 2015 investigation by Philadelphia City Paper suggested that Uber drivers would have to work 27 hours a day to earn that much.

As users, we falsely assume Uber is socially and technologically innovative. According to Stanford Business, the value of social innovation accrues primarily to the society rather than single individuals. Specifically, the added value of a socially innovative idea is necessarily greater than the gains acquired by individual entrepreneurs. I do not think small-talk with strangers qualifies as social innovation.

Perhaps then Uber’s source of innovation is more technological than social. However, the truth is that technology actually plays a secondary role for Uber. Although it is evident that much effort has been invested into the app’s programming, nothing is overtly proprietary about its development.  

Uber’s talents are not epitomized by cutting-edge innovation. Rather, Uber crookedly  differentiates itself from the competition by finding legal loopholes and bending the rules. Worst still, The Observer claims that Uber has previously sabotaged Lyft (a competing app) by ordering thousands of fake rides.

Uber’s $62.5 billion USD net worth has lured governing bodies into making special, loose accommodations and exemptions. For example, training for Uber drivers consists of watching a 13 minute YouTube video, the privacy of customers’ information is questionable, and background checks are easy to get around, according to a report by The Globe and Mail. This is dangerous for several reasons. First, consumers’ health and safety is reduced merely to an afterthought instead of a top priority. Undeniably, taxi drivers require much more certification and testing.

Secondly, Uber has a disproportionately stronger negotiating position, and so drivers are left without any leverage in all key decision-making. Uber has the power to jack up prices when demand drastically increases as it does on holidays, whereas taxi drivers are required to charge regular prices and accept all customers without discrimination.

Lastly, Uber drivers are hired as so-called independent contractors—not employees, according to a report by CBC News. This means Uber can get away with denying responsibility or lying without ever being held accountable. For example, The Observer reported that Uber has been known to slash fare prices, which caused drivers’ earnings to drop below the minimum wage. Then, Uber actively blocked drivers’ repudiating tweets to minimize harm to their brand. Clearly, sharing is not always caring, especially when Uber doesn’t share any of the accountability.

Unlike taxi drivers, Uber drivers take on all the risks but none of the benefits. Uber drivers pay for all their car insurance, inspections, gas, repairs, maintenance, depreciation and sales tax. Meanwhile, drivers are rewarded with insufficient training, marketing advice and profit margins.

In sharing economies, users rent or borrow assets owned by someone else. Unfortunately, this business model has atomized the workplace. ‘Micro-entrepreneurs’ are working in ‘micro-economies.’ The result—a perfectly schemed catch-22—as consumers’ influence shrinks, the power of ‘sharing’ monopolies grow. All the while, we the consumers turn a blind eye. Uber has all the leverage, and we gave it to them. It’s time we jump off the Uber hype-wagon before it drives us into the ditch.

Categories
Opinions

PC culture: An evolution of politeness

Graphic courtesy of DonkeyHotey.

Weighing in on political correctness and how it can be benefit our evolving society

Growing up as a brown Muslim girl, I wish I’d had a shield to protect myself from racism. I wish I could have been invisible when kids at the back of the class would hurl expletive insults at me, screaming “Allahu-Akbar!” as I entered the room.

I wish political correctness had been around when I was in elementary and high school. It would have saved me from a lot of self-confidence issues. Whenever I hear criticism of political correctness (PC) culture—in the media or even during class discussions—I can’t help but feel upset. People don’t understand that PC culture is a form of protection for minorities.

According to The Huffington Post, the Angus Reid Institute conducted an online survey in August 2016 that showed 76 per cent of Canadians believe political correctness has gone “too far.” A lot of people share this sentiment and feel they cannot express their opinions about issues affecting marginalized people—but what they don’t understand is those comments are hurtful and unnecessary.

In my opinion, political correctness is a way for minorities—whether they’re people of colour or members of the LGBTQ+ community—to have a justification for being offended when someone says an insensitive thing about who they are.

We’re living in a time when minorities have the chance to feel empowered in our society. In the past, non-whites and other marginalized groups had no voice. They were not accepted as equals and, therefore, didn’t deserve the chance to defend themselves against dangerous expressions.

In a way though, political correctness has existed for a long time—hosts at dinner parties didn’t expect their guests to insult their food, for example. It’s something you just don’t do. It’s considered common courtesy.

Today, PC culture has just expanded on the idea of common courtesy. Now, the gesture extends to minority groups who have the right to not feel insulted for being who they are.

Recently, a CBC article featured Concordia marketing professor Gad Saad, who explained his views regarding political correctness. He stated that it is “limiting the free exchange of ideas on university campuses across the continent.”

In that same article, I read more about Saad’s stance on political correctness, how it is negative and limits free speech. Then, I came across the professor’s satirical argument against condemning cultural appropriation, in the same article. He said: “Our African ancestors were the first to engage in breathing…By that logic I think by breathing today, we are engaging in cultural appropriation of the first Homo sapiens. And so the only way I will ask you to stop being racist is to suffocate—to stop breathing.”

That’s when I realized, like most people who argue against PC culture and think it has gone “too far,” Saad doesn’t understand its importance—or if he does, he doesn’t care.

PC culture is understanding and being sensitive to issues that don’t directly involve you. It’s understanding that cultural appropriation genuinely offends some people—even if it doesn’t offend you.

Freedom of speech means you have the right to say whatever you want. It means you can argue that cultural appropriation is fine and so are other issues that affect minorities. But it also means that you can be challenged for your views and called out for promoting ignorance. While I do believe freedom of speech is a necessity, I also believe minorities must be protected from ignorant stereotypes.

PC culture frustrates some people, sure. But it also protects a lot of other, more marginalized people from offensive comments and dangerous ideas. I don’t believe PC culture should censor people from discussing controversial things—it’s important to have a dialogue between people from different communities, even if the person expressing their views might be a bit ignorant when it comes to their choice of words.

PC culture is correcting those negative and uninformed ideas. It’s pushing people to understand that the world no longer revolves around straight white guys—it’s now about a world where politeness takes precedence over out-dated, harmful ideas.

Categories
Opinions

One year later: How the Paris attacks changed the world

Photo of a vigil held here in Montreal for the victims of the Nov 13 terror attacks. Photo courtesy of Marie-Pierre Savard.

Marking the one-year anniversary of the horrific terror attacks in the French capital

On a dark and blustery November evening, I remember being on the train, making my way home to the sleepy suburbs from our bustling metropolis. The train had just left Lucien L’Allier when my phone illuminated with multiple notifications from the BBC, saying a bomb had gone off outside Stade de France in Paris.

Then my phone flashed again with another update, saying multiple gunmen had open fired at citizens in a bar in the 10th arrondissement of the French capital. Minutes later, another notification came in, saying a restaurant was under siege. My heart began to race, as I knew something sinister was unfolding in the city of lights.

By the time I got home, another suicide bomber had detonated himself at a restaurant, and Le Bataclan—a popular concert hall—was besieged by multiple gunmen who sprayed countless bullets on the unsuspecting crowd. I spent the rest of the evening with my family huddled around the television watching CNN, as the images and reports shocked the entire world to the core.

Nov. 13 marked the one-year anniversary of the Paris attacks, where 130 individuals lost their lives as several Islamic State (ISIS) militants brought an onslaught of violence and chaos. The bloodshed and terror was a symbolic and ruthless attack against the western world, as Paris—in my opinion—is the epitome of occidental culture, and has represented western ideals since the French Revolution in the 18th century.

It’s been twelve months since the attack, and the world has drastically changed beyond recognition. ISIS has launched more terror attacks in multiple countries including Belgium, Germany, Turkey, the U.S and France once again, just to name a few. Anxiety and fear has spread like the plague, and several right-wing political parties have gained a lot of popularity in Europe and America.

Look no further than our southern neighbours who’ve just elected a man who has publicly made xenophobic, Islamophobic and anti-immigration comments towards American citizens.

People are scared to leave their houses, to travel and to enjoy their lives as they did before. A 2015 poll commissioned by the New York Times/CBS News revealed 79 per cent of participants believed a terror attack would be imminent. These aforementioned figures are higher than post-9/11 statistics, according to the International Business Times.

We’re not immune over here in Canada either, as the RCMP has foiled multiple terror plots within the last year. This includes Aaron Driver, a 23-year-old from Strathroy-Caradoc, Ont., who was in the final stages of planning a bomb attack before he was discovered by the authorities, according to the National Post.

ISIS even declared “our wolves will come to you,” in a chilling propaganda photo circulated widely on the Internet, which pictured downtown Toronto burning in the background.

By submitting to fear, we are succumbing to these terrorists who seek to disrupt and embed terror into our lives. Yes, tragedy may strike at any second, but now is the time to remain defiant in order to protect our autonomy and our rights.

This also means we cannot buy into extreme right-wing politics that seek to marginalize, isolate and eradicate minorities and those on the fringes of society. The upcoming year will no doubt be challenging for the western world to say the least, as several European nations are set to hold elections, with each country having a right-wing political party vying for power.

Photo of another vigil held in Montreal. Photo courtesy of Andrej Ivanov.

There’s no doubt ISIS is spreading fear amongst the general population. Citizens want to feel protected and see their liberal governments as incapable of dealing with this threat. Therefore they react by supporting right wing political parties, who pander and extort their fears, whilst also promising immediate action against the threat.

The same parallels can be seen right after WWII, when socialist parties suddenly appeared in several countries around the world. Socialist ideology pandered to their darkest anxieties, and the people were tired of the old system, which brought war and devastation to their front doorstep.

Let Paris be a reminder to all that our freedom is constantly being challenged, from both outside and within. We may be battling ISIS, but we must also gather the courage and strength to tackle another ferocious foe: fear.   

Categories
Opinions

Editorial: Concordia students need to fight for what they believe in

You probably thought we were going to run an editorial denouncing the results of the U.S. presidential elections. To be frank, though, we are exhausted and sick of talking about it. The dirty campaign feels like it lasted a decade and, at The Concordian, we thought it’d be best to focus on another issue.   

On Thursday afternoon, our news team reported on a demonstration staged by a group of students and faculty in the mezzanine of the Hall building. Their intent was to protest the expanding of the Dakota Access Pipeline (also referred to as DAPL). The group consisted of individuals from a First Peoples elective class, as well as the Indigenous Student Association at Concordia.

If you haven’t heard about DAPL, then you need to get your head out of the sand and head right over to Google search. The situation is currently unfolding in North Dakota, where protesters are trying prevent the construction of a giant oil pipeline that would go straight through several indigenous territories and severely impact the environment in the regions.

This is why you probably saw a ton of people on social media checking in at Standing Rock, a Hunkpapa Lakota and Yanktonai Dakota reservation located in both North Dakota and South Dakota in the United States. The pipeline runs through this indigenous reservation and threatens the region’s only water supply. Protesters from around North America have gathered at Standing Rock, where they continue to challenge authorities as they wage a defiant fight to protect their rights and lands.

Local police units were using Facebook as a means of tracking and arresting protesters. This triggered a social media movement across the world, where individuals checked in to Standing Rock in an attempt to thwart the authorities.

While we applaud social media users for their efforts, checking in to a location with the click of a button is simply not enough. More needs to be done to send a strong message that a major pipeline which can cause severe environmental repercussions is unacceptable and inhumane.

This is why The Concordian fully supports the efforts made by the First Peoples elective class and the Indigenous Student Association during their protest on Thursday at Concordia. We encourage the rest of the student body to emerge from their hibernating states of disillusionment and mobilize towards the cause.

We also applaud the efforts of the Concordia Student Union and Divest Concordia to push for the university’s divestment from fossil fuel investments. If we are to stop pipelines from being built in the future, we need to move towards sustainable energies that won’t pollute our planet.

We know this week has been shocking and tough to say the least. But we cannot give up fighting for our rights, and the rights of others around the world. Even if you aren’t fully behind stopping DAPL or don’t really understand the situation, we encourage you to educate yourself and get behind a cause you believe in.

In the words of author Stephen King, “get busy living or get busy dying.”

Categories
Opinions

Does hard work actually get you anywhere?

Exploring the science behind luck, success and hard work in North America

There’s no way to achieve your financial goals without working hard. North Americans understand this fairly well—I think our economic system reward the hardest of the hardest-working individuals, which is partly legitimate.

However, luck and privilege are too often left behind when thinking about financial success. This shows when people approve right-wing economic policies such as austerity and major investments in the corporate sector. It seems absurd to me that in an already competitive society full of social inequalities, we want to advantage privileged people even more.

If we truly acknowledged external factors to financial success in Quebec, for instance, the Government of Quebec would not have invested billions of dollars in Bombardier while cutting in education. The year 2012 reminds us that protesting can turn things around. But the silent majority speaks volumes right now.

Although I am opposed to economic inequalities, I will define financial success, for the purpose of this piece, as earning significantly more money than the average Canadian or American person. This is not an easy project for everyone to undertake. The reason I think hard work is not enough is because no one can truly control his or her financial future.

The American Dream, the term coined by James Truslow Adams in 1931, proclaims: “life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement.”

In this definition lies the tacit assumption that hard work can get anyone anywhere. However, whether it is in the US or in Canada, attending the right schools and having the right friends, just to name a few, are likely to get someone further than just working hard.

What happens to those who also work hard but don’t have the same opportunities? They suffer from right-wing economic policies. With austerity and investment of tax money in the private sector, they end up living in world in which they cannot even afford basic necessities. Education and health services become market values, which increases already existing inequalities.

Social environment, education and the events that occur during our life—whether they’re positive and negative—shape how we manage our life. Additionally, many people contribute to our personal development—teachers, parents and friends have an enormous impact on us. Thus it enables some to get where they want, while it disables others.

This is not even considering the fact that what most people want to do with their lives just pays average, if not less. Therefore, shaping our economic policies as if individuals were the sole determiners in their financial success is completely unfair.

It’s like giving all the credit to a chef for an extraordinary meal, never mentioning the farmer’s effort for delivering impeccably fresh produce. I believe we should take this into account when we position ourselves on the political spectrum.

We can afford to provide everyone who works hard with equal chances to be financially successful. Or at least we can make sure the lives of people who haven’t had great opportunities don’t get harder because of right-wing economic policies.

Being a Canadian or American citizen is a privilege in itself. It is unreasonable that one can have succeeded financially without the help of anyone, whether it is speaking about economic situation, social environment, and so forth.

People who struggle in life cannot be the sole responsible of their condition, just as the ones who are financially satisfied. If we acknowledge privilege factors, by opposing right-wing policies that just make rich people richer, then we will enable more hard-workers to reach financial success.

Categories
Opinions

Support Social Justice, Resist Racism and Sexism, Vote Yes to QPIRG Concordia

For the past two weeks, I’ve had the honor to be the Chairperson of the “Vote Yes to QPIRG Concordia” referendum committee, and it’s been a privilege to meet with so many Concordia students during the campaign, and to realize how many people on campus care so deeply about a better world and building a more caring community.

I would like to take this opportunity, before campaigning ends and voting begins, to share some key messages of our campaign, and to urge students to turn out in large numbers and Vote Yes next week.

QPIRG Concordia, has been an important progressive presence on campus for four decades. QPIRG’s core mission is anti-oppression, and actively organizing to support mobilizing and popular education efforts. In an era with a troubling rise in racism, sexism and homophobia, enabled by far-right politicians like Donald Trump, unapologetic social justice organizations like QPIRG are needed more than ever.

Importantly, QPIRG Concordia provides a welcome and nurturing place for students, and community members, to get acquainted with issues, in a non-judgmental setting. It’s a place for growth, mentorship, and support. QPIRG Concordia has an amazing array of projects, initiatives and publications — School Schmool alternative agenda, Convergence undergraduate research journal, Study In Action undergraduate research conference, the Alternative Library, DisOrientation, more than 30 Working Groups — that in diverse ways support and sustain students who want to be engaged members of their community. All of these benefits are available for students for free, as a result of a fee levy.

It’s been almost a decade since QPIRG has had a fee levy increase, a reasonable time to again ask students for a modest 8 cents per credit increase to allow QPIRG Concordia to be an effective part of the progressive social and environmental justice community at Concordia and Montreal.

Next Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, November 15-17, have your student card on hand, visit one of the polling booths on either campus, and be sure to VOTE YES to QPIRG Concordia, your campus-community link for progressive social change.

-Sima Youssef

Categories
Opinions

Editorial: Quebec turns a blind eye to indigenous history

Photo of an Inuit family taken in 1854.

A dark shadow hangs over this province, as many Quebecers overlook the fact that these lands were once inhabited by a thriving indigenous population, prior to the arrival of Europeans in the 15th and 16th centuries.

There are approximately 1.4 million individuals who identified as Indigenous on the 2011 National Household Survey, representing 4.3 per cent of the Canadian population, according to Statistics Canada.

Furthermore, in Quebec, the indigenous population is approximately 104,633, representing two per cent of the provincial population, according to data from the Quebec government.

Yet, education surrounding aboriginal issues is constantly disregarded and evaded—in order to pander to Quebec’s sovereignty debate. Many of us here at The Concordian do not recall ever learning about the atrocities that greatly affected First Nations populations in elementary or high school history classes, such as the implementation of the Indian Act or residential schools.

How could it be that many of us are uneducated about these events and their horrific impacts until we reach adulthood?

Lack of education surrounding First Nations history and culture continues to persist for children growing up and learning today. A new history curriculum for high school students was unveiled earlier this year, after being conceived by the previous Parti Quebecois government under Pauline Marois.This curriculum virtually excludes all minority and aboriginal narratives, according to CBC News.

This curriculum is absolutely unacceptable and insulting, because the indigenous communities played a massive role in both Quebec and Canada’s history, and continue to do so today.

This was also a major aspect of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which issued a call to action, and strongly urged governments place a greater emphasis on First Nations history.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission, also referred to as the TRC, was created to understand and investigate almost a century of misconduct towards First Nations’ children in the residential school system. The commission was launched in 2008 and a final report was released last December, providing evidence there was indeed a cultural genocide in Canada against the indigenous peoples.

Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard acknowledged the findings of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and admitted there was indeed a cultural genocide in this nation for more than a century, according to another report by CBC News. In the same report, the premier even stated his government needed to work more closely with indigenous communities across the province.

It’s highly hypocritical, to say the least, to green light an educational pilot project that essentially misinterprets our province’s past and oppresses several minority groups, including First Nations.

If we look within our own university, we can see there is progress being made compared to our own government. Concordia University just announced the creation of Truth and Reconciliation Leadership Group last week, which shall advise the university’s provost regarding a wide range of indigenous affairs. The group will be comprised of Elizabeth Fast, an assistant professor of Applied Human Sciences, and Charmaine Lyn, the senior director of the Office of Community Engagement.

Even though our university is slowly taking initiatives, we cannot let the rest of our society fall behind. Considering our own government cannot provide a proper educational history, The Concordian suggests that every citizen take it upon themselves to learn about First Nations history and culture—be it through books, articles, or the talks and events that take place at Concordia, like the one we covered this week, “Cree Ways of Knowing.” We also have a First Peoples studies program, and some classes are available as electives for those who are not in the program.

We cannot ignore the past, nor can we simply brush off the original inhabitants of these lands in order to address other political agendas.

Exit mobile version