Tag: opinions

Categories
Opinions

It’s time we dump Mr. Trump

After a campaign of smoke and mirrors, it must be hard to defend him

I know you’re all tired of hearing about American politics and I didn’t plan to write an opinion piece on the matter leading up to Tuesday’s vote. However, last week, The Concordian published “Donald J. Trump is my personal choice,” an opinions piece so selective in its use of partial truths and logical fallacies it’s laughable. While I don’t have the space available to challenge every line I could contest, I’ll take some time to address a few of the most absurd arguments.

Let’s just start with the claim that Trump can, in any way, be a “peace candidate.” This view is unsupported and, frankly, ludicrous. Trump is the candidate who allegedly, during a meeting with a foreign policy expert, asked three times why the United States couldn’t use nuclear weapons, according to MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough. He also clearly expressed his willingness to give more countries nuclear weapons and to use them in the Middle East and Europe during several interviews.

This indicates a willingness to use these weapons, which might stem from either a lack of understanding of the consequences of starting a nuclear war or a lack of concern for those consequences—and I’m not sure which is worse. Trump even said “I love war in a certain way,” during a campaign speech in Fort Dodge, Iowa almost a year ago. In that same speech, he said “I’ll bomb the shit out of them,” referring to ISIS, in order to clear oil-rich areas to get the oil for the United States. As the non-partisan fact checking group Politifact reported, Trump also expressed support for the war in Iraq—something he now regularly denies he ever said.

None of this even includes the fact that Trump said during campaign events that he’d be willing to target the families of suspected terrorists and use torture, including waterboarding. These are not the policies of a “peace candidate,” and to make such a claim is bordering on disillusionment.

Photo by Gage Skidmore.

A team of journalists at Vox examined Trump’s statements about his foreign policy and found a common thread: he believes foreign policy needs to be tied to the US’s financial interests. “The problem is that foreign policy can’t be reduced to a question of dollars and cents,” they wrote, “and attempts to do so—even in the form of Trump’s bombastic campaign rhetoric—can do lasting damage.”

All this doesn’t even cover the level of domestic unrest that could emerge with Trump’s presidency. The encouragement of stop-and-frisk policies—which, as a 2013 court case in New York highlighted, can be abused and violate American’s fourth amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure—are part of his “law and order” stance.

These policies are a continuation of policies which contributed to the U.S. having the highest prison population rate in the world, according to The Washington Post. It’s also difficult to see how breaking up families and kicking out more than 11 million undocumented immigrants with a deportation task force, as Trump has promised to do, is something that can be done peacefully or easily.

This isn’t to say that I think Hillary Clinton’s neoliberalist policies will move the world towards peace or cut down America’s military industrial complex. However, she has decades of experience and her stability in the face of international turmoil will allow her to guide the United States through the rough waters of international relations. The last thing we need is someone as unstable as Trump, who has shown repeatedly on his Twitter page that he’s quick to shoot from the hip without thinking of the consequences.  

On a quick side note, Trump’s immigration policy in particular is serving as a rallying cry for white supremacy groups across the country. Trump’s legitimization of racist rhetoric has contributed to a political climate where someone like former Ku Klux Klan grand dragon David Duke can openly run for the senate in Louisiana.

Trump has definitely amassed a questionable group of supporters to say the least. Take a look at the endorsement of Trump by The Crusader, a prominent white-supremacist publication. While Trump’s campaign has condemned the endorsement, it nonetheless serves as an example of how his rhetoric and policies appeal to a violent group of racist extremists.

Photo by Gage Skidmore.

If those voting for Trump are unable to acknowledge or even question why he appeals to such people, they (no matter how unwillingly) contribute to legitimizing these deplorable groups and what they stand for.

Now, onto the claim that Trump is somehow “pro-ethics.” It’s true that his policy puts forward some measures to fight for term limits and push back against lobbying in Washington. However, it doesn’t hide the fact that he runs a large company which is a massive conflict of interest, one which I find more of an issue than any potential conflict critics have pinned on Clinton.

This is especially troubling since, according to Newsweek, he’s given three different answers about the fate of his company and finances should he win, none which properly separate him from those conflicts of interest.

After refusing to release his tax returns, it’s difficult for voters to know if he has ties to Russian financial institutions. However, an investigative report by Slate magazine revealed regular email communication between Trump email servers and the servers of Alfa Bank, a Russian bank established in the 90s.

Last week’s article took a narrow view on ethics, only looking at financial conflicts of interest of the candidates. It’s much easier to defend Trump based on his claims that he’s taken less money from special interest groups, but even if it were true that’s really the only ethical high ground for a candidate who has repeatedly behaved disgustingly during the campaign.

I won’t waste too much space elaborating on Trump’s degradation of women, people with disabilities, journalists, judges and other politicians. And I would need a separate article just to list the number of people he’s refused to pay for their work—such as Larry Walters, the owner of a Las Vegas drapery company interviewed by the Wall Street Journal—or his hypocritical exploitation of undocumented workers as reported by Slate. I think it’s clear ethics and Trump don’t mix.

I have two more brief points to cover. First, arguing that Trump isn’t a misogynist (despite overwhelming evidence which suggests otherwise) because he supports paid maternity is simply outrageous. Even if supporting paid maternity leave was sufficient to say someone wasn’t a misogynist, he has a lifetime of comments and actions—including his comments about Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly and his hot mic comments with Billy Bush—which say otherwise.

And second, trying to use Clinton’s gay marriage flip-flop to paint her as an immoral candidate is embarrassingly laughable, considering Trump’s running mate said same-sex marriage is causing a “societal collapse,” according to Time magazine. Pence has even advocated for conversion therapy, according to Politifact.

It’s a shame that I have to spend all of this space rebutting this deplorable defence instead of actually focusing on a campaign between two candidates and how they could better the lives of Americans and the world.

Categories
Opinions

Exploring controversial meme art

Photo by by Michael Esposito.

How comedic memes can spur controversy in our society 

Memes have been largely confined to the Internet. Recently, however, memes and Internet culture have been bleeding out into the real world. Mainstream media has been reporting on them and our culture has been affected by them.

It’s no secret that many people enjoy memes. They’re funny, they’re creative and yes, they can be political.

They’ve become so pervasive and influential that, back in August, a Texan poll revealed individuals had registered to run under the names Harambe and Deez Nuts to run for President.

The poll revealed Harambe was tied with Green party candidate Jill Stein, at two per cent of the vote, according to New York Daily News. Deez Nuts was beating both, at three per cent, according to the same report.  

However, the newfound relevance of memes in the political and social sphere has put them under attack. In September, Donald Trump Jr. tweeted a picture where the faces of his father, other prominent conservatives and Pepe the Frog had been photoshopped onto the bodies of the actors on The Expendables 3 movie poster.

Soon after, a Clinton campaign staffer released a blog post on Clinton’s website explaining how Pepe, the cartoon frog in the picture, was a symbol of white supremacy. Hillary’s  campaign website cited a now-defunct Twitter account, @JaredTWift, as proof that Pepe is, in fact, racist. Clinton even held a rally slamming Pepe.

Those entrenched in meme culture might find this overreaction to memes funny, but it’s actually frightening. The notion that a politician can use their authority to come out and declare any symbol—especially a meme hate symbol—controls people’s ability to express a wider range of thought.

Pepe is a reaction image. Some Pepes are happy, some are angry, most are sad. The problem with classifying memes as hate speech is their very nature: they are pictures that can be manipulated to mass-produce a wide variety of jokes.

Sure, there are racist Pepes. There are racist uses of any meme. But calling Pepe, in general, a hate symbol, is like calling a blank canvas a hate symbol because someone can potentially paint a swastika on it. That is not a good way to prevent a few instances of hateful behaviour.

You might be thinking, “Okay, but Clinton hasn’t outright banned Pepe”—and you’d be right. But politicians are not the only figures of authority attacking memes. Many universities have started banning memes, especially Harambe.

Clemson University in South Carolina sent out an email to one of its dorms stating that Harambe memes could not publicly be displayed because they were “racist” and promoted “rape culture,” according to The Independent.

The university never provided a reason for why they considered the Harambe meme to be racist or to be promoting rape culture, which ironically, makes those imposing the ban seem bigoted. While Clemson officials later overturned the decision, according to the same report, people who use the meme have continued to be shamed.

The McGill Daily printed an editorial about a Harambe vigil being held in Montreal, accusing those celebrating Harambe of racism because they were making a bigger deal of Harambe’s death than black deaths. This prompted a lot of outrage. Many comments on the article pointed out that the Harambe meme is often used to mock those who advocate against shooting him rather than to protect the child who fell in his enclosure.

If such malleable things as memes are classified as hate speech, many who have used the non-racist depictions innocently will be labeled racist, sexist or bigoted.

It may be hard to take memes seriously. But how we treat any expression of creativity or culture reflects on us as a society. We need to be more careful about what we label as “hateful,” and right now, we are not being careful enough.

Categories
Opinions

Donald Trump: The Hitler of today?

We need to understand the past in order to not repeat the same mistakes today

While it might seem like a bit of a stretch to compare the orchestrator of a mass murder with a closed-minded demagogue, there is no question that a few similarities can be drawn between the ideas of both men.

While many people, especially here in Canada, think it’s comical Donald Trump is even considered to be a candidate for President of the United States, he has gotten as far as being the Republican nominee, and that’s saying something.

Not only that, but current projections estimate Trump and Clinton are currently tied in the polls, with each claiming 46 per cent of the popular vote, according to new data from the ABC News/Washington Post poll.  

Since these politics are taking place in a country other than my own and so I have no say in the results, I take it as an opportunity to really observe what is going on.

After watching the three presidential debates and reading many articles on Trump’s different speeches and ideas, I could not help myself from comparing him to an infamous dictator I read so much about in my youth—Adolf Hitler.

Throughout elementary and high school, there was something about World War II and the Holocaust that really intrigued me. I love history in general, but there was something about this specific historical event that always drew me in a little more than others—the bookshelf in my room with over 40 World War II history books demonstrates this.

It’s no surprise, then, that a decent portion of my readings discussed, or at least mentioned a man named Hitler. This led me to do more extensive research on this man so many people despised.

When Hitler and the Nazi Party rose to power in Germany in the early 1930s, he promised to rescue Germany from economic and cultural disparity and restore the country to its full glory.

After the Germans were defeated in World War I, the country collapsed and, with the signing of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, the war was officially over.

The haunting similarities between the politics of Donald Trump and Adolf Hitler.
Photo courtesy of JFX-Gillis from Creative Commons.

Germany was forced to pay reparations, reduce its army and navy, surrender significant weapons, aircrafts and tanks, as well as part of its territory and its overseas colonies. The country and its people were humiliated and devastated.

This was the perfect scenario for a ‘saviour’ to rise up and promise the rebuilding and strengthening of the country and its people. Germans needed a leader to rescue them, and the well-spoken, passionate Adolf Hitler was more than willing to be that leader. Ring any bells?

This is where the toupee-wearing billionaire comes in.

At a time when terrorism plagues the United States and safety is a huge concern, Donald Trump comes to the rescue. With the widely popularized slogan “Make America Great Again,” Republican nominee Donald J. Trump promises to rebuild and strengthen the United States—and clearly this has appealed to many, considering his current position as the next possible President of the United States.

His platform is filled with propaganda, and Trump is promising to introduce a tax plan that would benefit the top 0.1 per cent, according to The Atlantic. He’s also promised to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexican border, impose tariffs on goods made in China and, most frequently mentioned, defeat ISIS.

While Nazi Germany and today’s U.S. are definitely not the same, there is no doubt Trump is using fear tactics, such as stating that immigrants are the prime source of violence in America, according to the New York Times. These fear tactics are used to gain supporters and polarize the country, much like Hitler did. Some people are scared and, whether their fears are irrational or not, a large number of U.S. citizens are clearly happy to have someone like Trump speaking up for them.

Now if we look at Hitler and Trump’s scapegoating tactics, we can see some chilling similarities regarding a specific race and/or religion.

It is widely known and documented that Hitler used his hatred of Jewish people to his advantage during his time in power. The Jewish became a scapegoat and he blamed all of Germany’s problems on them. Yet, while the Holocaust was a heinous act of inhumanity, it did not start that way.

Hitler first started persecuting Jews by ostracizing them from the rest of society as soon as he came to power in 1933. Building upon centuries of anti-Semitism, the Nazis slowly passed a number of anti-Jewish decrees, which prevented Jews from going to public parks, cinemas, restaurants and even swimming pools. These restrictions increased until eventually the Jewish people were denied their basic rights, stripped of their citizenship and forced to wear a yellow Star of David, according to the British Library archives.

What’s eerie to me is the fact that Donald Trump publicly suggested that Muslim citizens should be logged in a database and required to carry special identification, according to The Guardian. Whether or not Trump’s motives behind this statement have to do with fighting ISIS and terrorism, I am quite certain that discriminating against an entire religion is not the right way to go about it.

Whether or not Trump is like Hitler is not the main reason for my writing this article. I believe it is important to look at and understand what has happened in the past, as a way of stopping the human race from repeating history. While some of Trump’s ideas might not seem so bad, it is also significant to understand that everything, no matter how bad, starts somewhere. This is all the more reason why we should not turn a blind eye at the beginning. Remember that.

Categories
Opinions

Editorial: Concordia is going after International Students

Photo by Marie-Pierre Savard.

The news spread like wildfire on social media after the CSU shared a statement on a variety of Facebook groups and platforms. The statement detailed how the university’s administration has been looking to increase tuition costs for international students for the last three years. The CSU believes a proposal is expected to be approved by the board of governors on Dec. 14, meaning the increase would be implemented starting in the fall 2017 semester.

We were in shock here at The Concordian, as international students already pay way more than Quebec residents. Many of these students rack up a huge amount of debt whilst studying in our bustling metropolis, or are forced to look for some sort of employment to ease the financial burden. However, it can be especially difficult for non-francophone students to get jobs in Montreal.

Here at The Concordian, we think this proposed tuition hike is downright shady. It feels like Concordia is finding new ways to extort money from the student population, like capitalist vampires on a bloodthirsty hunt for fresh meat. According to the CSU’s website, international students currently make up approximately 17 per cent of Concordia’s students body, and they are the source of 25 per cent of the university’s tuition-based revenue—this was revealed during the university’s September 2016 budget meeting. At the meeting, it was also stated that “Concordia is looking to increase the ratio of international students in order to generate additional revenue from tuition,” according to the CSU.

The fact that this proposal has been in the works for the past three years is also quite troublesome, especially given the fact that it’s only being brought to our attention now. How many other secret projects are in the pipeline that’ll impact our student population? We would like to think that Concordia values its international students and what they bring to our university, but the current circumstance seems to suggest they value money more than good education.

As of yet, the university won’t allow CSU representatives to see the proposal, meaning we—the students—won’t be able to get the concrete details.

“[The proposal] has yet to be presented to the Finance Committee of the Board of Governors. That will only open happen late next month. We have to respect our governance process so the proposal won’t be shared with anyone until it goes through the required.” Said Concordia spokesperson Chris Mota.

We understand the protocol in this situation, but we believe the university should be more transparent and divulge the true details of this proposal, so the student body can be fully informed before anything is approved.

This isn’t the first time international students have been screwed over either. Rewind to 2012, when the media reported widely on the fact that many Chinese international students were being ripped off. CBC News reported that Concordia hired a third party recruiter to attract chinese students to the university, yet the recruiter overstepped his role and essentially took their money and set them up in housing accommodations. When the students arrived, many of them were crammed into tiny rooms and were not even fed properly, according to the same report. Many students lost a lot of money and were afraid to speak out because they weren’t aware of their rights and feared deportation.

The university’s main focus should be on providing an opportunity for students—both from Quebec and abroad—to get a decent education and acquire the skills and expertise they need to work in an international job market. How can Concordia build its reputation abroad if the administration is constantly trying to suckle every penny out of these poor students?

Categories
Opinions

Why I think America needs Hillary Clinton

Exploring the possibility of electing Mrs. Clinton

While I was watching the third and final presidential debate in a downtown Montreal bar, one of my friends texted me: “Who’s winning?” I responded that the ultimate winner was cynicism. Although I am not enthusiastic about the Democratic nominee, I believe America needs to elect Hillary Clinton.

Most Canadians care about American politics as much as they care about their own. “Geography has made us neighbours, history has made us friends, economics has made us partners, necessity has made us allies,” John F. Kennedy once said in a speech. It seems, this year more than ever, as election day closes in, many Canadians are most interested in knowing how this reality TV-like campaign will end.

The two candidates’ personalities and past actions have undeniably stolen the show away from party policies. It is evident to me that we need to think of nominees as leaders of their own movement before leaders of their party. In fact, many Republican members of Congress have said they will vote against their nominee, Donald Trump, according to a report published by the American news outlet, The Daily Beast.

For the last month or so, we’ve been preoccupied with the three presidential debates. Although it allows candidates to expand on their values and ideas, I believe its main purpose is to reveal their demeanours their attitudes toward opposition. From this perspective, Trump proved to be downright unfit to be president. His condescending tone, his odious claims and his constant attempts to interrupt both his rival and the mediator spoke volumes about the kind of leader he would be.

The question I always ask myself when analyzing political ideas is fairly straightforward: does the candidate, or the party, advocate for equal treatment of every individual? Trump, for instance, claims that America needs his kind of thinking, which allowed him to turn the money inherited from his father into an enterprise worth billions of dollars. Reaganomics—economic policies introduced by President Ronald Reagan—proved marginal tax reductions to be successful for improving the middle-class quality of life.

However, I don’t believe that being lenient with corporations and the wealthiest citizens, banking on them to make it rain on the middle-class, is the right thing to do for a fairer country. Trump is offering a short-term solution, whereas Clinton aims to attack the loopholes in the corporate tax system and to implement regulations that ensure multi-billionaires pay not only a reasonable share, but also fair surcharges. Given that some corporations and individuals make more money than they spend, while some other are unable to live a decent life, there’s no way to make America a better place if there is no will to ease the greed.

Although Clinton is only a mild progressive, she appeals to me because Bernie Sanders’s ghost constantly follows her. The former Democratic candidate said in a video interview for NowThisNews, that he believes in about 80 per cent of Clinton’s platform. He encourages everyone who took part in his movement to stand up and ensure Clinton realizes this 80 per cent of the platform. I’m confident Sanders’ supporters won’t give up their cause.

Personal attacks between the two candidates have gotten slightly out of hand lately. Both of them have been involved in multiple scandals. I do not hold either of them in such high regards for that matter, though I’m aware there are wild manipulations from both parties’ establishments.

To be frank though, if I were American, I would rather have a president who does “politics as usual” and hides things from the population than a president who’s a complete misogynist. We tend to forget that there’s a large structure behind the president who, although it is theoretical, will ensure the transparency of a possible Clinton government. Because the president is America’s face, I worry more about Trump’s perpetuation of rape culture than Clinton’s little secrets.

My position pro-Clinton ultimately lies in her apparent perception of the American Way and the American Dream. Unlike Trump, who believes in equal opportunities for everyone to stamp on their fellows to get rich, Clinton claims she’ll advocate for equal opportunities for everyone to live a decent life, no matter where you come from. My trust in her has, of course, diminished, especially the since the Clinton Foundation donations, which question her ethic. Yet, I can’t not support her, given that Trump goes against everything I stand for in terms of fairness.

Moreover, The Democratic Party Platform plans to fight for women’s, LGBT and disabled people’s rights. Republicans have this frustrating propensity to want to impose their beliefs on everyone, especially when it comes to LGBT and abortion rights. Donald Trump has not held a consistent discourse regarding his views on same-sex marriage, according to the Human Rights Campaign. From this perspective, it would be no accident that he chose Mike Pence for Vice President running mate. Pence “has been an outspoken opponent of equal rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender citizens,” according to a report from the Washington Post.

Hillary Clinton is far from being an ideal candidate. But given the other option, I do think she needs to be the next president of the United States. As I consider the polarization of voters that will lead to an inevitable dissatisfaction, I hope to see a government that will be concerned with economic fairness and social justice.

Categories
Opinions

Creepy clown craze creates an alarming global trend

A new trend to spread to our beloved metropolis?

I had to do a double-take when I first heard about this whole “clown craze” that’s been buzzing around the Internet. I was in disbelief. While clowns may be seen as fun circus people or entertainment for a child’s birthday party, they also have a reputation among many as being really creepy and the stuff of nightmares.

According to the BBC, the incidents started in August with reports of clowns trying to lure kids into forests in South Carolina. This is absolutely chilling. Imagine being a young kid playing in the park and a clown tries to get you to follow them into the woods. That sounds like the beginning of a horror movie.

Since then, there have been numerous sightings around the U.S. of people dressed as clowns, skulking around. Most mind their own business, but others have approached people, while holding weapons like baseball bats and machetes.

Interestingly, this has sparked comments from the clown community—professional clowns, many of whom view their work as an art form. Understandably, these professional clowns are taking offence to this whole ordeal, according to the BBC. They believe their reputation and the reputation of clowns overall is at risk. I won’t lie, I found this slightly amusing. I’ve never gave much thought to how seriously clowns take their work. Yet keeping that in mind, I completely understand their frustration.

Besides the overall creepiness of this trend, I do have legitimate concerns. First, that this is becoming a trend here in Montreal. No thank you. Please stay away.

Secondly, that there is an underlying danger. I understand that this, for the most part, is a joke. Probably teenagers and young adults dressing up to give people a scare and to get a few laughs. I recently watched a YouTube video called Parents react to creepy clown sightings compilation, where parents watch videos of clown sightings. Their reactions to the videos were mixed, but their concerns were similar. Some laughed at the silliness of it all, and others weren’t amused—but they all worry about their kids.

There is genuine concern for safety, as we cannot know which clowns are joking and which mean to cause harm. This, to me, is the worst part. I’m all for a good laugh. In fact, if I weren’t so creeped out by clowns to begin with, I would be laughing hysterically.

But the fact that people could be in danger, makes the situation less humorous. In late Sept. in Ohio, a woman was attacked by a man dressed as a clown when he grabbed her around her neck and threatened to kill her. In another incident in Tennessee, two men dressed as clowns, one holding explosives, walked into a bank and stole money. Both incidents were reported by USA Today. Indeed, stranger danger has reached new heights. Stranger Danger: Clown Edition, we hope, is not here to stay. Sounds like it’d be a fantastic Criminal Minds episode though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fJSBFopMcQ

Categories
Opinions

Donald J. Trump is my personal choice

A look into the Republican candidate’s policies before next week’s election

Bill Clinton’s job approval rating reached 73 per cent, his highest recorded, after his infamous sex scandals and impeachment. Clearly this, and numerous unconfirmed sexual assaults, have not stopped him from being beloved for his policies.

Policy is what matters in an election, not whether or not candidates are good people. Neither candidate is a good person, so from here we must discern whose policy is better. The clear answer is Trump’s.

Trump is the peace candidate. People claim he’s divisive and dangerous, but Clinton’s policies have politicians fearing World War III. And no, I am not being hyperbolic.

Clinton doubled down during the third debate on her plans to enact a no-fly zone over Syria and establish safe zones for Syrians. According to The Guardian, many military personnel feel this would likely lead to an air occupation and open conflict with the Russians, who were invited into Syria by President Bashar al-Assad. Some believe it could lead to nuclear war.

Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet leader at the end of Cold War, said the situation has “reached a dangerous point.” After the Kremlin stated it would shoot down Western aircrafts, Gorbachev told the Russian news agency, RIA Novosti: “We need to renew dialogue. Stopping it was the biggest mistake.”

Trump sees Russia as the powerful nation it is. He has repeated throughout the debates that he wants to sit down and negotiate with Russia and come to a diplomatic solution.

“It’s actually Hillary’s policies which are much scarier than Donald Trump’s, who does not want to go to war with Russia,” said U.S. Green Party candidate Jill Stein during an interview with the American television network, C-SPAN. “He wants to seek modes of working together, which is the route we need to follow.”

Such radically interventionist policies make Clinton a rehash of neoconservatives like George W. Bush. Trump’s outlook on interventionism, outlined in his book Crippled America advocates helping out only if countries can reimburse the U.S. This should be music to people’s ears.

Trump is also pro-ethics and transparency. In an Oct. 18 press release, he promised a constitutional amendment imposing congressional term limits, banning executive officials and members of Congress lobbying for five years, expanding the definition of “lobbyist,” banning former executive officials from lobbying for foreign governments and banning foreign lobbyists from interfering in American elections.

Hillary’s ethical stances simply do not stack up. Although Clinton has said she wishes to expand the definition of “lobbyist” and has historically supported a two-year ban on former government servants taking jobs at companies they oversaw, her relationship with lobbyists is far more concerning than Trump’s.

The Washington Post reported that Clinton’s campaign has received $7 million in donations from federally registered lobbyists, while Trump’s campaign has received no such money. Lobbyists raised an additional $2 million for the Hillary Victory Fund, a joint fundraising committee with the DNC. That’s a lot of owed favours.

WikiLeaks revealed that Clinton participated in the unethical campaign financing that Trump wishes to ban. Clinton advisors took contributions of questionable legality from foreign lobbyists registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, according to The Daily Caller. Her campaign accepted such donations based on donors’ relationships with the State Department during Clinton’s tenure there.

Her campaign may have used American lobbyists to launder this money, according to WikiLeaks. Campaign staff admitted in the leaked WikiLeaks emails that donors have pushed policy change onto Clinton. That should be terrifying—she can be bought. Trump, however, is not beholden to the same expectations from lobbyists.

Clinton is corrupt. WikiLeaks showed she took money in exchange for favours from both Morocco and Qatar, using the Clinton Foundation, while she was Secretary of State. These countries have awful human rights records, as both jail homosexuals and allow marital rape, according to Human Rights Watch. This shows she cannot be trusted to put American interests before hers or foreigner leaders’.

While we cannot verify the full authenticity of the WikiLeaks leaks, they raise disturbing questions regarding Clinton’s ethics.

Trump’s zero-tolerance immigration policies, while viewed as promoting inequality, put Americans first. Clinton’s policy, to deport only violent illegal immigrants, would be completely unfair to Americans who’ve attained citizenship legally.

The American Immigration Center explained while wait times for citizenship vary, a person moving to the U.S. can wait upwards of six years before being granted citizenship.

There would be few incentives to obey immigration law in Clinton’s America. The Center for Immigration Studies found that over 2.5 million people entered the U.S. illegally since President Obama took office—an average of about 350,000 per year. Amnesty can only make this number go up. Protecting your citizens, laws and sovereignty is not racism.

Trump’s immigration plan would also benefit current American citizens. The Federal Reserve found youth decline in employment is linked to unskilled, immigrant labour.

Trump plans to create a resumé bank for inner-city youth to help replace jobs made available by the removal of illegal immigrants and the elimination of the J-1 visa program. Trump claims this would greatly help Americans in disenfranchised communities, including many predominantly black communities.

Many accuse Trump of misogyny. While he has said things others deem offensive, it is also worth noting he is campaigning for paid maternity leave. Trump has been accused of being out for the rich, but has proposed a huge tax break on lower-income families, allowing families with a combined income of up to $50,000 to pay no taxes.

Clinton is not the moral candidate. Those siding with her for moral reasons forget she flip-flops on progressivism. Clinton was an opponent of gay marriage until 2013, according to PolitiFact. Some leaked Podesta e-mails imply she still privately holds this view.

Both candidates have scandals, from “locker room talk” to illegal e-mail servers, and neither of these candidates are clean choices. But Clinton’s corrupt, war-hungry policies make it is clear that Donald J. Trump is the candidate to elect. His pro-American policies will Make America Great Again.

Categories
Sports

New brand, same old teams

New U Sports logo. Courtesy of U Sports.

Canada’s universities need to step up their game for the U Sports re-brand to work

After weeks of publicizing an announcement on social media, the Canadian Interuniversity Sport (CIS) announced at a conference in Toronto on Oct. 20 that the entire organization has re-branded, and will now go by the name U Sports.

Included in this re-brand was a simple, sleek new logo, and a new website that will be launching 91 days from now. According to the promotional video that explains the re-brand, the new name and logo will help bridge the gap between French and English, while creating a brand that is more recognizable.

While all of that may be true, and I would definitely agree with the idea, the only way the U Sports re-brand can be successful is if the schools buy into the new philosophy.

For one, part of the new re-brand includes a brand new correspondents program. The premise is simple—student journalists across the country volunteer to write feature stories and profile pieces for the U Sports website. The initiative hopes to give a larger voice to the athletes, while also giving them more exposure on the national stage.

The problem that could potentially arise from this, however, is schools being too selective on what they want getting out to the public. Not every story is positive, and from my own experiences as a student journalist, those negative stories can sometimes be impossible to access.

In order to grow as an organization, you need publicity. We live in a media-driven age, and in order to stay relevant, it is of the utmost importance that schools recognize this. That means understanding that not every story is going to be a fluff piece. Transparency can make schools more respectable, give them more exposure and increase awareness of U Sports teams.

This brings me to a second point. If the U Sports re-brand is going to be successful in making more people care about university sports in Canada, schools need to step up their game when it comes to the fan experience.

The best way to get fans into the stands is to give them an incentive to come. That goes beyond the simple promise of high level competition. Mascots, fan service and contests are all great ways to get students in the door.

One of the best aspects of going to a Montreal Canadiens game is seeing Youppi bobble his way up and down the stairs, greeting fans. The Bell Centre is more than a place to watch hockey games. It has the feeling of a community gathering or a backyard barbecue. It’s what makes fans want to keep coming back. Canadian universities tend to be lacking in that department.

However, I will give credit to two schools in Montreal that have been at the forefront when it comes to fan experience and social media. With the Swarm at Concordia University and the football-crazy fans at the Université de Montréal, the sense of community has been incredible at these two schools.

At Carabins games, you are instantly greeted by some good old tailgating — also known as barbecue, which attracts fans. At Concordia, contests and events put on by the Swarm make game day that much more fun.

Furthermore, since the Stingers re-brand in 2015, their social media has been something to behold. They are one of the few schools that post highlight videos within minutes of the play happening, and are always active on Instagram and Snapchat.

For U Sports to be successful, Canadian universities are going to have to modernize. They may not have to do something drastic, like a re-brand, but they will need to step into the 21st century.

Categories
Opinions

Editorial: The cheating rats of Concordia University

A haunting hallway in John Molson School of Business. Photo by Marie-Pierre Savard.

Don’t think for one second this whole cheating scandal is an anomaly. Our university is plagued with cheating—whether the administration knows it or not.

Last week, La Presse reported that a Concordia student and his tutor were embroiled in a cheating scandal. The publication reported that Abdullaziz Almuhaidib, a 24-year-old student, paid his tutor, John Karras, to impersonate him and write his final exam.

This deception was discovered, and both individuals now face an array of criminal charges, according to the Montreal Gazette. Almuhaidib faces charges of “personation at an examination,” along with conspiracy. Karras faces charges of impersonating at an exam, identity fraud, using a forged document and conspiracy, according to the same report.

There were 387 students charged with cheating at Concordia, according to the Office of Student Tribunals, which reports these figures annually to the Senate. This figure represents less than one per cent of the student population, according to Cléa Desjardins, senior advisor of external communications for the university.

While this percentage appears to be fairly low, we should also consider there are many cheaters who probably don’t get caught. There are various ways students can cheat and get away with it.

Think about the numerous tests banks getting released just in time for final exams on student groups, crash-course tutors doing assignments for their students in exchange for cash, or students who group together and take online tests at the same time—many of us have surely heard of students engaging in such activities.

Many students are willing to pay a hefty price for a perfect grade. Attend any of these crash course tutoring sessions, which are heavily advertised around campus, and we guarantee you’ll find someone there willing to do your schoolwork in exchange for money.

If these allegations against Karras are true, then how long has he been doing this for? How many students aced a course because of his nefarious services, or those at Montreal Tutoring? How are these services monitored?

Karras is well known in the JMSB community, and released a statement via his company Montreal Tutoring, saying he will continue to provide tutorials in the wake of these allegations. He also added that his utmost importance is his student’s success.

This merger between capitalism and academia demonstrates the importance placed solely on grades, instead of actually learning the material for educational purposes. It also reflects how cutthroat many programs can be, forcing students to make poor decisions and engage in immoral behaviour.

To the university’s administration, we urge you to wake up and smell the coffee. It’s time to introduce new measures that’ll make it harder for students to cheat, whilst also being aware of possible leaks from those in authoritative positions.

To our fellow students, we remind you that university is not a game. This is not just about getting a degree, it’s about acquiring the knowledge that will allow us to serve a purpose in our field and in society. There’s no room for cheating in the equation, and if you’re feeling tempted, just ask Almuhaidib if it was worth it.

Categories
Opinions

Concordia is rife with instances of racial profiling

Photo by Steven Depolo from Creative Commons.

Campus security allegedly profiles mature Concordia student

As a 20-year-old Caucasian woman, I’ve never personally experienced racial profiling. But when it happened to one of my friends, it prompted me to do some research. Profiling on university campuses by campus security and law enforcement is a reality for minority students, and it needs to end. Students need to stop feeling unsafe in their place of learning out of fear of being profiled by campus security.

Profiling may seem like a broad and scary topic, so let’s go back to the basics and define it. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, profiling is, “the act or practice of regarding particular people as more likely to commit crimes because of their appearance, social class, race, etcetera.”

It all began a few weeks ago, on Oct. 14, when Concordia student Nigel Ramasawmy contacted me after he felt he had been the victim of profiling by Concordia’s campus security. He had been standing in the Hall building, waiting for a friend, when a campus security guard approached him and began questioning him about why he was standing there.

When Ramasawmy asked the guard why he was being questioned, the security guard claimed that another student had made complaint about Ramasawmy but wouldn’t disclose the nature of the complaint. Eventually, the security guard just walked away, never having asked Ramasawmy to see his student ID. While this may seem like a normal interaction where the guard was just doing his job, it is necessary to point out that Ramasawmy, as mature student of minority descent, felt targeted and unsafe.

This appears to be a case of profiling, but according to Fo Niemi, executive director and co-director from the Center for Research Action on Race Relations’ (CRARR), this is not the only time an older student was profiled.

CRARR is currently investigating a case involving Concordia’s security intercepting, photographing and banning a black woman from accessing the EV building. This case “also involves social profiling because the woman was treated as a homeless person, as she walked in with many bags and she is overweight, in her 40s,” said Niemi in an email. “[The case] is still before the [Quebec] Human Rights Commission” he added.

According to the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC), profiling is considered a violation of a person’s human rights, and the OHRC has reported that profiling, specifically racial profiling, is not an effective way to stop or prevent crime. Yet, this violation is regularly committed by law enforcement and other authoritative figures.

Why should a student ever feel victimized by their own campus security? It may be security’s job to keep us safe, but profiling students and jeopardizing their personal safety is definitely not the way to go. If universities want to become the safe and accepting places they claim to be, any and all forms of profiling need to end.

In both cases of profiling at Concordia discussed, the form of profiling has been social. Sadly, race is often an underlying factor in on-campus profiling cases, like the York University sexual assault case.

The Toronto Star reported in 2012 that after multiple cases of sexual assault at York University, police on campus began to stop and question students who met only one part of the perpetrator’s description—that he was black.

In the article, Alexandra Williams, the president of the York United Black Student Alliance said, “they’re going up to young, black men who are no taller than five-foot-three or five-foot-four, and asking them to empty their pockets and show them their identification, under the pretext that they look too young to be on campus.” The perpetrator was described as being between five-foot-seven and five-foot-ten.

While this may just seem like an overzealous officers, it could be they were just stopping every black York University student because in their subconscious minds, all black people, specifically black men, are from the same social and racial group as the rapists, and therefore are all suspects.

I don’t blame the campus security guards—this mindset is a modern reality that has been formed over time. Minority groups are deemed criminals because of societal racism that continues to endure today. In a report published by the Canadian Federal Corrections System, visible minorities are overrepresented in Canada’s prison system. The report said that while Aboriginal people in Canada make up approximately three per cent of Canada’s total population, they make up 18 per cent of Canada’s prison population.

While I want to believe Concordia’s campus security is not purposely profiling older students—the profiling on all levels—whether social, racial, or other, needs to stop. A Caucasian woman like myself should have the same possibility of being stopped as any other person who attends this university.

Not only does profiling have a detrimental effect on our prison system, it interferes with students who are simply trying to learn. Campus security needs to turn towards alternative methods to ensure our security, rather than singling out minority groups and suspecting them of crimes.

While I have never felt victimized by any form of law enforcement, some people are often unjustifiably persecuted. No one has control over where they are from or what they look like, and it should not be something that they are singled out for. I can’t imagine being singled out as I walked to class simply because of my race, how I dress or my age. This is a reality in our multicultural society should cease to exist.  

Categories
Opinions

The political left cannot prevent freedom of speech

Photo by Yuzvir from Creative Commons.

How many conservatives are being silenced by leftist radicals

Divisions between the left and right often open the floor to dialogue. These dialogues are crucial, as they allow both sides to express their beliefs and opinions in a civilized manner.

However, I feel that rather than challenging the opposition with their own ideological views, the left supporters are simply silencing any discussion that doesn’t conform to their beliefs.

Look at conservative speakers, like political commentator Ben Shapiro and Milo Yiannopoulos, the technology editor for Breitbart News, a conservative news and opinion website. They are currently on separate tours across the United States, delivering speeches and holding events at major universities.

At these talks, both Shapiro and Yiannopoulos speak openly of their beliefs and values. They both answer questions from the audiences afterwards, and many events go by peacefully as students hear out their opinions.

However, in many instances, leftists protest their university’s choice to give these speakers a platform. Some left-wing individuals even purchase tickets to these events and disrupt the speakers by screaming and shouting, according to multiple news outlets, including the Washington Post.

For example, at DePaul University in Chicago, Yiannopoulos was scheduled to give a talk as a part his “Dangerous Fa***t” tour (Yiannopoulos identifies as homosexual), when protesters stormed the stage and shut down the event. Videos on YouTube show protesters rushing the stage and threatening to punch Yiannopoulos in the face and disrupting the entire event. Eventually the police showed up in order to tame the chaos.

Similar instances have taken place in Canada as well. Back in 2010, conservative media personality Ann Coulter was due to speak at the University of Ottawa until nearly 2000 protesters gathered at the venue and created a security issue, according to CBC News. Coulter is quite controversial and has been known to say openly xenophobic and islamophobic comments. She has stated that all Muslims should be barred from airlines, and instead use “magic carpets,” according to the same report. No matter the content of her rhetoric, doesn’t she have the right to express herself?

Many people on the left side are hypocrites. They claim to believe in free speech—so long as it reflects their side of the argument. Yet conservatives, and others, have just as much of a right to express themselves. Is that not what’s so great about living in a democratic society? What is the point of having free speech if it only applies to a select few?

I understand that not all liberals and leftists are trying to silence the right, but I believe liberalism must be challenged.  

Just because you are offended by an open discussion of ideas that challenges your beliefs, doesn’t mean a dialogue should be shut down. After all, if we keep silencing individuals who speak their mind, are we truly living in a democracy?

Categories
Opinions

Editorial: It’s time to take climate change seriously

Photo from the Great Barrier Reef courtesy of Mario Sainz Martínez.

Today we wear black, and enter a dark period of mourning.

We struggle to accept this harsh concept of death, and naively pray to the gods for some sort of miracle. We’re not grieving for one particular person, but rather for the loss of an entire coral ecosystem off the coast of Australia. An ecosystem that had previously thrived for 25 million years.

Suddenly, a hand reaches out of the darkness and slaps us in the face in a swift and dramatic motion. “The Great Barrier Reef isn’t dead yet you damn fool,” says the strange mysterious voice, as we struggle to regain our composure.

Earlier this week, a cheeky obituary was released by Outside magazine that sensationally declared the death of the giant reef in Queensland, Australia. The article quickly spread on social media, with The Sun and the New York Times adding fuel to the fire.

While it appears the Great Barrier Reef isn’t dead yet, it is in a critical state according to The Guardian. The same article highlights that almost a quarter of the entire maritime ecosystem contains bleached coral, and the reef is continuing to bleach at an alarming rate.

Corals are living marine organisms and have a symbiotic relationship with tiny algae called zooxanthellae, which gives the coral its vibrant color. According to National Geographic, warming ocean waters stress the coral and cause it to expel the algae, which leads to the bleaching of the reef. Although, in some cases, the coral can recover, many organisms do in fact die, leaving an ominous grey exoskeleton.

This alarming phenomenon is not isolated to the Great Barrier Reef, with evidence proving that all coral species are at risk. Bleaching is thought to be caused by a combination of the warm El Ñino current and climate change, according to The Guardian.

It’s definitely troublesome to see the general public only caring about the reef once it’s been pronounced dead by some travel magazine. We should all be thinking about this ecosystem and our environment as a whole.

Collectively, we humans have contributed to the decimation of the Great Barrier Reef—amongst other natural disasters—by exploiting the planet’s resources and producing unfathomable amounts of waste.  

We’ve screwed up bigtime, and it’s important to realize that all of our actions—even halfway across the world in Montreal—can have a direct impact.

“But what can we do here at Concordia?” You may wonder, and the answer is right before your eyes. The Concordia Student Union (CSU) recently announced by-elections, which will take place from Nov. 15 to 17. There are two referendum questions that address the university’s environmental status.

The first referendum asks whether the student population agrees with the demands of Divest Concordia, in asking the university to remove all of its investments in fossil fuels and “related industries.” The goal here is to reinvest in something more sustainable in regards to the environment.

The second question asks whether the CSU should support the fossil fuel divestment campaign until the university has completely divested from these assets.

Every small action that we take, collectively, adds up to big change. Take public transit instead of driving. Recycle. Compost. Reduce your beef intake and switch to more sustainable sources of protein. We are all to blame for the damage inflicted on the Great Barrier Reef, as well as the rise in global temperatures. Wasting time pointing fingers and shifting the blame won’t take away the fault that rests on each of our shoulders.  

Here at The Concordian, we ask that students become more environmentally conscious, and understand that our planet is in a dire state. Now before you call us hippies, we fully support these two referendum questions and urge the entire student body to vote yes in the upcoming by-elections. Also, please recycle our newspaper once you are done reading it.

See what Concordia students on the street had to say about this issue:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4FebcO-1dM

Exit mobile version