Tag: opinions

Categories
Opinions

What it really feels like to take antidepressants

Photo by David Easey

Why I decided to start taking prescription medication to treat my depression and anxiety

The sun rises over the sleepy city, and I’ve already been up for several hours, lying in bed having an early morning existential crisis—the usual. The winter semester has just ended, and instead of feeling relaxed and elated, I feel tense, exhausted and utterly tortured.

My entire body is extremely bloated, and I struggle to find the energy to get out of bed. My skin itches and burns all over, and my jaw is locked shut from fiercely clenching it throughout the long, arduous night.

The last few months of university had proven to be extremely challenging for me. I could barely manage to stay afloat. I defied all deadlines for my schoolwork, pulling crazy stunts—like handing in a research project nine days late—and constantly asking for extensions. I also struggled to produce my opinions section for The Concordian on a weekly basis, and felt that I didn’t deserve my editorial position. I saw myself as an imposter hiding amongst a bevy of accomplished and ambitious journalists.

The pressure felt overwhelming, and the cracks in my life were becoming fissures.

Over time, everything became complicated and difficult, and my emotions went into overdrive. Even writing—my one true passion—became almost impossible. I was barely able to type out a single word. Staring at the blank screen, I felt infuriated and cursed.

I entered a period of self-imposed exile, where I withdrew from society—only speaking to a handful of close confidants. Everyone knew something was wrong and urged me to speak to a medical professional.

Almost a week later, I found myself in the doctor’s office, feeling like a wounded animal. I spoke with my family doctor for almost 45 minutes, and we filled out a survey together that asked general questions regarding mood, behaviour and appetite. By the end of the appointment, he concluded that I was suffering from severe anxiety and depression, and sent me off with a prescription in tow.

The news hit me like a ton of bricks. I’ve always been an anxious person, but I’d always kept it under control. I was too naïve to realize that all these struggles could be related to mental illness. And now I’d be taking medication that would alter my brain chemistry?

Well, it turns out, 20 per cent of people in this country will experience some manifestation of mental illness at some point in their life, according to the Canadian Mental Health Association. It’s a lot more common than we think. In an article published in MacLean’s in 2009, Lev Bukhman, the executive director of a student insurance program, revealed that antidepressants were the number one drug purchased by students.

Graphic by Patricia Petit Liang

“Mental health issues are one of the biggest challenges facing students today,” Bukhman said in the same report, highlighting that many students become susceptible during their time at a postsecondary institution.

Citalopram—the drug I was prescribed—is an antidepressant from a class of drugs known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI). They are commonly used to treat both depression and anxiety, since they increase the amount of serotonin in the brain, according to Mayo Clinic—a renowned medical nonprofit based out of the U.S.

As one can imagine, I was incredibly anxious and cynical about taking these pills. The fear of losing my artistic abilities and personality were my main concerns, and I desperately loathed the idea of turning into a mindless buffoon pumped full of sedatives.

After doing a lot of research, I decided to take the plunge and swallow the first pill. Expecting to feel an immediate sense of euphoria, I was disappointed to discover that I didn’t feel any different. Everyone kept saying that I’d only begin to see a change in four to six weeks, but I didn’t want to wait.

All hope seemed lost, and I felt once again lost at sea. Was this what rock bottom felt like?

Small victories were made, though—one afternoon I found the will to find a new therapist. My old one had been a vapid creature with frazzled baby hairs and a medieval approach to mental health.

New research indicates that the most effective treatment for depression is a combination of both therapy and medication, according to research published in JAMA Psychiatry in 2014. This study followed 452 depressed individuals—some were given medication, while others were given medication in conjunction with cognitive therapy. The findings showed that the latter group fared far better, and their symptoms improved faster compared to their counterparts only taking medication.

Things gradually improved—albeit at a snail’s pace — and I began to notice tiny changes. I was able to get more than four hours of sleep each night, and on certain days, I successfully made it to the gym. My body returned to a normal state as I regained my appetite and the scars from those nasty rashes began to heal.

A huge debate continues to rage around the topic of antidepressants, with many diminishing the reality of mental illness, stating that they shouldn’t be treated with drugs. Giles Fraser, a journalist for The Guardian, wrote in his weekly column: “Happiness can be reclaimed by doing a bit more exercise or being more sociable. This sounds healthier than pills.”

I’m not saying antidepressants are for everyone, but I can definitely say they helped me tremendously. Although the process was painstakingly slow, my chutzpah has returned, and the very fact that I’m writing this article is a testament to the fact that you can recover from anxiety and depression.

[Resources] 

  • Visit the offices of Counselling and Psychological Services on campus at H-440 (SGW) or AD 103 (Loyola) to request to see a counsellor. You can reach them at 514-848-2424 ext. 3545 (SGW) or at ext. 3555 (Loyola).
  • Visit a nurse at Health Services on campus at 1550 De Maisonneuve W. Room GM-200 (SGW) or AD 131 (Loyola). You can reach them at 514-848-2424 ext. 3565 (SGW) or at ext. 3575 (Loyola).
  • Visit the Centre for Gender Advocacy at the SGW campus for support at 2110 Mackay St. between Monday and Friday from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. or at (514) 848-2424 ext. 7431. For peer support call (514) 848-2424 ext. 7880.
  • If you are in immediate danger on campus, call 911 or security at (514) 848-3717—option one.
Categories
Opinions

Editorial: The Concordian blacklists the despicable MTL Blog

Graphic by Florence Yee

How do we put this nicely?

MTL Blog is essentially a low-grade, local tabloid that uses clickbait tactics to attract readers to their site. There’s no denying their popularity has skyrocketed in the past few years, with more than 200,000 likes on their Facebook page—but their content quality has plummeted just as quickly.  

This past week, the website released two lists featuring the “hottest” women and men at Concordia, using Instagram photos to populate these lists. The stories immediately drew criticism on social media, with multiple users commenting that it was “creepy” and “objectifying.”

The Concordian agrees with these comments, and our staff was shocked that these articles got the greenlight. Why is a local ‘news’ website discussing the physical appearances of our student body? This is an institution of higher learning—our students should be praised for their intelligence or accomplishments, not their physical appeal. The blatant objectification of these men and women feels like a scene straight out of Mean Girls.

Users on social media were also commenting that many of the individuals featured in the two lists reportedly had no idea their photos were being used. The writer never messaged them to ask for their consent, instead, they simply embedded photo posts from the students’ Instagram accounts.

Although not asking to use photos from social media technically doesn’t break any copyright laws, it’s ethically courteous, as a journalist and as a kind human being, to ask permission to use someone’s photo—especially before it’s made visible to thousands of readers. One of our editors briefly interned with one of the ex-writers of MTL Blog last summer, and was disturbed to discover that this is common practice at their headquarters.  

The Concordian is calling upon MTL Blog to consider removing these two articles immediately and to seriously reexamine their publishing guidelines.

We also call upon the student body to fully boycott the website until they have taken down these two stories.

Update: As of Sept. 23, the posts described in this article were removed from MTL Blog.

Categories
Opinions

Advocating for a full ban of the controversial burkini

Graphic by Florence Yee

Why you should think twice before making up your mind about the burkini

Images depicting police in French municipalities enforcing a ban on the burkini have flooded  the mainstream news outlets and social media feeds across the world last month. The issue has been sensationalized by the media to the point where the French are now considered by some to be misogynistic, bigoted and illiberal. However, I think that most of the discussions surrounding the burkini have only scratched the mere surface of the issue.

Let’s start off with a fundamental normative idea: no one should force anyone else to wear anything they don’t want to. If we agree on this, then we should also agree to apply this concept consistently and equally to both sides of the moral equation.

As such, the French police have no right to tell women what to wear—whether it’s a law or not. On the other side, religious texts written from a male perspective also have no right to tell women what to wear or to criminalize their bodies. Encouraging women to cover up because men are unable to control their sexual desires is emphasized in Islamic texts.

For example, a verse from the Quran (24:31) says that women should conceal their entire bodies and should only reveal themselves to their husband or close family members, according to translations provided by clearquran.com.  

These verses, among others, promote placing the blame on women who are the victims of sexual harassment and rape, rather than on men who are saturated with patriarchal values—’she should have just covered up.’ The issue of blaming women for their own sexual harassment does exist in the Middle East and South Asia as a result, and is a major factor in explaining why a significant number of Muslim women chose to wear the veil. And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

“If you take uncovered meat and put it on the street, on the pavement, in a garden, in a park or in the backyard, without a cover and the cats eat it, is it the fault of the cat or the uncovered meat?” said Sheik Taj Aldin al-Hilali, a religious leader based out of Australia, in an excerpt quoted by The Guardian back in 2006. “The uncovered meat is the problem,” he added, further lamenting his point of view.

This cloud of fear that religious institutions have been creating for hundreds of years in Islamic countries is the antithesis of women’s empowerment and freedom of choice. If women wear the hijab, the niqab or even the burkini because they would otherwise face punishment, how can we view wearing these garments as a choice made freely, and not simply a response to coercion?

The liberal critique of the burkini ban ignores the religious and historical aspect of this issue. It doesn’t highlight the fact that the burkni by and large disempowers women, disabling them from taking full control of their bodies.

Those who are for the ban are seen as bigots opposed to immigration by mainstream media. This disallows healthy and panoramic discussions about these issues, and creates smokescreens to prevent people from thinking more deeply about the issue, which often prevents discussion about the issue’s root causes, whether it’s why France chooses to ban the burkini, or the historical and religious contexts of such garments.

Categories
Opinions

Freedom of speech fused with the right to protest

Photo by William Fox taken from a Black Lives Matter rally in Montreal back in April

Violent protests are inciting further chaos instead of looking at the root cause of the problem

Last month on Aug.  26, while the American national anthem was being played at an NFL preseason game at California’s Levi’s Stadium, San Francisco 49ers’ quarterback Colin Kaepernick refused to stand.

He told the media after the game that he sat out the anthem to protest the recent acts of police brutality in “a country that oppresses black people and people of colour.” Last week, USA TODAY reported the union of police officers who normally patrol the 49ers’ stadium threatened to boycott in response to Kaepernick’s protest.

The exchange adds tension to an already strained relationship between police and those associated with the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, according to an article from the BBC.

BLM supporters long been calling for systematic reforms amongst police forces in the US. Meanwhile on the other end of the spectrum, police view these supporters as violent criminals who wish to incite violence against organized authority.  

Some BLM supporters have resorted to violence— but such acts are cases of the few spoiling it for the many. Profiling every supporter as violent is no different than blaming every police officer for the heavy-handed ways of the trigger-happy few.

Last July, I attended a Black Lives Matters gathering at Cabot Square— one of the first of its kind to be held in Montreal. Organizers were careful to call the event a “gathering,” a “rally” or a “meeting”—anything other than a “protest”.

It shows just how explosive the word “protest” is— not only here in Montreal, but around the world. The word elicits fear in the hearts of police who have watched protests snowball into riots—something those officers have every right to be afraid of. Unfortunately, there are some radicals and anarchists often spoil what should be a peaceful practice.

Instead of finding workable solutions, these individuals only worsen the problem. Violence only leads to more violence.

Earlier in the summer, six police officers were killed at a BLM rally in Dallas, Texas, which was widely reported in the media. The violence against the police force did not help the BLM movement and in fact spurred further debate and anger against those on either side.

According to a CNN report in late August, 6 U.S. police officers have been fatally shot this year. Needless to say, killing cops hasn’t fixed a corrupt system. It’s only torn apart families— whose only crime was having a police officer for a father, a mother, a daughter or a son.

Real change is hard because it takes time—something that radicals and anarchists are unwilling to understand. There is no get-rich-quick scheme for social change. It takes continued patience and resilience in the face of opposition.

As students, as teachers and as civilians, a protest is our only way to voice our pains. When we are violent, our voices become distorted and no one can hear what we have to say.

In 1955, when Rosa Parks was ordered to the back of the bus, she didn’t kick and scream and set fire to the bus. She quietly and stubbornly refused, making enough noise for Martin Luther King Jr. to hear her and carry her protest out into the streets and onward to revolution. She is the kind of protester we need to emulate today.

It is good advice to be flexible in our form of protest —be it sitting out during a national anthem or taking to the streets—but we must remain inflexible in our way: always peaceful, patient and persistent.

Categories
Opinions

YouTube’s monetization policy is anti-free speech

Graphic by Thom Bell

Content creators have to watch what they say if they want to be advertiser-friendly

In the past few years, YouTube has established itself as more than just a video-sharing platform. With Google AdSense and advertisements on every video, the website’s content creators have been able to make a living off of their videos.

One would just have to look at gaming YouTuber PewDiePie, who according to Forbes, makes close to $7 million a year—to see how successful content creators can become.

However, recently, more and more YouTubers have been noticing that their videos can no longer be monetized from ads because YouTube has been flagging their videos as not “advertiser-friendly.” This means that they cannot make money off of the ads played on their videos. For YouTubers who use the platform to make a living, the demonetization of their videos can affect their livelihood.

The biggest YouTuber to bring this issue to light was news and entertainment host Philip DeFranco. On Aug. 31, he posted a video called “YouTube Is Shutting Down My Channel and I’m Not Sure What To Do.” In the video, DeFranco said 12 of his videos had been demonetized for inappropriate language and graphic content.

According to YouTube’s policy, the things that DeFranco was flagged for were considered unsuitable for advertising. The policy states that content that has sexually suggestive elements, violence, inappropriate language and controversial and sensitive topics, will not be able to be monetized.

This practice that YouTube has adopted is especially concerning, considering that news channels reporting on hot-button issues are being flagged as well. The progressive news outlet, The Young Turks, reported on their YouTube channel that hundreds of their videos were flagged for containing words such “feminism,” “ISIS” and “terrorism” in either the video’s title or metadata. Metadata provides a description regarding other data data, and essentially categorizes and analyzes the item’s content, according to techterms.com.

Before, YouTube did not have these rules in place and content creators were free to talk about whatever they wanted to—without having to worry about not making money. YouTube claims these rules have always been in place, but reports of demonetization only began around the same time that DeFranco made his video denouncing it. An article by observer.com, showed that YouTube has had their advertising policies in place since March of 2015. YouTuber and Concordia University professor Gad Saad reported on The Rubin Report on Aug. 8 that he had been hit with demonetization in the past, however, due to his channel not being as large, the story was never reported. Saad’s case is a perfect example of how YouTube has been lowkey hurting it’s content creators, without the public knowing.

YouTube’s new terms of service when it comes to advertisements is deeply disturbing, not to mention very anti-free speech. News channels that rely on YouTube are now going to see a decline in revenue, since many of the topics they report on are no longer advertiser-friendly, according to YouTube.

Furthermore, YouTubers like MrRepzion, The Amazing Atheist and Saad will no longer be able to make as much money on YouTube due to their stances on issues such as religion, feminism and the Middle East.

In the past, YouTube was regarded as a platform for free speech, but now it has become part of the political correctness hysteria. These new monetization rules are essentially telling content creators that certain opinions and topics are okay to profit off of, while others are simply too provocative or controversial. If YouTube is going to have monetization, it should either be for all or for nobody.

To add insult to injury, YouTube is not looking past titles and metadata to assess the content. YouTuber Boogie2988 reported on his channel that a video of his had been taken down for having the word “suicide” in the tags. However, the video was about his personal struggle with depression. Boogie was just trying to help other people by detailing his experience, yet his positive message was deemed “not advertiser-friendly”.

YouTube’s new rules are ultimately a sly attempt at silencing those who are controversial, without simply deleting their accounts—that would be too obvious. However, in addition to limiting free speech, YouTube has failed by falsely flagging people and putting their livelihoods at stake.

If this policy isn’t changed, the end of YouTube might be closer than we think.

Graphic by Thom Bell

Categories
Opinions

Calling for transparency from the administration during a cyber crisis

The university has yet to give a follow-up on the security breach that happened in March

Technology can often be a double-edged sword. It can give us to have access to vast amounts of information at our the edge of our fingertips, but also, at times, it can leave us vulnerable to cyber crimes.

The Concordian is not immune to this—our Twitter account got hacked two weeks ago, sending our masthead into a frenzied state of panic. We survived the virtual ambush like true journalistic warriors, and our account was eventually restored. But it made us think twice about our own cyber security.

Then, this past weekend, both La Presse and the Montreal Gazette released articles detailing how the police are looking for two suspects (pictured) who stole sensitive data from thousands of Concordia students in March 2016.

The two suspects—men aged 20 to 35—reportedly put physical devices known as keyloggers into computers in both the Webster and Vanier libraries, and gained access to an “information technology centre,” according to the Montreal Gazette. The same article details how these two individuals accessed thousands of personal student profiles, with eight victims having already filed reports with the Montreal Police.

When these keyloggers were found back in March, the university sent out a mass email advising students and staff to change their passwords and to be vigilant—especially if they used one of the express stations.

“The danger here is that, if somebody here was to access personal information, accessing their Concordia personal files or their bank account, that the information could be captured on a keylogger,” said university spokesperson Chris Mota, in an article we published back in the spring.

While we applaud the administration’s transparency back in the spring, we can’t help but feel a bit bitter right about now. Why did we have to read about these new developments in the local media regarding the same cyber breach that happened months ago—why didn’t the university send out a memo immediately? This type of information is of concern to the entire student body.

There have been no follow-up emails from the university since March 29, nor any details on how the university plans to protect our information in the future.

Instead of sending us redundant emails about “informal get-togethers” with the President of Concordia, why not tell us about the possible dangers going on in our very own school, especially since we—the students—are most likely to be the ones in a compromising position.

It’s embarrassing to see our campus affairs aired out in the media, and to learn about them through news outlets rather than from the university itself.

Categories
Opinions

Safe spaces hurt our campus and students

Exploring the contentious topic of safer spaces at Concordia

Recently, the University of Chicago sent a letter to incoming freshmen informing them that safe spaces and trigger warnings would not be tolerated on campus. The university also said they wouldn’t cancel controversial speakers simply because they were deemed offensive.

“Members of our community must have the freedom to espouse and explore a wide range of ideas,” the letter stated.

The letter, which was shared online, provoked a social media frenzy —many praising and decrying the decision alike. Decriers, however, are gaining traction. Pew Research Center, a Washington D.C.-based “think tank,” found 40 per cent of millennials support limiting free speech to avoid offending minority groups.

Safe spaces have overtaken college campuses. According to The New York Times, when Brown University invited libertarian Wendy McElroy to debate the existence of “rape culture” on college campuses, student volunteers set up a safe space next door for “triggered” students.

In an incredibly infantilizing move, the space offered cookies, colouring books, Play-Doh and videos of frolicking puppies to adult students.

Here at Concordia, we have started to embrace safe space culture. Campus clubs such as Queer Concordia, sell themselves as “safe spaces,” while official campus events like ASFA Frosh tout new “safe spaces” as a major progressive change and selling point. This hurts students.

Exposure to new ideas is the basis of higher education. Assuming students can close themselves off, as if they’re sure their ideas are inherently correct, is limiting. Confronting new ideas, exploring other options and understanding others allows us to expand or update our worldviews.

Open dialogue also helps us strengthen our beliefs, as hearing thoughtful critique allows us to explore why we hold these ideas, and defend them more succinctly.

“We expect members of our community to be engaged in rigorous debate, discussion, and even disagreement,” said the UChicago letter. “This may challenge you and even cause discomfort.”

Uncomfortable ideas shouldn’t be feared. “Bad” ideas can’t survive in the free marketplace of ideas. Like an Adam Smith-esque free market, the best ideas—namely “true” or “moral” ideas—will win out in a fair and transparent competition against inferior ideas. The best way to fight “bad ideas” is to let everyone hear them.

At a talk given at the University of Massachusetts, provocateur and journalist, Milo Yiannopoulos, explained that, after its first real media exposure on the BBC’s Question Time, the far-right, racist British National Party lost mainstream support and the few local seats it had won in the previous election. The party is virtually non-existent today.

“This is why it isn’t just important to give platforms to ordinary speech,” said Yiannopoulos, who was banned by social justice groups at several colleges. “It’s important to give platforms to all speech—because sunlight is the best disinfectant.”

University should prepare students for adult life – which doesn’t care or cater to feelings. It’s a hard adjustment, but the corporate world doesn’t offer cookies and Play-Doh.

Students need to discern between disagreement and harassment, and learn how to act independently in each situation. Forcing students to confront their issues head-on teaches them to speak up for themselves, which is beneficial. To assume students can’t or shouldn’t be fiercely independent in the defense of their beliefs and needs is infantilizing and insulting.

Critics of UChicago’s policy fear that students with mental illnesses, like PTSD, will be negatively impacted. Yet students with diagnosed disorders have a responsibility to inform peers and professors. Most, if not all, would be sympathetic. But this should be dealt with on an individual basis, not as university-wide mandate. You can’t limit education to cater to the minority.

Safe space culture stifles individuality, creativity and independence, which are good qualities to foster in our future leaders. As John F. Kennedy said, “A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”

Graphic by Florence Yee

Categories
Opinions

Let’s talk about the Paralympics for once

Why the hell is it so hard to find coverage of the Paralympic Games

I’m not the Olympics’ number one fan, nor do I know much about the athletes—but I could tell you Michael Phelps probably won a medal at the Rio 2016 Games. What I couldn’t tell you before writing this article was a single name—let alone sport—of a Canadian Paralympian. And I know that it’s not just me who can (unfortunately) say this. So let’s talk about the Paralympics, because you can be damn sure no one else is.

If you try Googling articles about the Rio 2016 Games, anything related to the Paralympics will either be at the bottom of the page, or on the uncharted second page. Have you ever actually seen any TV ads specifically for the Paralympics (or any YouTube skip-ads)? Probably not.

This past month, Vogue Brazil photoshopped the limbs of two celebrity models in order to make them appear disabled, in a bid to promote the upcoming Paralympic Games, according to Vox. To make matters worse, the same report described how the publication had two Paralympians present at the photo-shoot to guide the models with their poses. Completely messed up, right?

These athletes have trained for years, heard “you can’t” more often than any Olympian, yet their accomplishments take a backseat because our society is ableist and places a higher value on able bodied Olympians. Take this for example, Brazilian powerlifter Marcia Menezes competed on home soil, earning gold during a trial event. The stadium she was competing in was relatively empty, and wasn’t even open to the public, unlike other ticketed trial events, according to The Sun. How is that okay?

I spoke with two Canadian Paralympic athletes: Brad Bowden, an ice sledge hockey player, and swimmer Jean-Michel Lavallière. Both were thrilled to talk about the games. “I used to get nervous [playing] in front of large crowds,” said Bowden. “Once you hear people cheer, you feel like you have thousands of friends cheering you on.”

To think there are some athletes competing in empty stadiums, devoid of cheering—it’s  almost as heartbreaking as the fact that no one is talking about it.

Graphic by Florence Yee.

Lavallière is currently competing in Rio, but wasn’t able to give a full in depth interview. He was still grateful for the media coverage, however, revealing that “the Canadian Paralympic swim team is currently in a media blackout.” Lavallière didn’t elaborate on this statement, leaving it open to interpretation.

 

The fact I received answers from these athletes demonstrates that it isn’t overly difficult to get in touch with them—there’s simply no excuse not to have more coverage of the amazing work they do. Simply put, there is not enough coverage of the Paralympics in mainstream media. Why is this so difficult to talk about, let alone change?

I don’t think the public gives these athletes the same level of attention and respect as their able bodied counterparts—and there’s definitely not the same kind of memorable buildup to the Paralympics. Don’t you think it’s time we give these athletes the recognition and praise they’ve sweat and bled for? I certainly do.

Categories
Opinions

Where’s Slytherin when you need them?

Tackling the issue of Montrealers owning exotic pets

Forget about the police—Verdun needs to call Parseltongue experts from Slytherin, or we will never find the snake that’s on the loose. On Aug. 30, a pet python went missing in the borough of Verdun, and it has yet to be found. Residents in the area are in a state of alarm, afraid of what the snake is capable of doing.

Thankfully, Miss Lady—the python—is not venomous. Pythons are known to only prey on small rodents, and typically are less active during the day, according to National Geographic. They usually wait until nighttime before actively searching for prey, according to the same source. Such party animals.
Unfortunately, many are debating regulations concerning ownership of these exotic snakes. According to the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council of Canada (PIJAC), snakes can legally be considered pets as long as they do not exceed three meters in length and are not venomous.

However, one must question if exotic animals, particularly snakes, should ever be considered as pets. Technically speaking, the Verdun owner was not keeping any illegal species. They were in fact following regulations.

Miss Lady, measuring in at around one meter, falls within the accepted length according to PIJAC Canada’s Exotic Species Policy.

Owning exotic pets shouldn’t be frowned upon, especially if there are responsible owners out there willing to take the proper steps to ensure public safety. A very similar conversation is happening in our own city, with the possibility of banning pit bulls.

After a woman was tragically mauled by a pit bull, Mayor Denis Coderre said this September he’d try to instate a pit bull ban across the city’s 19 boroughs, according to the CBC. Many have protested the idea, noting that not all pit bulls are dangerous, and prohibiting ownership of one type of dog will only create problems for future dog owners. It will hinder proper education on how new owners they should train and treat their pets. 

Banning one type of animal or species provokes a conversation about education and diversity. In looking at it this issue through an educative lens, people must understand that any pet owner, whether they have a cat, dog, bird, fox, or in this instance, a snake, should be properly educated and prepared before purchasing any animal. Not having substantial knowledge on how to care for a pet poses a risk to both the owner and the animal, and, in Miss Lady’s situation, for the locals.

Nevertheless, accidents do happen—even to the most educated and loving pet owners. A dog may get scared and run away, a child may pull on a cat’s ear and receive a lash, or a snake may break loose because its cage has worn out.

Despite the hundreds of avoidable mistakes, people have to understand that life happens—and mistakes will occur.

This shouldn’t be a reason to enforce new regulations that place constraints on living harmoniously with the animal kingdom. Enforcing proper training and education on the owners of such exotic species should be imposed on those purchasing the animal.

Categories
Opinions

Campus rapist released from prison

Last week, 21-year-old Brock Turner, who was found guilty of sexual assault, was released after serving only three months in jail. Turner was convicted last year after he was found assaulting an unconscious woman behind a dumpster in Santa Clara, California, according to the CBC.

The former Stanford University student faced a minimum of two years in prison—with a maximum sentence of 14 years, according to The Huffington Post. He was convicted for six months, and released after three due to good behaviour.

His freedom has sparked outrage across social media, with many expressing their disbelief with Judge Aaron Persky, who granted Turner his freedom.

Turner’s defense relied heavily on the fact that he was a swimmer—a good one, with a bright future ahead of him. The conversation became about Turner and his future, and how the events of that night in Santa Clara would haunt him forever, as if being an athlete somehow diminishes the seriousness of what he did.

This news caused us to spew out our black coffee in disarray here at the offices of The Concordian. How in the world can a person convicted of sexual assault spend just a few weeks in jail? This is absolutely unacceptable, and we believe stricter action needs to be taken when addressing the issue of campus rape and assault.

The issue hits close to home, considering a few individuals on our masthead have experienced some degree of sexual assault. Furthermore, our own university was impacted by the Mei-Ling case that proved Concordia is not immune to campus rape culture. For those unfamiliar with the case, Mei-Ling was a representative of the Arts and Science Federation of Associations (ASFA), and discovered messages between two of her colleagues that portrayed her as an inferior sexual object.

The story broke in The Montreal Gazette and spurred a movement to address rape culture on our campus. We like to think that our university is progressive, with a dedicated Sexual Assault Resource Centre and a Centre for Gender Advocacy, but the fact remains that the measures put in place to enact justice on society still aren’t equipped and willing to deal with this.

On a national level, we saw the media circus surrounding the Jian Ghomeshi trial, and how the legal system essentially focused on the women and tore apart their credibility and dignity. Meanwhile Ghomeshi got off scot-free, even though there had been rumors circulating for years that he was a predator, and that journalism students shouldn’t apply for internships with him, according to the Toronto Star.

We call upon the court in Santa Clara, California to reexamine Brock Turner’s case, considering they are allowing a rapist to walk freely once again after just 90 days. We believe Turner deserves more time in prison to set an example that rape and sexual assault has no place on campus, or in our society. He should pay for his crime.

Turner blamed his actions on alcohol. He blamed campus drinking culture. His father wrote a passionate letter claiming that his son shouldn’t have his life ruined because of “20 minutes of action.” What seems to be lacking from this discourse, however, is how the victim felt, and how these “20 minutes” will forever be the worse minutes of her life. Turner served his sentence. A measly 12 weeks, the length of the average internship. His victim will wear the scars of his attack on her soul for the rest of her life. For her, and all those who have been unjustly taken advantage of and treated as objects rather than people, Turner’s sentence serves as a jarring reminder that, at the end of the day, the burden of sexual assault still rests with the assaulted.

Categories
Opinions

Persistent homophobia plagues the city

Artwork by Torbak Hopper

Why it’s still not safe for same-sex couples in Montreal

The streets were filled with people from all walks of life as they waved their rainbow flags on a balmy Sunday afternoon. The city of Montreal had gathered along a long stretch of the downtown core to celebrate the annual Pride parade.

The environment felt safe and welcoming, with politicians, companies, and LGBT+ organizations marching to commemorate the struggles the community has endured over the last fifty years. It was a rare opportunity to see many couples from the community embracing one another in broad daylight. Although we live in Montreal, one of the most accepting and diverse cities in North America, there are still instances of homophobia that occur every year.

I find it extremely rare to see same-sex couples showing signs of affection in public in Montreal. I think this is because many couples still encounter homophobia on a daily basis, and are thus afraid to express their love publicly.

This past spring, a same-sex couple reported to the police that they had been physically assaulted at Chez Francoise, a bar in Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, according to the CBC. There were multiple assailants and the couple was also subjected to a volley of cruel and derogatory insults. A kiss-in—a symbolic act of protest where LGBT+ couples gathered to embrace and display affection out in the open—took place a few days later in Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. It was extremely symbolic in itself because it was seen as a radical sign of protest that challenged the lack of PDA seen on our streets. The event shed light on the fact these incidents still do, in fact, occur.

A few months ago, I was on the metro travelling with my partner at the time. As he reached out to hold my hand, I immediately felt the atmosphere in the metro car become hostile and uncomfortable. People began to stare and analyze, as if we were a rarely-seen species that they’ve never encountered. Perhaps I was overanalyzing the situation, but I can’t deny that in that moment, I definitely felt more vulnerable to an attack.

I decided to discuss this issue with one of my closest friends, Danielle—who’s in a long-term, same-sex relationship. To my horror, she told me that she often encounters homophobia and vicious catcalling by men on the street. It happened just the other day when she was holding hands with her girlfriend in the old port, and men constantly invaded their personal space and attempted to probe them with inappropriate questions and comments about the nature of their relationship.

Thankfully, there are safe spaces in many establishments and communities where same-sex couples feel comfortable enough to express their love for one another. It deeply saddens me that homophobia still exists in this day and age, and as a society, we definitely have our work cut out for us. Love is love, and the general population needs to become desensitized to this completely normal expression of it.

Categories
Opinions

Pit bulls and problematic policies

Why Montreal should think twice before banning pit bulls

The city’s recent decision to ban pit bulls has created quite a stir amongst Montrealers. The newly proposed bylaw is expected to come into effect at the end of next month, according to CBC. This is a serious subject, considering a woman near Drummondville was mauled to death in her own backyard back in June. This event sparked a frenzied debate in Quebec society.

This is also not the first time a pit bull has been the aggressor in an attack. However, a complete ban on a specific type of dog should make us ask ourselves if this is really the correct path to take.  

Photo by Vanessa Ga

I admit that I have never owned a pit bull, nor have I had many encounters with them. After spending time researching the topic and speaking with dog owners, I have begun to realize the issue is even more complex than I had originally assumed.

On one side, some organizations, like dogsbite.org, present compelling statistics that classify pit bulls as a more dangerous breed, stating that the breed accounts for the highest number of attacks. Proponents of the ban contend that this breed poses a high risk, and should be illegal to own just like any other wild animal.

A pit bull is essentially the product of a bulldog and a terrier, and they were bred in the nineteenth century as a fighting dog, according to the United Kennel Club. Advocates—the most prominent group being banpitbulls.org—stress the pit bull’s dark history, its aggressive capability and insist it is unfit for society.

On the other hand, banning an entire breed of dogs appears to be rather draconian and quite irrational. A common argument heard against the ban is that it is the owners who are to blame for their dog’s being violent. The majority of pit bulls are non-violent, and they are not the only breed that has ever attacked someone.

Since Ontario banned pit bulls a little over ten years ago, there has been no evidence that dog attacks have decreased in the province, according to reports from both the Toronto Sun and Global News. Meanwhile, municipalities in Alberta (mainly around the city of Calgary) have taken a more mature approach with respect to responsible pet ownership. If a dog is considered to be ‘vicious,’ more regulations are put into place, such as additional licensing fees and increased liability insurance.

I think Montreal should first implement measures similar to those in Calgary, instead of making a quick, reactionary and emotional decision to outlaw an entire breed of animal. I would even go a step further and propose compulsory training courses for certain breeds or dogs that have a history of violence. Education, training, and socialization should be the focus with regards to this issue.

Exit mobile version