Categories
News

What experts think about human rights violations in China

A panel on China’s human rights violations was held in Concordia University’s Faubourg building on Jan. 15.

The experts, who were invited by the Montreal Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies (MIGS), expressed concerns about the Uyghur Muslim concentration camps in Xinjiang, an autonomous region in Western China. They also discussed the brutal repression in Hong Kong and Tibet, as well as China’s increasing influence on the Western world and its implication for the future of democracy.

The event took place just days after Human Rights Watch (HRW) executive director Kenneth Roth was denied entry into Hong Kong and HRW’s launch event for its World Report 2020 was disrupted by protestors, according to MIGS executive director Kyle Matthews.

“Human rights issues in China are nothing new,” said speaker Margaret McCuaig-Johnston, Senior Fellow at both the University of Ottawa’s Institute for Science, Society and Policy and the University of Alberta’s China Institute. She listed historical events such as the Cultural Revolution, the Xidan Democracy Wall, and the Tiananmen Square Massacre which she said “trampled on individual human rights in a myriad of ways.”

McCuaig-Johnston continued to explain that although China has lifted more than 800 million people out of poverty since 1978, this is not the same as ensuring individual human rights. She described how the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) uses detention as a pressure tactic against dissidents and the abusive conditions under which they are detained, which were revealed by HRW’s interviews with former prisoners. She also explained the social credit system, in place since 2014, and the CCP’s widespread interference in Western countries.

Both McCuaig-Johnston and Benjamin Fung, a Canada Research Chair in Data Mining for Cybersecurity and an Action Free Hong Kong Montreal activist, highlighted the CCP’s infiltration in Canadian academics and described the pressure on faculty and Chinese students to self-censor criticism of the Chinese government.

The CCP’s use of technology, such as facial and voice recognition for repression, was also extensively discussed by both experts. Fung additionally focused on Chinese companies’ goal to expand the 5G network––he explained that the CCP controls every large corporation in China and that technology companies are obligated to cooperate with Chinese intelligence units.

“It’s about trust, you trust Apple to update your iPhone because it is a private company,” Fung explained, adding that we cannot trust Chinese companies who would introduce malware into the 5G network if the CCP asked them to.

Fung also spoke in detail about China’s one country, two systems policy and the CCP’s broken promise: its decision to maintain control over Hong Kong’s government instead of allowing universal suffrage, which Fung asserts was promised in the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration. He described what he called an ongoing humanitarian crisis and a system of police brutality, lengthy prison sentences, sexual assault, and white terror––attacks on pro-democracy activists.

The situation in Tibet was discussed by Sherap Therchin, executive director of the Canada-Tibet Committee, who explained it has been 70 years since China illegally invaded Tibet, and the Western world seems to have forgotten about it. He described the CCP’s reflexive control strategy: how they have been feeding manufactured information about Tibet to target groups so consistently that the Western world now believes their narrative that Tibet was historically part of China.

Therchin continued to explain that in the Western world’s eyes, control over Tibet is now an internal issue––a problem for China to deal with without Western influence.

Finally, Dilmurat Mahmut, a Ph.D. candidate at McGill University’s Faculty of Education, talked about the Uyghur re-education camps in place since 2017. According to documents obtained through an investigation by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, an estimated 1 million Uyghur Muslims are detained in these camps, but Mahmut said these numbers could be as high as 3 million. He explained the history of the region of Xinjiang, originally East Turkistan, and the CCP’s labeling of all Turkic Muslims in the region as potential terrorists or pre-criminals.

Mahmut described the conditions in what the CCP calls vocational training centres, and explained that Uyghur children are being forcibly detained and sent to state-run orphanages where they are forbidden from learning the Uyghur language and, instead, only learn the Chinese culture—he called this cultural genocide. Mahmut finished his presentation with a warning from Roth on the dangers of not challenging Chinese human rights abuses and worldwide interference.

 

Photos by Brittany Clarke

Categories
Opinions

Just because it’s a law, doesn’t mean it’s right

Last year, during a series of sexual misconduct allegations from within the Creative Writing department at Concordia, two students filed complaints against a professor, alleging that they were harassed in the 1990s. According to CBC News, this professor is still employed at the university and was exonerated by Concordia of all allegations in September 2018. According to the same source, one of the complainants, Ibi Kaslik, only learned of this through a reporter at CBC at the beginning of this month.

Over the past year, Kaslik tried to remain updated about the complaint and was told by Concordia Associate Vice-President for Human Resources, Carolina Willsher, last month that “the investigator collected the information, presented it to the university, and the university reacted […] That’s all I can tell you,” according to CBC News. The university has been citing privacy concerns as the reason behind their lack of transparency. The Concordian has learned that by not informing the complainants of the results of the investigation, Concordia is following privacy laws, specifically the A-2.1 Act respecting Access to documents held by public bodies and the Protection of personal information.

Essentially, in this type of case, no personal information can be shared by an educational institution––even to the person who filed the complaint in the first place. However, the institution is allowed to tell the complainants that the investigation ended. Concordia hasn’t confirmed if they did or did not inform Kaslik and the other complainant of the investigation’s closure. But considering that the complainants only learned of the professor’s exoneration through CBC News, it’s clear to us that the university didn’t inform them of this decision when it happened in September.

While we do acknowledge that Concordia is acting in accordance to privacy laws, it doesn’t excuse the fact that the university’s administration wasn’t as transparent as it could have been, especially in its communication with the complainants. These laws are not survivor-centric, as they restrict those who complain from taking part in the discussions and decisions that will ultimately affect their lives. These complainants should have a right to know what happens to those they complain about––and Concordia shouldn’t sit idly by and claim it’s just following protocol. We believe they should step forward and do something to change this situation. Not only will it show that they’re on the side of the victims, but it will also allow those who want to speak out feel supported.

Just because you’re following a law doesn’t mean you’re doing the right thing. Even though Concordia has enlisted a Task Force on Sexual Misconduct and Sexual Violence, created guidelines that discourage sexual relationships between educators and students, and conducted a climate review of the English department, its actions are half-hearted, and the administration’s words hold no value. We need to see concrete change taking place at Concordia. We need to see the university respect and uplift victims’ voices. We need to see this institution protect its students, rather than its abusive educators. Stringing together a few words that excuse Concordia’s actions in PR statements isn’t good enough.

We at The Concordian would also like to note that this is a similar tactic used in 1969, when six black students at Sir George Williams University accused professor Perry Anderson of racism. The university didn’t communicate to the students about how their complaint was being handled, and Concordia exonerated the professor after concluding that nothing could support the racism claims, according to Toronto Star. He later continued his academic career. Rodney John, one of the six students, told Toronto Star that Concordia’s failure to address such bias was at the base of the incident: “It was mishandled from beginning to end.”

Mishandled. A key word here. We at The Concordian hope that the fight against sexual assault, harassment, and injustice at Concordia doesn’t end with the recent exoneration of the professor. Concordia shouldn’t be patting itself on the back. Yes, you followed the law and were not required to divulge the details of what happened to the complainant. But you could have informed them of the end of the investigation, at the very least. As a powerful institution, you aren’t doing enough. We demand more.

Graphic by Ana Bilokin

Categories
Opinions

The dark side of social media platforms

The recent Facebook scandal highlights the ways our privacy doesn’t exist online

The hashtag #DeleteFacebook was trending on social media last week, raising awareness of how much private information the platform knows about its users. It began when the Observer reported that the private data of more than 50 million Facebook users was obtained by Cambridge Analytica, a British political consulting firm. The data was used during the 2016 American presidential elections to profile voters, predict their behaviours and target them with personalized political advertisements. Similar tactics were used for the Leave campaign leading up to the Brexit vote, reported the Observer.

According to Global News, Cambridge Analytica worked for U.S. senator Ted Cruz’s campaign as well as Donald Trump’s campaign. Christopher Wylie, the whistleblower, told the Observer the firm acquired data and used a software system to target specific Facebook users’ “inner demons.” On top of that, Global News reported that Facebook has since stated there is proof Cambridge Analytica hasn’t deleted the data used during those political campaigns, which is problematic. Why are they still holding on to that information?

It’s not surprising that Facebook’s response is trying to draw attention away from the platform itself. Nor is it surprising that Facebook was involved in this type of scandal to begin with. As Facebook reiterates its commitment to privacy, users need to be smart and stop burying their heads in the sand. Everyday, I witness users sharing their most personal thoughts and details about their life on Facebook. People need to realize just how accessible Facebook is to strangers and how privacy settings only do so much in the age of big data. How can users be upset about this situation if they are basically an open-book on Facebook?

Ever since I’ve had access to the internet, my parents always told me to be careful about what I post on social media. We live in a technological era where it’s easy to go on a computer and find someone’s personal information. Users must always be aware of the dark side of social media platforms like Facebook.

Facebook is a double-edged sword. It allows people to connect with whomever they like, but it also makes their personal life publicly available. It’s hard to ignore that social media, specifically Facebook, has a creepy reputation of knowing its users activities.

I believe Facebook needs to strengthen its privacy settings to gain back the trust of its users. Third parties like Cambridge Analytica should not be able to obtain data—especially without the users’ permission or knowledge. Nonetheless, private information will always be more easily accessible on the internet, and I believe society will have to deal with these kinds of problems more frequently. Everything about a person’s life can be found on the internet, which has become an extension of the individual.

People’s entire lives are plastered across the online world. But even knowing the dark side of social media, I will not delete Facebook. I am aware of the privacy risks, but to me, the perks surpass the downsides. Of course, I always think twice before posting or liking anything on Facebook, and I encourage everyone to do the same.

I think the hashtag #DeleteFacebook is legitimate for everyone who felt betrayed by the platform. I understand why these users are angry. People’s Facebook profile data had been stolen to fuel political agendas without their permission, which is just plain wrong.

Even though Facebook is to blame for lacking safeguards to protect user data, these users have a duty to be informed about what happens when they publish information online and agree to use a website. It’s important to not blindly trust Facebook or other social media platforms. I take it upon myself to make smart decisions and be critical about how I interact with my Facebook feed—everyone should do the same.

Graphic by Zeze Le Lin

Categories
Opinions

Your private life is simply not private enough

Don’t leave your social media open for the world to see

Mental health issues have always been a bit troubling when it comes to insurance coverage. Let’s be honest, those who pay out the benefits for students (and other adults) are not being selfless, they’re running a business. This means that no matter what it comes down to, they are more interested numbers rather than the well-being of the person they’re “insuring.”

When Nathalie Blanchard posted pictures of herself on a beach on Facebook — in a seemingly happy time in her life — Manulife (her insurer) pulled her help benefits and left her out to dry under the clause that she was now over her depression. Did the insurer have any right to use public information to their own ends and was it the right call?

On one hand, the insurer had no accurate way of tracking Blanchard’s ongoing depression. On the other hand, depression is an issue that isn’t like an on-and-off switch. It follows you everywhere. The happy times you spend in between the bouts of anxiety, stress, and crippling sadness are few and far apart.

Studies have shown (and many therapists agree) that the most effective way to treat depression is to socialize and do activities that bring you happiness. Yet, when Blanchard posted pictures of herself at the Chippendales bar show, Manulife assumed that she was now available to work based on their judgement alone. To Manulife, these pictures acted as proof that she was over her depression — the absurdity of the situation here being that Manulife made a judgement call based on social media.

This raises a whole lot of questions about whether or not insurance companies, employers, and businesses have any right to figuratively stalk an individual on the internet. The primary idea behind this is that our posts on these networks can be made public or private. If you make a post public, can it and — more importantly — should it be used to testify against you?

Social media represents a public forum by which its users can vent out their personal frustrations and broadcast their lives. But does a public post constitute evidence of behaviour that can lead to termination of either insurance benefits or even employment?

The simple answer would be an unfortunate “yes.” Truth be told, public posts that can be viewed by everyone are the equivalent of shouting your daily happenings from a rooftop.

To trump this problem, social media sites offer a way to circumvent this with the option to privatize your posts, leaving your updates available only to select members within your circle of added friends or even a select few people within said circle.

Insurers, employers, and law enforcement agencies have the right to see and use your public posts. Private posts constitute a much more complicated debate though. While law enforcement agencies may have the right to access your conversations and photos on a “necessary” basis, insurers and businesses are limited only to your public posts under federal law.

In the age of social media and free information, the best thing users can do is keep their private lives outside of the public eye. In the case of Blanchard, insurers made a poor judgement call, but their perusing of her Facebook account was entirely within their rights.

That being said, it’s probably best to stay outside of the limelight and restrict what the public can see on your social media pages. Err on the side of caution and keep your private lives as they should be: private.

Facebook’s privacy settings can be altered to share your posts only with friends by visiting https://www.facebook.com/settings?tab=privacy and changing the “who can see your future posts?” line to “friends only”.

Exit mobile version