Robyn Urback
Stop shaming young people to vote
Ultimately, the decision to vote should be a personal one
The other night I participated in an organized group discussion about the youth vote and upcoming federal election. (Doesn’t that sound riveting?) As part of the event, participants were asked to indicate to the group if they plan on voting, and if so, who they plan on supporting. Among the crowd was a group of brave souls who, feeling disengaged and disenfranchised, declared their intention to stay home on May 2. Now, I know what you’re thinking: “ZOMG, someone, save them!” “Others are dying for this TYPE OF DEMOCRACY!”
I was beginning to believe “Not Voting” was some sort of communicable disease by the way these individuals were avoided that night. It was mostly leers and whispers until the microphone made its way around and self-appointed democracy-advocates made their impassioned pleas to the misguided. “You’re ruining it for everyone!” they said. “Don’t be politically lazy!” “We are the future!” “Gaaahh!”
Of course, the vomit was slowly rising in my throat by that point. Most upsetting was that I generally agreed with the voting advocates (minus the starry-eyed optimism). I think young people should vote, especially since it’s clear politicians won’t pay greater attention to the concerns of youth until they’re convinced they can rely on their votes. Young people can make the change by voting. I was incredibly dismayed, however, by the tone of the individuals who chose to unleash verbal attacks on the non-voters. They were convinced that the deliberate choice to refrain from voting was a disgraceful one and something certainly worthy of indignation.
It’s not surprising that this election has given rise to that sort of sentiment. Over the past few weeks, young people have been the target of pundit pleas, messages from TV personalities, and campus pressure to participate in vote mobs. And while the messages have largely been positive–encouraging youth to exercise their democratic right to cast a ballot—the latent effect has been to make a taboo of the equally democratic right to not cast a ballot. It seems focus on getting young people out to the polls has demonized the decision to stay home.
The reasons cited for choosing not to vote are usually the same among young people. They either don’t care enough to vote, they feel they aren’t well informed enough to vote, or else are so disenfranchised and dismayed by the system that they don’t want to validate the process by voting. I personally feel each reason to be insufficient (though I can sympathize with the last one, especially since there is no constructive way to express discontent with the system since spoiling a federal ballot is illegal in Canada, for some reason), but each individual has the freedom to decide if she or he wants to participate. Voting is a right, not an obligation, just as, say, the freedom of peaceful assembly is a right, not an obligation. Just because that right exists doesn’t mean we are compelled to make use of it.
The shamers will also soon come to realize that one of the worst ways to get people on your side, especially in politics, is with guilt and pressure. (Ask your friends about their blocked Twitter lists if you need any further confirmation.) Perhaps it is true that young people who choose to stay home will be “ruining it for the rest of us” by lowering turnout numbers for the youth demographic, but reminding them of that will not further anyone’s cause. Nor will a vote mob dance party–sorry to interrupt the glee. The outraged can try to explain to committed non-voters why they should vote (as opposed to explaining why they are terrible people for choosing not to), or else, move to Australia and enjoy life. In Canada, the decision to vote is a personal choice and one that should be respected, even if we don’t like it.
Video: Advice for first time voters
Don’t wear the wrong colour t-shirt
Sure vote mobs are great, but do they really help first time voters make sense of the upcoming election?
While only a stiff drink and total disregard for all common sense could truly do that, hopefully these suggestions will make casting your first vote a little bit easier.
When did UWaterloo dean become moral police?
Engineering dean didn’t need to weigh in on ‘denigrating’ photo
University of Waterloo dean of engineering Adel Sedra was on course at first. When a racy photo of a bikini-clad woman standing next to a student-built race car emerged during preparation for a contest, the team responsible was immediately disqualified, and Sedra offered a valid, incontestable reason. “The suspension results from misuse of the Student Design Centre space for an unauthorized photo shoot involving the Formula SAE vehicle,” he wrote in a memo to engineering students. No sweat, right? No gender politics, no debate. Just, ‘You broke the rules, kiddos, so you’re out.’ If only he had stopped there. Unfortunately for admin, however, no one was there to kick Sedra under the table when he kept on talking.
In a subsequent interview with The Record, Sedra commented on the bikini pose, calling it a “setback” to efforts to improve gender relations in the engineering faculty at Waterloo. “I believe the incident that took place can be thought of as denigrating to women,” he said.
No, Sedra! No, stick with your old story and run!
Ah, it’s too late. With those few words, Sedra has ushered in an unnecessary moral judgment and thus undermined the conviction of his first explanation for punishment. Were the students really disqualified because they held an unauthorized photo shoot? Or because the faculty doesn’t approve of the “denigrating” photo?
The elephant in the room is the disproportionate male presence in the program (only about 17 per cent of engineering students at Waterloo are women), and the university’s efforts to balance the scales. And while it seems Sedra aimed his comment to say, “Hey, ladies, I’m on your side,” it has only served to stir the pot.
In fact, many women on one end of the feminist spectrum would argue that a photo that embraces female sexuality is anything but demeaning. Take the recent “Slut Walk” event that occurred in Toronto in response to a police officer’s suggestion that women can avoid sexual assault by not dressing like “sluts.” Women paraded around downtown Toronto wearing various amounts of clothing, rejecting the tendency for women to be “judged by [their] sexuality.” Wear what you want, was the message, and don’t let anyone judge you. I would assume some of those marching women would have a problem with Sedra asserting that a photo of a woman in a bikini, especially one taken with consent, is something worthy of censure.
The other obvious problem with Sedra’s comment is that it is made as moral judgment from a position of authority. Granted, the photo (which can be seen on The Record’s website) is sultry and suggestive, but neither descriptor necessitates commentary from the faculty dean. Such a statement conveys more than just Sedra’s personal attitude, and could easily be inflated to reflect faculty opinion as a whole.
Mainstream conceptions of acceptable female representation are so fluid and complex anyway that Sedra’s one-off comment inevitably comes off as beyond the call of duty. Should this ever occur again, he should just get them on misuse of student space and make beeline for the exit.
Photo: By Like the Grand Canyon
This is positive student action
Students organize ‘Queen’s Loves U’ event in wake of recent deaths
One can easily become quite soured on the issue of student activism if writing about post-secondary issues for an extended (or any) period of time. If it isn’t one group bullying and throwing tantrums to get its message heard, it’s another resorting to ridiculous measures to prevent someone else’s message from being heard. And of course, there are always a fervent few along the way to call you out for your inherent privilege. Isn’t student action swell?
This time, though, the message is positive and the approach is respectful, which has done everyone’s blood pressure a lot of good, to say the least. Students at Queen’s University organized and led an event called “Queen’s Loves U,” this past Thursday in response to the deaths experienced by the Queen’s community this year. Six students have died during the school year, at least two by committing suicide. The event was started by third year political science student Kevin Imrie, who created a Facebook page after the most recent tragedy.
The goal of Queen’s Loves U was to reinvigorate a sense of community at Queen’s University. Along with providing support, encouraging random acts of kindness, and creating a space for dialogue, the event hosted tables where students could write open letters to the community, which will be bound and stored in the Queen’s archives. More than 4,000 people confirmed attendance on Facebook.
Critics of the event have said that it fails to pragmatically address student concerns. For example, graduating student Kavita Bissoondial writes in the Queen’s Journal:
For many of us who fall outside of the margins of what is thought of as ‘normal’ or ‘desirable’ at Queen’s, we have been taught since the beginning that we were never meant to be here [. . .] To say that Queen’s loves me is to completely ignore, dismiss and deny my five years at this institution and the trauma I am still working through.
While I won’t take on the premise that Queen’s actively teaches its “undesirable” students that they “were never meant to be here,” I don’t think Queen’s Loves U as an event serves to dismiss the struggles faced by students each day. In fact, it seems to do quite the opposite. Recognizing the backlog faced by mental health services at the university, students have taken it upon themselves to remind their peers that they can act as resources for each other on campus. While one could say that a more pragmatic approach would have been to focus on expanding mental health services at the university, this event is frankly more immediate, more inclusive, more personal, and in my opinion, simply better served.
So haters can keep on hating. It seems Queen’s loves u anyway.
The biggest threat to Harper campaign: Student photos with Iggy
UWO student ejected from Harper rally for Facebook picture with Ignatieff
All you F-35 Joint Strike Fighter naysayers—this’ll make you bite your tongues. After all, the proof is in the pudding, and just this past weekend, Stephen Harper’s Conservatives proved the need to stay vigilant against enemies, many of whom can appear in even the most innocuous of forms.
Of course, I’m talking about 19-year-old University of Western Ontario student Awish Aslam, who managed to infiltrate a Harper rally in London on Sunday despite having a Facebook picture of her with Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff. The audacity, I know. How the undecided voter managed to get in, I’m not sure; but she and a friend were escorted out of the rally shortly after signing in.
According to Aslam, a man led them to a back room, tore up their name tags, and told them they weren’t welcome at the event. “We were confused,” Aslam told the London Free Press. “He said, ‘We know you guys have ties to the Liberal party through Facebook.’”
I don’t know how many times we must drill this message home, but students: Please exercise discretion when posting things online! Yes, you may have a night where you down too many beers with friends and decide to ‘Like’ the Canadian Learning Passport on the Liberal Facebook page, but others will notice your actions! And it goes further than that. Every time you sign onto Farmville and don’t post a comment about the long-gun registry, know you’re making a political statement. For every occasion you send a ‘Poke,’ you should be requesting a fitness tax credit. And finally, never, ever, ever, refer to a group message as a “Coalition.” Vague insinuations are fine, though.
All parties want to encourage the youth vote, of course, but they can’t help it if young people disenfranchise themselves through mistakes like these. Young people should know better than to explore their political options before casting a vote –and worse yet–posting a totally meaningless picture online. Remember: don’t chew Big Red on Harper’s turf, unless you plan to stick it on the bottom of your shoe.
What students can learn from Snooki
Maybe that $32,000 Rutgers bill wasn’t a (complete) waste of money
Many Rutgers University students were horrified this week to learn that $32,000 of their mandatory student fees went to Nicole “Snooki” Polizzi for her appearance on campus Thursday night. The Jersey Shore reality star addressed a crowd of more than 1,000 students as part of a live Q&A held at the university’s Livingston Student Center. Fueling the fire is the news that Rutgers’ upcoming commencement speaker, Pulitzer and Nobel Prize winner Toni Morrison, will be paid $2,000 less to address the graduating class next month.
To try to make the case that the money was spent wisely would be akin to attempting to run a fine-toothed comb through Pauly D’s hair—it just won’t happen. After all, it only makes sense that a university should be committed to backing speakers who appreciate the fundamental values of the institution. And as far as I know, Rutgers’ official motto doesn’t translate to, “Hooray for guidos and juiceheads!”
But there are things that students can take away from Snooki’s address, besides how to achieve that pumpkin-orange glow. The first lesson is a simple one: these people exist. While students spend years collecting facts in university, the campus can still serve as a microcosm of misinformation about the real word. “My degree makes me employable,” we think. “Only the smart succeed.” “Everyone talks about Kant’s philosophy over cocktails.” Of course, this is not always true. But immersed in a world of categorical imperatives and social justice rallies, we forget that society is a little different beyond the university gates. That might explain why students are often so surprised to see such low youth voter turnout rates during election time. We forget that some young adults would rather fist pump to house music than scroll through the incumbent platform. Not that political apathy or a Snooki-type lifestyle is something to be lauded. But it is something to recognize as present.
The other value to be had from a Snooki address is the fact that she exemplifies all it means to say, “Stupid Sells.” Case in point: When asked by a Rutgers student about her biggest inspiration, Snooki reportedly replied, “I’d honestly say being tan. When you’re tan, you feel better about yourself.” Either Snooki is taking us all for a ride, or those UV rays are doing something fierce on the inside. In any case, Snooki is a reminder to the academic population that smarts are not always necessary for success. Obviously an exceptional case, but Snooki is living proof that you can end up on the New York Times bestseller list even if you spell your name with zeros. Academic scholarship is often put on a pedestal in the higher-ed bubble, and understandably so. But success can also be found through a killer recipe, a great idea, or the ability to fix a faulty furnace better than anyone in the city. Snooki is a reminder–albeit, an exaggerated one–that success is bred from a variety of forms, and not just a stellar transcript.
McGill admin shouldn’t stay mum on alleged death threats
University needs to publicly address student’s threatening tweets
Many people are talking about the tweets posted by McGill University student Haaris Khan earlier this month, with the exception, ironically, of those whose statement is most imperative.
McGill University has not commented on the tweets Khan posted while watching a screening of Indoctrinate U on campus. “I want to shoot everyone in this room,” he tweeted during the event, which was hosted by Conservative McGill and Libertarian McGill. “I should have brought an M16,” he later added.
McGill’s Deputy Provost released a statement only after the McGill Tribune and other news outlets picked up the story. The statement, however, merely justified McGill’s handling of the incident and fell short of actually condemning the spread of potentially violent messages on campus. Bizarrely, the Deputy Provost ended the statement with a paragraph outlining the “downside of social media.”
Khan has since apologized for his tweets in a letter published in the Tribune. “My comments were totally inappropriate and I would never harm my fellow students,” he wrote, adding that his tweets “were meant in jest.” Maybe I just have a lousy sense of humour, but I think there’s a reason clown costumes don’t come with mock M16’s.
What isn’t funny, though, is the formal silence from the McGill administration. Citing Quebec’s privacy laws, McGill refuses to discuss what action, if any, will be taken against Khan. But McGill needs to reassure its students, faculty, and staff that threats of violence—even if “meant in jest”—will not be tolerated on campus. While a commitment to privacy is fine, McGill must also fulfill its obligation to provide a safe space on campus. (And for all the vacuous talk we so often hear about “safe spaces,” here is a situation where it actually seems warranted.) That means assuring everyone on campus (however generally) that threats of violence are completely unacceptable. McGill shouldn’t let its silence do the talking.
Students vote to impeach Queen’s rector
Referendum results show 72% of students want Nick Day gone
Undergraduates at Queen’s University have voted 72 per cent in favour of making a recommendation to the university to impeach rector Nick Day.
A referendum was held from March 22 to 23 where students were asked to respond to the question:
Shall it be recommended to the University Council of Queen’s University that Nick Day not continue to hold the office of Rector of Queen’s University at Kingston? Yes ___, No ___.
A total of 3803 students voted (out of an eligible 14244): 2714 votes were in favour of the recommendation (72 per cent), while 1061 of votes were opposed (28 per cent).
The Alma Mater Society (AMS) at Queen’s University immediately released a statement saying, “Since the result of this Special AMS Student Vote are in the affirmative, the Society therefore recommends to the University Council of Queen’s University that Nick Day not continue to hold the Office of Rector of Queen’s University at Kingston.”
Day recently came under fire for writing a public letter defending Israeli Apartheid Week to Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff and signing with his official university title. Noting in his letter that that he “was elected to represent the approximately 20,000 students of Queen’s University,” Day claimed that Israel was guilty of genocide and is acting as the perpetrator of “perhaps the biggest human rights tragedy of my generation.”
Day was also formally censured by the AMS Assembly back in November for statements he made during a Remembrance Day address.
UToronto and York students launch BDS campaign
Demand universities divest from companies “involved in violations of Palestinian human rights”
On Monday March 7, the first day of Israeli Apartheid Week in Toronto, Students Against Israeli Apartheid (SAIA) at the University of Toronto announced the official launch of its joint Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions [BDS] campaign with SAIA at York University.
Making brief reference to a similar campaign going on at Carleton University, SAIA U of T announced the new campaign, demanding that the university divest from four companies, claiming that “current investments in these four companies suggests it is complacent in war crimes.”
BAE Systems, Northrop Grumman, Hewlett Packard and Lockheed Martin were identified as contributors to “violations of international law by the Israeli state,” and named as the target of the York/U of T campaign.
According to SAIA’s research, the University of Toronto holds $1,746,000 and $1,157,000 worth of shares in BAE Systems and Northrop Grumman respectively. (Figures for Hewlett Packard and Lockheed Martin were unknown.)
Students are demanding that the universities divest from the four companies and refrain from investing in other companies that are “involved in violations of international law.”
The petition demands are posted below.
We, the undersigned, demand that:
(1) The University of Toronto and York University divest from and refuse to reinvest in BAE Systems, Northrop Grumman, Hewlett Packard and Lockheed Martin;
(2) The University of Toronto and York University refrain from investing in all companies involved in violations of international law. With respect to Palestine, this entails following the guidelines put forth by Students for Justice in Palestine in the historic divestment by Hampshire College:
The University of Toronto and York University should refrain from investing in companies that:
a) Provide products or services that contribute to the maintenance of the Israeli military occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, as well as the Syrian Golan Heights;
b) Provide products or services that contribute to the maintenance and expansion of Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories;
c) Establish facilities or operations in Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories;
d) Provide products or services that contribute to the maintenance and construction of the Wall;
e) Provide products or services that contribute to violent acts that target either Israeli or Palestinian civilians.
Public schools shouldn’t stifle free expression
Catholic school students suspended for pro-choice message
It seems the crackdown on dissenting ideology continues at Catholic high schools in Ontario. Two months ago, the Halton board made headlines for banning gay-straight alliances in its publicly funded schools. Now, St. Patrick High School in Thunder Bay, Ontario, has decided that its students cannot express pro-choice opinions. Because the best type of public education is an exclusionary and highly ideological public education, right?
Grade 10 student Alexandria Szeglet was sent home from school last week for wearing a green strip of tape with the word “Choice” on her uniform. That day, the school was holding a pro-life event where some students wore red pieces of tape with the word “Life” written on them. As Szeglet began handing out her green strips to fellow students, she was told to remove the tape or go home. Smartly, she chose the latter.
Still, other students carried on the message, and according to reports, as many as 100 students were sent home. John de Faveri, Thunder Bay Catholic District School Board director disputed those numbers, while still adding, “On the issue, pro-life is part of the Catholic stand. The pro-choice students were not appropriate in the context of a Catholic school.”
As the news of the incident spread, the school board’s position seemed to shift.
“It wasn’t anything about what the students were trying to say; it was the inappropriate way they went about it,” de Faveri told the Globe and Mail. “They didn’t get approval from the school. They didn’t do anything of the sort.”
Pardon my lack of faith, but when the issue of gay-straight alliances came to the Halton Catholic board, chair Alice Anne LeMay said that students would be denied a request for a GSA even if they sought approval from the school. “It’s not in accordance with the teachings of the church,” she said.
Similarly, I’m skeptical that Szeglet and her friends would have been permitted to express their pro-choice positions, even if they had asked permission from the school beforehand. Let’s not kid ourselves; the issue is not that these students defiantly defaced their uniforms with strips of illicit green material without permission, it’s that they expressed a position fundamentally opposed to the teachings of the church.
The bitsy snag is here is that St. Patrick is a public school, funded by public dollars. Yet somehow, administrators feel compelled to stifle free expression. I don’t think I need to explain the dissonance here.
It’s bad enough that taxpayers in Ontario are footing the bill for only one type of religious education (when really, they should be funding none), but it becomes intolerable when that education is restrictive and exclusionary. Disallowing students to form positive alliances or express their opinions openly exemplifies just that. At an age where students should be encouraged to think critically, schools shouldn’t be the ones to shut down the debate.
‘Get your head out of your Rector’
Queen’s students rally to oust rector Nick Day
Queen’s students have formed a Facebook group called “Get your head out of your Rector! Remove Nick Day as Queen’s Rector” in reaction to a letter Day sent to the office of Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff.
Day criticized Ignatieff’s condemnation of Israel Apartheid Week, arguing Israel is committing “genocide.” Queen’s student Jake Roth created the Facebook group in response to the news. As of 8:30 p.m. there were just 197 members, but Roth hopes it will grow to 4000.
“I object to Mr. Day using his position to make irrelevant political statements,” Roth said in an email.
According to messages posted on Twitter and Facebook, students are circulating petitions to have Day removed from his position.
UPDATE: Queen’s rector faces impeachment
Queen’s rector abuses his title in letter to Ignatieff
Rebuffs Liberal leader’s condemnation of Israel Apartheid Week, saying Israel is guilty of genocide
Remember the Queen’s University rector who used a Remembrance Day address to air his own political pet peeves?
Well it seems Rector Nick Day is back at it. After Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff recently released a statement condemning Israeli Apartheid Week, which is taking place on Canadian and international campuses this week, Day released some words of his own, calling Ignatieff’s statement “deeply unethical” in a note posted on his Facebook page and sent to Rabble.ca.
UPDATE: Queen’s Rector faces impeachment
In his letter to the Liberal leader, Day does make some fair points about the right to hold open dialogue on the Israel/Palestine issue, but also delves into his own personal position on the issue, arguing that Israel “operates a discriminatory judicial system in Palestine” and is the perpetrator of “perhaps the biggest human rights tragedy of my generation.” (Was the Rwandan genocide last generation?)
He goes on to slam Ignatieff’s original statement, cautioning the Liberal leader that if he continues to condemn “critique of the genocide happening in Palestine, you and the party you lead are complicit in that genocide.”
Curiously, he also adds:
I was elected to represent the approximately 20,000 students of Queen’s University. If I ever used the influence of my office and the power of my public voice, as you have [. . .] I would have a very difficult time sleeping at night.
Shall we play “Spot the Irony?”
Nick Day has every right to hold any political position he desires, and the freedom to express his opinions openly. The problem, though, is when he signs his name as “rector,” he no longer just speaks for himself. And when speaking for 20,000 students, it is negligent and unjust to take a strong position on an issue that is so politically divisive.
Day could’ve sent the exact same letter in response to Michael Ignatieff’s statement. But instead of signing it, “Nick Day, Rector,” he should have signed it, “Nick Day, student.”
Islamic State Apartheid Week coming to campus
Jewish Defence League to hold event to counter Israeli Apartheid Week
The Jewish Defence League of Canada has announced it will be hosting an event called “Islamic State Apartheid Week” in Toronto next week. Its stated goal is to “counter the campus lies against Jews and highlight the truth of Islam,” as well as “expose and confront the Israel bashers and Jew haters during IAW [Israeli Apartheid Week].”
Sounds like this all should go off without a hitch, no?
So far, it seems the program consists of protesting IAW events. The first gathering is scheduled for Tuesday, March 8, to protest a screening of “Jaffa the Oranges Clockwork,” which (to add another twist) is being sponsored by the Ryerson Student Union. Two more protests–one at the University of Toronto and another at York University–have been scheduled so far.
As of yet, just over 100 people have confirmed attendance on Facebook.
UTSU elections have already gone amiss
Opposition candidates boycott UTSU elections, alleging challengers were unfairly disqualified
Members of an opposition slate have decided to boycott the University of Toronto student union elections after four of its members were disqualified right out of the gate.
The inexcusable offense? Well, some say the challengers failed to buff their “DEMOCRACY NOW!” pins before the all-candidates meeting, and others allege they were caught with Facebook profile pictures other than the obligatory “shouting into a megaphone” photo required for all UTSU executives. Of course, I also heard something about an envelope being lick-sealed as opposed to tape-shut and murmurs about those students who “hate freedom.”
The official reason, though, and according to The Varsity, is that incorrect student numbers were listed on the nomination forms of the candidates, who are part of the StudentsFirst slate. That is, of the 200 names, student numbers, and signatures required for a successful nomination, there is an error in there somewhere, or so it seems. The UTSU-appointed Chief Returning Officer (no conflict there, right?) has apparently refused to show documents to the disqualified candidates, according to the release posted on their website.
So one of your supporters wrote an extra “2” in her student number by accident while signing your nomination form? Well, sucks for you, stupid! All that money you spent on posters and other promotional material going down the tubes. A pity. Here, cry into this “Working for Students” t-shirt.
But it gets better. Not only were the disqualified candidates barred from the all-candidates meeting (and so, even their nomination forms are later found to be valid, their absence from the meeting would be grounds for immediate disqualification) but so too was the media, according The Varsity. Varsity staffers Andrew Rusk and Tom Cardoso were told to exit the room by a deputy returning officer with a conspicuously absent last name. Then, according to inside sources, The Varsity begrudgingly went to consult with the Glavlit as participants finished up the meeting and staged a public book burning on the University College quad.
Fourteen opposition candidates have since decided to boycott the elections, according to StudentsFirst. “It’s clear that the democratic principle, which the UTSU claims to respect, is not being honoured,” Matthew Gray, (once) presidential candidate for StudentsFirst told The Varsity. “They’re basically working to stifle opposition.”
Good luck, Matthew. And watch out for unmarked white vans.
Guest UBC lecturer denied entry to Canada
Controversial American professor Srdja Trifkovic was scheduled to speak about the future of the Balkans
A guest lecture sponsored by the Serbian Students Association (SSA) of the University of British Columbia was cancelled Thursday after Srdja Trifkovic was denied entry into Canada.
Trifkovic, known for his contentious views on Islam and the Bosnian Genocide, was set to deliver a lecture entitled, “The Balkans: Uncertain Prospects for an Unstable Region.” On Thursday, it was reported that Trifkovic spent five hours detained at Vancouver International Airport before he was sent back to the U.S.
In a subsequent blog post for the U.S. Chronicles magazine, Trifkovic wrote:
It turns out I am “inadmissible on grounds of violating human or international rights for being a proscribed senior official in the service of a government that, in the opinion of the minister, engages or has engaged in terrorism, systematic or gross human rights violations, or genocide, a war crime or a crime against humanity within the meaning of subsections 6 (3) to (5) of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act.”
News of the controversial academic’s arrival roused tension both on and off campus. The Ubyssey reported that at least one student raised concern with university administration, and the Institute for Genocide Research Canada sent a letter of protest to UBC’s president. The university did not release a statement regarding the controversy.
Falsies don’t mean ‘yes’
Manitoba justice was wrong to base ruling on rape victim’s clothing
All you girls out there better think twice before dressing up for a night out. After all, it seems that wearing a braless tube top is now judicially perceived as equivalent to the phrase, “Yes, I would like to have intercourse with you.” Heels mean you’re a harlot, in case you didn’t know, and wearing makeup implies you’re ready for a whole lot of fun. In future, eyes on the floor, skin clear, and for Christ’s sake keep those ankles covered. That way, we won’t have any confusion about so-called “consensual” sex.
These helpful hints are in accordance with a recent ruling by Manitoba’s Justice Robert Dewar, who decided that a man convicted of rape would not serve time in prison. According to Dewar, the victim sent signals that “sex was in the air,” specifically noting her attire which included high heels, a tube top without a bra, and lots of makeup. Commenting on the behaviour of the victim and her friend, Dewar said, “They made their intentions publicly known that they wanted to party.”
The obvious explanation is that Justice Dewar must’ve studied under Toronto’s Constable Michael Sanguinetti, who told a room full of York University students last month that they can avoid sexual assault by not dressing like “sluts.” The onus is on you, girls; make sure you don’t give the impression that you’re some sort of trollop. Because if you do—well, that’s pretty much the same thing as explicitly saying “yes,” right?
Actually, no. The Supreme Court of Canada struck down the idea of implied consent as a viable defense over a decade ago in a ruling involving the case of R. v. Ewanchuk. And before that, in 1992, Canada established rape shield law provisions essentially limiting the extent to which a victim’s sexual history could be brought into a rape trial. Both moves were seen as positive steps forward with regards to altering “blame the victim” attitudes often prevalent in sexual assault cases. But as they say, one step forward…
Rulings such as Dewar’s and comments such as Sanguinetti’s not only reinforce negative stereotypes about rape victims who “ask for it,” but will likely dissuade further victims from coming forward and pressing charges. As is, just one in nine cases of sexual assault is actually reported to police; and I can see why victims may want to avoid having their tube tops as Exhibit A and their flirtatious texts as Exhibit B. As long as we keep blaming the victim, we can expect few to come forward.
So let me reiterate: a tube top doesn’t mean “yes.” Falsies don’t mean “yes.” Nor does a smile, or a wink, or a hair toss or twirl. The clothing of the victim in the Manitoba case shouldn’t have been used as the basis for Dewar’s ruling. Those of us who know that shouldn’t less the grass grow under our feet. And mine, I can assure you, will be wearing some killer heels.
CUSA meeting explodes over anti-Israel motion
“They started banging on the walls, yelling ‘shame’ and screaming”
Reports coming out of Carleton University last night allege that chaos ensued at a Carleton University Students’ Association (CUSA) meeting when a divestment motion by Students Against Israeli Apartheid (SAIA) was shelved.
Protesters outside the council room began chanting and yelling after the decision, and some students say they felt trapped and threatened.
CUSA was to consider a motion to call on the university to adopt a “Socially Responsible Investment” policy for Carleton’s pension fund, which specified divestment from Israeli companies. Prior to voting on that motion, CUSA VP Finance Meera Chander proposed an amendment recommending divestment from all illegally occupying states, not just Israel. That motion passed, and the chair ruled that voting on SAIA’s motion would be redundant, so it was struck from the agenda.
“That’s when SAIA exploded,” says Emile Scheffel, a Carleton student and member of the Ottawa Israel Awareness Committee. “The council took a five-minute recess, but people didn’t feel comfortable leaving the room.”
Some details of the evening were circulated in press releases issued this morning. Twitter feeds also documented the situation as it was unfolding, however CUSA executives have not yet responded to requests for comment.
Due to space constraints, many of the students and faculty who came to support the motion had to wait outside the council room. The Charlatan estimated there were 200 protesters outside the doors.
“It got pretty intense,” Scheffel says. “They started banging on the walls, yelling ‘shame’ and screaming.”
Some students also allege they were subject to physical intimidation and homophobic slurs for opposing the SAIA motion.
“My personal safety was threatened repeatedly last night, and I am extremely apprehensive about coming onto campus now,” Hashem Hamdy, a CUSA councillor in the Faculty of Public Affairs, said in a release. “I feel like a marked man, like many other students on campus.”
Students were escorted out of the room when additional security arrived. Reem Buhaisi, media outreach for SAIA, says their goal was to encourage CUSA to do the right thing.
“I personally thought the atmosphere was inspiring,” she says. “There were hundreds of people in support of both motions there, and they were saying slogans about anti-war and responsible investment.”
“It was strongly organized,” she says. There were chants and people were loud, but that’s to be expected. They were there to promote anti-war justice and it got loud, of course. I wouldn’t say there was a riot.”
Buhaisi says some people brought musical instruments and drums and there was some banging on the walls. “It was about reclaiming the CUSA space, and students were asking for support.”
SAIA hopes to take its motion to the Board of Governors.
Photo: Protesters carrying “Students Against Israeli Apartheid” banner during the G20 in Toronto, by StephLaw
NYU fellow trashes raped journalist
Offensive comments are a step back for progressive attitudes toward rape victims
While most of us were horrified to read the news that CBS correspondent Lara Logan had been brutally beaten and raped in Egypt, Nir Rosen, a fellow at NYU Center for Law and Security, just couldn’t resist a few political jabs.
He began his Twitter rant saying:
“Lara Logan had to outdo Anderson. Where was her buddy McCrystal.” (Anderson Cooper had also been attacked while covering the protests in Egypt.)
He then continued:
“Yes yes its wrong what happened to her. Of course. I don’t support that. But, it would have been funny if it happened to Anderson too.” (Rape is hilarious, says NYU scholar.)
And it gets worse:
“Jesus Christ, at a moment when she is going to become a martyr and glorified we should at least remember her role as a major war monger.” (Don’t feel too bad for her, she propagates war!)
Then:
“Look, she was probably groped like thousands of other women, which is still wrong, but if it was worse than [sic] I’m sorry.” (Maybe if I pluralize her plight than you’ll see my point? Uhh… *then.)
Followed, of course, by a feeble attempt a damage control:
“ah fuck it, I apologize for being insensitive, it’s always wrong, that’s obvious, but I’m rolling my eyes at all the attention she will get.”
Then a better one:
“As someone who’s devoted his career to defending victims and supporting justice, I’m very ashamed for my insensitive and offensive comments.”
It’s hard not to be disgusted by Rosen’s remarks. Despite much of the progress that’s taken place in Western society in recent decades with regards to the perception of women and gender equality, sexual assault is one of those issues that seems to lag behind. It wasn’t until 1983 with Bill C-127, for example, that a man could be charged for sexually assaulting his wife. And later, in 1992, when victim blaming finally took a hit with a rape shield law laying out strict guidelines governing how accusers’ previous sexual conduct could be brought into assault trials. Then there are treasures, such as Whoopi Goldberg, who defended Roman Polanski’s rape of a 13-year-old girl as not “rape-rape,” and worrying stories of honour killings taking place in Canadian cities where girls deemed “sexually immodest” are murdered for dishonouring families.
Blaming the victim is not new, although usually the line is: “Well, if she went out looking like that…” rather than “Well, she is a war monger, after all.” But politicizing tragedy is always tasteless, no matter how you spin it. Whether it’s rejoicing in the grave illness of a political opponent or using a horrific incident to malign those on the other side of the table, there is usually little to be reaped for such rhetoric except for some pitiful self-satisfaction.
As a man and an academic who purports to be a progressive human rights advocate, Rosen has let his larger political agenda blind him from acknowledging individual injustice. Remarks such as his, which are so poorly and misguidedly contextualized, hinder the progression of attitudes towards rape victims and women overall. It seems he can only support justice as long as its on his terms. Your move, NYU.
Update: Nir Rosen submitted his resignation to NYU earlier today. The university has accepted.
York student group hosts Iranium screening despite protests
Controversial documentary creates tension rather than discussion
Because the political climate at York University isn’t quite hot enough, a group of students decided to host a screening of Iranium on campus last week.
The controversial documentary made headlines last month after a screening scheduled at the National Archives was canceled due to complaints from the Iranian Embassy. But this past Thursday, the movie was successfully screened at York University’s Computer Science and Engineering Centre.
Organized by Hasbara@York, the film was originally to be shown at Vari Hall but the location was moved after Toronto Police received “unspecified threats.” About 50 to 60 people showed up to protest the screening, organized by the Iranian Student Association at York.
My apologizes if I’ve led you to a yawning fit. Obviously, this sort of issue is not new for York University. Generally speaking, Group A will host controversial speaker/association/screening, Group B will protest said speaker/association/screening, and Group A will assert its right to free speech/peaceful assembly. Is everyone following so far?
I’ve seen Iranium and it is certainly not a feel-good flick. While obviously centred on the Iranian ruling regime, I took it as highly critical of the U.S. government as well. Of course, none of that should really matter. The belief that a documentary is biased or propagandistic does not give one the right to prohibit others from seeing it, especially on a shared campus.
A more tactful approach for dealing with this or similar issues would be to tackle the content directly, rather than try to stifle the message overall. The first five minutes or so of Iranium could probably make for an hour-long lecture on Orientalism, for example. Another missed opportunity was when George Galloway spoke at York in November. Instead of protesting his presence, why not host a subsequent event titled “Funding Hamas and Other Poor PR Moves” instead?
Questioned by York University’s Excalibur, Iranian Student Association at York president Mehraz Javadyniya said, “We acknowledge that there are human rights issues in Iran [...] but the Iranian community within the university do not agree with them speaking about our human rights issues when it’s our problem.” His statement is problematic for a number of reasons–namely for suggesting that discussion of issues in a community should be exclusive to its members. Rather than trying to quiet other people’s discussions, why not seize the opportunity to add to the conversation?
Now I think I’ve got a whole new group of people yawning (and probably preparing their placards). As you were, York University.
Religion shouldn’t undermine education
Winnipeg school board should deny student request to opt out of music, co-ed gym class
Winnipeg’s Louis Riel School Division (LRSD) has been approached by a group of new Canadian parents who want their children exempted from certain elementary school classes.
No, Manitoba’s premier has not adopted Dalton McGuinty’s proposal for anal sex lectures for tweens; these parents want their children removed from music and co-ed physical education classes. According to superintendent Terry Borys, the Muslim parents are concerned about their kids participating in classes involving singing and musical instruments, as well as mixed-gender gym classes. “The families accept physical education,” Borys told the Winnipeg Free Press, “as long as the boys and girls have separate classes.”
A local Muslim leader interviewed by the Free Press said there is no religious reason why these kids should be exempted from the classes. “My first concern would be, who are these new immigrants talking to?” he said. “This is the first time I am hearing this — I’m not very happy about it.” He added that while music can be controversial for some in the community, those people are generally in the minority.
Still, the request is being seriously considered by members of the LRSD, who have already consulted with the Manitoba Human Rights Commission and proposed the idea that students complete a writing project in lieu of participating in music classes.
Of course, this type of religious accommodation in secular schools is not new. Religious students have long been able to request exemption from sexual education programs, for example. Catholic school boards in Ontario (which are publicly funded) don’t even have to teach the same sexual health curriculum that is mandated for other boards. And at this point, the concept seems nothing but silly and tired. How can educators and policy makers preach the unequivocal value of the provincial curriculum, while at the same time resign to “Well, I guess STI prevention lessons aren’t that important”?
Public school curricula are specifically formulated (at least on paper) to provide a well-rounded education while promoting Canadian values such as equality of the sexes. These values should not be subject to religious accommodation. Many districts—the Toronto District School Board, for example—have developed certain policies for dealing with certain religious clashes. TDSB guidelines state that, “While the Board works to create a school system free from religious discrimination, this freedom is not absolute.” It continues: “If a parent/guardian/ caregiver asks for his or her child to be exempt from any discussion of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, or same-sex-family issue, the request cannot be granted because it violates the TDSB Human Rights Policy.”
So you can close your eyes and plug your ears if you want to, but you’re gonna have to hear about how gay people are entitled to the same rights as you. Even if you’re religious. Sorry. The same idea can and should be applied to the Winnipeg parents’ request for segregated gym classes. Granted, I understand why girls and boys are sometimes separated for physical education in upper years; no one really wants to be going through puberty and doing squats beside a pal of the opposite gender, after all. Plus, as boys and girls develop they diverge in terms of strengths and physical abilities. It makes sense that they would be separated when playing sports, competing in races, relays, etc. But the same isn’t true for little boys and girls. Indeed, it can take nothing more than a bad haircut for one to be confused for the other. Separating girls and boys for physical education during the elementary years sends the wrong message about gender equality; at that age, drawing gender lines is as arbitrary as separating kids based on hair colour. All it does is reinforce difference, and emphasize the idea that girls and boys are not equal. Perhaps more subtle than the sexual orientation example, but important nonetheless.
Allowing students to opt out of music class, on the other hand, doesn’t really upset Canadian values (after all, we did produce Justin Bieber, so what does that say?) but it does undermine the self-professed value of public education. The Winnipeg school board believes learning music is an integral aspect of a well-rounded education, and so, has included it as mandatory in its elementary school curriculum. Parents, on the whole, seem to agree. To allow students to opt out for religious reasons is to forfeit the contention that music is important for growth, just as to allow students to sit out of sex-ed is to concede that learning about birth control is of limited importance, only appropriate for some students. If the Winnipeg board wants to maintain confidence in its program, it should stand by its curriculum.
