By criminalizing global activism, Hong Kong’s security law is a serious threat to not only Hong Kong international students, but all McMaster students.
By: Mark Choi*, Contributor
*Names and identifying details have been altered to protect the privacy of individuals*
The words that you are reading right now could land me in prison for life.
This may seem absurd — life imprisonment for writing a political opinion in a newspaper. However, as a Hong Kong international student, this is a very real risk that I face under China’s sweeping new Hong Kong security law.
In June, the Chinese government imposed a draconian national security law upon Hong Kong after months of pro-democracy demonstrations. The law criminalizes vague offenses such as “subversion” or “collusion with foreign forces” and establishes a new secret police unit for its enforcement. This bloodless coup has been internationally condemned as a desecration of Hong Kong’s treaty-guaranteed autonomy.
This crackdown on dissent is unprecedented. Hundreds were rounded up the first day the law came into force. Books are being banned, educators are being purged and political persecution is on the rise. The first political figure arrested under the law was 19-year-old student Tony Chung, who now faces up to life in prison for allegedly writing subversive posts on Facebook.
For Hong Kong international students at McMaster University, this law is terrifying. It severely restricts what we are able to say or do. The law’s offenses are intentionally vague, in order to encourage self-censorship.
The security law also imperils other outspoken McMaster students: Article 38 of the law says it covers literally everyone on Earth. This means anybody at McMaster — not just those with Hong Kong citizenship — risks prosecution simply for criticizing the Chinese government. In fact, the first foreign national hit with an arrest warrant through Article 38 is activist Samuel Chu, an American citizen based in California; more such warrants are likely coming.
For Hong Kong international students at McMaster University, this law is terrifying. It severely restricts what we are able to say or do. The law’s offenses are intentionally vague, in order to encourage self-censorship. The security law also imperils other outspoken McMaster students: Article 38 of the law says it covers literally everyone on Earth.
Canada has even issued an official travel warning for Hong Kong. Canadians transiting through Hong Kong’s airport now risk arbitrary detention and life imprisonment for “activities that are not considered illegal in Canada and that occurred outside of Hong Kong”.
Faculty and students at McMaster who are interested in issues deemed politically sensitive by the Chinese government must now choose between permanently avoiding Hong Kong, or dropping such research altogether. In other words, the security law’s extraterritorial overreach degrades academic freedom at McMaster.
Additionally, as a student activist at McMaster, I have previously spoken up about Hong Kong. In May, other Hongkonger students and I successfully lobbied the Student Success Centre to take down job postings for the Hong Kong Police Force.
I also want to spend time supporting others who similarly experience oppression, such as Uyghurs experiencing genocide in China’s concentration camps, and protests against police violence and systemic anti-Black racism right here at McMaster. Our struggles are not solitary sojourns — rather, we get strength from solidarity with one another.
Unfortunately, while this is what I want to do, such activism will make me a target. Until now, Hong Kong had been a vibrant hub for social justice organizers, queer folks and climate activists focused on China. However, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have both recently warned that such activism is now seriously threatened by the security law.
After all, the security law criminalizes more than just pro-democracy slogans, it criminalizes dissent. The Hong Kong government, having lost all political legitimacy, now relies solely on its state security apparatus to maintain power. In such a scenario, a free society is inherently an existential threat.
McMaster therefore needs to strengthen academic freedom and space for student activism. There should be particular focus on safety for international students who will not be based in Canada for the online Fall 2020 term.
For starters, McMaster should ban the institutional use of Zoom and use more secure platforms instead, such as Teams (which we already pay for). McMaster’s security guidelines for Zoom are, disappointingly, unabashedly ignorant of the fact that not all students will be based in Canada for Fall 2020. For Hong Kong students like myself, we could find ourselves prosecuted for participating in political discussions online if McMaster does not take our safety seriously.
1/4 We are urging @McMasterU and other Ontario universities to STOP using #Zoom for online learning!
Zoom’s facilitation of Chinese gov’t censorship & surveillance makes it a serious threat to student safety.
Please sign our joint petition here! https://t.co/0gEoLi2aQT pic.twitter.com/UezRheUCf3
— McMaster Stands with Hong Kong 😷 (@McMaster_SWHK) July 20, 2020
McMaster also needs to improve safety for student activists. Last May, three students were ticketed while protesting on campus. This kind of harassment creates a chilling effect, as the threat of police violence discourages students from organizing. Instead of deterring student activism, McMaster should be actively facilitating it.
As Hongkongers face down a grim, authoritarian future — one where political persecution, arbitrary arrest and torture in police detention go from the exception to the norm — I feel conflicted.
On one hand, the danger to me and my family is real. In mainland China, the Chinese Communist Party silences dissent by not only targeting activists, but also their families. However, the state wants to silence us due to fear — fear of what we would say if Hong Kong was truly free. For that reason alone, we Hongkongers must keep speaking.
Embracing mad and neurodiversity to celebrate uniqueness
By: Elisa Do, Yvonne Syed and River Valade, Contributors
*DISCLAIMER: ‘Mad’ and ‘madness’ are reclaimed terms by the mad/mentally ill community. These terms were used to oppress them in the past and, just like with any reclaimed slur or term, are not necessarily labels that non-mad individuals should be using freely.*
People often throw around words without thinking twice. Phrases such as “the weather is so bipolar” or “I am so OCD” have become more or less normalized in our society today. But just as we should be mindful of our actions, we should also be mindful of how these particular terms can influence mad and neurodivergent students. Madness has been traditionally defined as a state of mental illness, and neurodivergent is a term used to describe folks with what most people refer to as atypical neurological development.
First coined in the late 1990s by Judy Singer, the term neurodivergent was originally used to describe conditions related to autism. Today, neurodivergence includes many different types of disorders, including autism, bipolar disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and obsessive compulsive disorder. Madness and neurodivergence are terms that are often used together, as there is overlap between the conditions that fall under either label.
However, this overlap cannot be generalized across all folks. Unfortunately, because madness and neurodivergence are often portrayed through a medical lens, the two terms are widely misunderstood. Specifically, at McMaster University, our community has failed time and time again to accurately translate mad and neurodivergent perspectives.
First and foremost, it is important that suffering and distress are not seen as inherent to madness and neurodivergence. The stereotypes and false notions that surround the idea of mad and neurodivergent individuals are often rooted in misinterpretation and ignorance of what it really means to live with these conditions. Madness and neurodivergence is more so a different way of thinking, rather than a state of being broken.
Mad and neurodivergent individuals shouldn’t be seen as though there is something wrong with them that needs to be fixed. In fact, there are individuals that identify as mad and/or neurodivergent with pride. For some of these individuals, their unique conditions are a part of their individuality and a result of the variation in how the human mind works.
Mad and neurodivergent individuals shouldn’t be seen as though there is something wrong with them that needs to be fixed. In fact, there are individuals that identify as mad and/or neurodivergent with pride. For some of these individuals, their unique conditions are a part of their individuality and a result of the variation in how the human mind works.
For instance, not all people with bipolar disorder constantly suffer as a result of their condition. While neurodiversity in and of itself involves diverse experiences, some individuals find the mania experienced with bipolar disorder to be thrilling and inspiring. People have described this state of being to make them feel more productive, more likely to take risks or take on challenges and full of life.
Similarly, sometimes individuals with ADHD are perceived as disorganized and unable to maintain their focus. For this reason, some individuals have shared their personal experiences regarding the inclination for professionals and support services to reach out to these individuals with the goal of “fixing” deficiencies. This can be in the form of pushing for the use of medications, for instance. However, some people with ADHD also experience something called “hyper focus” where they are able to completely zone in on something they are very interested in and are passionate about. Unlike the condition notes, some have reported that they can actually be even more attentive and productive in this state of being.
More well known mental health conditions such as anxiety and depression are widely emphasized and given awareness in society and on campus. Neurodivergent conditions like the ones mentioned previously are often misunderstood due to the lack of understanding surrounding them and the amount of stigma attached to them.
Furthermore, rather than pursue an institutional or community care-based response, such as providing more counsellors at the Student Wellness Centre, the university expects the onus to be on students themselves in addressing their mental health. This is evident through public awareness campaigns such as the “Feed Your Hippo” campaign in 2016, and the current revamped version of that campaign, known as “Ways to Wellness”.
A Silhouette article written by a mad/neurodivergent student in 2016 criticizes the university’s attempt to address mental health concerns among students through the “Feed Your Hippo” campaign.
“According to the campaign, making sure to feed your hippo in these five ways can contribute to improved learning skills and academic success as well as mental wellbeing. Yet despite the supposed importance of these activities, no resources were provided to help students actually self care better — all of the onus is on the student,” wrote the author.
Even in the revamped “Ways to Wellness” Campaign, there are similar themes of individual responsibility for mental wellbeing. If you are unable to do their suggestions, say due to the result of the symptoms of a mental illness, it makes it seem like students have to shoulder the responsibility for their mental illness and its impact on their academic performance and that the university plays no part in this. While staffing and resources for mental health has increased since 2016, it is still not enough to support students, especially mad and neurodivergent students that may need more regular appointments, for example.
Aside from placing individual onus on students for their mental wellbeing, there is no mention of madness or neurodivergence within the conversation of mental health at McMaster. Specifically, madness and neurodivergence are often missing from communications to students. This could give the impression that both of those things are something to be ashamed of and to be kept quiet, as opposed to celebrating neurological differences among students on campus.
Embracing our differences is fundamental to establishing a community of diverse abilities. When we label madness and neurodivergence as a state of crisis, instead of a unique state of mind, we limit those individuals from being able to freely express themselves. When McMaster frames the conversation surrounding mental health from commonly-known perspectives only, we are excluding the experiences of neurodivergent folks. When people choose to throw around the words “bipolar” or “OCD” without consideration for how they leave an impact, our community takes a step back on building a safe and inclusive learning environment.
Mental health is a topic applicable to every single one of us. However, it also applies to each and every one of us in a different way. For McMaster to truly embrace the idea of mental health, we should also remember to involve student perspectives beyond those of the typical norm, and in doing so, reach out to an even greater range of capabilities in our community.
