[adrotate banner="16"]

[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]

By: Sophie Geffros

On Oct. 19, I’m voting for Alex Johnstone and the NDP because for the first time, Canada has a chance to elect a genuinely progressive government.

Liberals and Conservatives are two sides of the same coin. I grew up in southern Ontario, and I watched the federal Liberals and provincial Conservatives shatter our social safety net with their austerity measures. Though they have now traded places, the damage continues. Jean Chretien cut more from social programs than Stephen Harper has ever managed to. Kathleen Wynne plans to sell more public assets than Mike Harris ever could. It is Liberal philosophy to campaign left and govern right.

The Liberals cowardly support Bill C-51, a regressive piece of Islamophobic legislation that crushes civil liberties in the name of national security. Ever since Canadians made their disdain for the bill clear, Justin Trudeau has switched gears and claimed that if elected he will “amend” the legislation. Why sweeten a poisoned pill? Tom Mulcair and the NDP are committed to repealing Harper’s reprehensible legislation. Bill C-51 has been condemned by Amnesty International, the ACLU, the United Nations, Canada’s own national security watchdog, and every legal group in the country.

We can see the similarities between the Liberals and Conservatives at the local level, where both candidates are social conservatives. Filomena Tassi, the Liberal candidate for Hamilton West self-identifies as “pro-life” and has worked with Birthright, an anti-choice organisation that shames and abuses vulnerable pregnant teenage girls. She has described herself as possessing “traditional family values,” a phrasing which is most commonly associated with the worst kind of homophobic politics. She has refused to publicly state how she would vote on an abortion bill in the House of Commons. A candidate who is not willing to stand up for a woman’s right to choose and who supports an organisation which harms the vulnerable has no place in modern society.

The Conservative candidate, Roy Samuels, released a fear-mongering piece of election literature that suggested that an NDP or Liberal government would lead to ISIS murdering Canadians in their beds. He has suggested that the shameful inaction of the Conservative government on Syrian refugees is the result of so-called “security concerns” – the implication being that refugees fleeing danger only wish to come to Canada in order to destroy it from within. A candidate who openly engages in xenophobia and fear mongering likewise has no place on our ballots.

Liberals would have you believe that they will be allies to students, but this has never been the case. University costs in Ontario have increased disproportionally over the last 12 years. Since 1993, the average cost of post-secondary education in Ontario has increased by six thousand dollars.  The Liberal Party has only worsened this by federally cutting provincial education transfers, and provincially by cutting funding for universities. The party is not an ally to students, or to young people, or to anyone who relies on the government for some form of support.

Conversely, the NDP is the reason why Canadians have universal healthcare. We have committed 2.6 billion dollars to implement universal pharmacare. We have committed to ceasing military action in Syria and Iraq and immediately admitting 10,000 Syrian refugees, with an additional 9,000 admitted each year for the next four years. We will implement a federal minimum wage of 15 dollars per hour, and restore federal transfers for social programs, including 40 million dollars to build shelters for victims of abuse, so that nobody will be forced to choose between their personal safety and a roof over their head. We will also permanently remove interest on federal student loans.

On Oct. 19, I will be working to strike a blow against the forces of austerity, racism and opportunism that permeate the Liberal and Conservative campaigns. I am committed to being part of the solution by voting for the first NDP government in Canadian history. Frankly, I can’t afford not to.

[adrotate banner="16"]

[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]

By: Michael Klimuntowski

I don’t blame students for suffering from a bad case of Harper Derangement Syndrome. Heck, if I had gone to the MSU’s Panel Discussion last week undecided and heard Professor MacQueen suggest the Conservative Government staged the Ottawa shooting to pass Bill C-51, I too would vote anybody but Conservative. And if I only relied on The Silhouette as my source of news I’d participate in Professor Clark’s asinine “Hospitality Project” and be regular pen pals with Omar Khadr.

Fortunately, I made my mind up long ago and only sparingly follow our school paper. Let’s discern the radical spin from the facts.

Prime Minister Harper’s legacy is the envy of the world. He has implemented lower consumption taxes, lower income taxes at all brackets, lower small business tax rates, lower corporate tax rates, pension and income splitting for families and seniors, and the lowest federal tax burden on Canadians from every walk of life in nearly 50 years. Furthermore, a 2014 study published by The New York Times stated that “median income in Canada has climbed by 19.7 per cent since 2000.” These are all tangible results felt by our families.

Furthermore, our Conservative government has remained attuned to the fact society is changing. In order to remain competitive in an increasingly globalized economy our government has signed 39 new trade agreements since 2006. This has opened half the world’s economy for business for Canadians.

You may hear claims that Prime Minister Harper doesn’t care about the youth, but this couldn’t be further from the truth. Multiple initiatives taken on by our Prime Minister will directly impact our generation. On the horizon we can expect to benefit from increased contribution limits to TFSAs, an increased first-time RRSP withdrawal, and a sounder Old Age Security and Guaranteed Income Supplement that will be there when our time to exit the workforce comes. Programs such as the Job Grant have earmarked hundreds of millions of dollars to train Canadians for existing or better jobs, allowing for an easier transition into the workforce.

Under Prime Minister Harper we have seen our country ranked one of the happiest (despite “angry Tom”), most reputable, and most admired in the world by groups such as the Reputation Institute, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the United Nations (UN). We have also seen the best job growth since the 2008 recession.

In addition to our domestic prosperity, our government has gained the admiration of our allies through bold foreign policy stances. It was only several months ago when Stephen Harper made headlines across the globe for his comments at the G20 in Australia, telling Vladimir Putin to get out of Ukraine.

Last week’s Munk Debate on foreign policy further highlighted the stark contrast between the Prime Ministerial candidates. When Justin Trudeau was asked how he would deal with Vladimir Putin, the audience burst into laughter before he even answered the question (maybe they expected another hockey-related wisecrack?). Do we really want the divorced-from-reality Liberals confronting the geopolitical challenges of our time?

Over the last nine years Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s leadership has been repeatedly tested by challenges at home, financial turmoil and global conflict. What voters will decide in just a couple weeks is whether our country today faces a more promising future.

As Mulcair’s NDP move to the right, willing to say anything to come to power, and Trudeau’s Liberals move to the left, offering platitudes and cynical “progressivism,” the Harper Conservatives will continue to stand firm on their record and at the helm of our more promising Canada.

[adrotate banner="16"]

[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]

By: Bianca Caramento

I entered university as a die-hard New Democrat. Now I’m the president of the McMaster Young Liberals. What the hell happened? My guess: philosophy.

Studying philosophy involves what most people would call “hairsplitting.” Minute details are endlessly debated. Everyday assumptions are constantly challenged. Basic “truths” are subject to intense scrutiny. For instance, philosophers might ask why we believe that what goes up will indeed come down, just because it has every time before. Simply put, nothing is sacred in the field of philosophy because no belief is taken at face value.

So, how does the Liberal Party emulate this modus operandi and why is that a good thing?

Many people give the Liberals flack for not abiding by a particular ideology. In fact, the party is often referred to as “The Big Rent Tent” because its members hold wildly different political views. There remains one constant, however. As a rule, Liberals place debate, critical discussion, and evidence-based decision making before all else.

Much like the study of philosophy, Liberals challenge and debate just about everything. In NDP circles, chances are you won’t hear anyone question the need to regulate capitalism or provide social assistance. They may debate how they ought to, but it is unlikely they will debate if they ought to. Among Liberals, these policies, along with all others, are subject to critical discussion.

In the Liberal Party, a policy’s merit does not stem from its alignment with party values, but from its ability to reflect existing reality and best address the problems at hand. This method of policy making is content-neutral. It may result in a highly left-leaning platform; it may not. What matters is that the resulting policies have withstood rigorous debate.

Political philosopher, John Stuart Mill, provides convincing justification for this form of policy development in his discussion of free speech. Mill argues that without the freedom to debate and challenge existing views, two things happen. First, we end up with blindly accepted truths that we cannot fully understand nor defend. Mill refers to this as “dead dogma.” Secondly, we miss out on the opportunity to adapt, improve and strengthen our beliefs by virtue of having to defend them with others.

This translates rather seamlessly to Liberal policy development. By staying committed to an ongoing discussion of each policy’s merit and efficacy, no matter what it may be, the Liberal Party seeks to implement the best possible solution, instead of the solution that simply fits an ideological framework. The philosophy nerd in me can’t help but appreciate that.

What happened in Ottawa was a tragedy. Canadians shouldn’t have to compromise the sense of comfort and safety they have worked for decades to create, but that is unfortunately the route this event will take.

For the woefully uninformed, a gunman opened fire on soldiers standing guard at the war memorial on Parliament Hill. There were many rumours flying around on Twitter and social media circles (as well as briefly alluded to in speeches) that this may have been tied to ISIS. Those rumours are terrifying people. And terror is one of the hardest weapons to combat, especially for a country so used to seeing it happen everywhere else.

Canadians can do something to fight back against attacks such as these, and it is the hardest thing to do when panic is surrounding them. Carry on. It seems simple, and maybe a bit insensitive given the casualties that arise from such attacks, but it is the best thing every individual can do.

It may seem callous to some, and others may accuse you of not caring, but if you alter your way of life because of terrorist activity, then they are accomplishing exactly what they set out to do. Terrorists don’t seek individual lives, they seek to change the mentality of the uninvolved. They seek to anger the masses into sinking down to their level. “If we blink, then the terrorists have won,” is one permutation of the widely-bastardized adage, but it holds truth in that the best defence is to not take offence.

By no means should you not engage in discourse with your peers on the topic. Canadians, after all, have the right and responsibility to defend their ideals and lives, but it doesn’t have to be done under a veil of fear. We can fear for the lives of those involved, and hope your friends, families and fellow students in Ottawa come out unscathed, but tomor- row we should wake up eager to take on the world.

It’s a solemn reminder that we enjoy a different standard of life in Canada.

The idea of violent activity happening in such a public place is unheard of, yet it is a grim, daily reality in many parts of the world.

We should use this opportunity to embolden our resolve; to reaffirm the tenets that make our society great.

To be Canadian means to give everyone the benefit of the doubt.

To be Canadian means to assume that everyone else has your best interests in mind, not just you.

To be Canadian means to feel safe around the world, because people from our country have created an international understanding that we are courteous, patient, and tolerant.

To be Canadian means to welcome all citizens with open arms into our seat of government, to see how the sausage gets made.

Don’t let anyone, or any event change what it means to be Canadian.

“Canada will be a strong country when Canadians of all provinces feel at home in all parts of the country, and when they feel that all Canada belongs to them.” -Pierre Trudeau

Arnaud Thia-Nam
The Silhouette

If there is one thing I have learnt from my expatriation, it is to better appreciate my French status. More often than not, I would only be asked about stereotypes earned many years ago by people who, I can only assume, were poor representatives of who and what France is really about. Yes, I shower every day, (most of) the French women I know shave on a more-than-regular basis, and even though I miss the sweet taste of overly priced baguettes, I have now gone one and a half years without shedding a tear about it.

I couldn’t help but notice that those who would try to reduce me to a fixed mental image they have of what a French person should be, never actually understood what being Canadian is all about. And although I cannot blame them for it — after all, one’s identity is sufficiently hard to define — there is always this feeling that something, anything, can be said about it. What makes you more Canadian than me?

Stereotypes often do come from some kind of truth. I would know: France hasn’t won a war single-handedly in eons, and after fifteen months teaching and living amongst Canadians, I can honestly say that your amiability is nothing less than what you are celebrated for. However, I have yet to be proven that Australians aren’t as welcoming as Canadians. Your politeness does not, can not and should not define you. Politeness is a polished façade. It is a social commodity that governs over people’s interactions. When I meet you on campus, even though I do not know you, I will hold the door for you, smile and even answer your greeting. What part of me truly wants to do all of this, and what part only applies a protocol learnt and mastered in response to the need for social recognition? My humanism, for all you know, could very well conceal my hypocrisy.

In my years of studying various subjects, I have found helpful to resort to differences in order to qualify, or better define, a notion. What, then, differentiates Canadians from their neighbours to the South? There is the obvious answer that while your Constitution holds both English and French as official languages, the Americans have none. Or better yet, that you do not have a President, but a Prime Minister, and don’t engage so often in wars on (insert noun here). To be honest, most of us Europeans could not tell apart an Edmontonian from a Detroit-dweller, especially if the latter exhibits the Maple Leaf flag on their backpack.

Canada has so much potential. Its heritage is vivid, its legacy still warm. Your future is yet to be determined, and it can lead you anywhere —from mediocrity to greatness. Yet, I feel something missing in people from my talks with McMaster students: passion. I am genuinely concerned whenever I ask, “what is your passion in life?” and hear some people answer “Twitter and Facebook,” or even worse “I have none.

Each and every one of you should be passionate about shaping the future of your country. Strike while the iron is hot. Commit. You have been given an opportunity to attend a post-secondary institution and gain an outstanding education. Be it in Mechanical Engineering, Life Sciences or Religious Studies, you have the opportunity to make a difference in your field. Use it. Talk to each other, try and understand if the vexation you may feel is only yours, or if more people relate to this discomfort in which case, address it.

I hear your disinterest and drifting away from anything political. Please, in turn, hear this: politics, for better or for worse, will play a part in your life. Politics does not have to be dull, it is not about thinking: “who elected this guy?” while watching Mayor Rob Ford’s latest idiocy on the news. It is about being involved and using the right to take action. Authority does not stem from having been voted in office some time in the past, it is a constant renewal of trust in one person’s ability to act in your best interest. Only you can know what this best interest is. Challenge the authority — it is the only way for it to be legitimate. Without your confidence, authority is nothing but despotic. “Without the freedom to criticize, there is no true praise.

Your country’s destiny is yet to be written. What Canada needs is dedication. And although you should be proud of your country, the way I am proud of mine, what you should do, above anything else, is to give your country and fellow countrymen a reason to be proud of it.

What makes you more Canadian than me? Is it your passport? Is it your way of pronouncing “about” or is it your ability to influence your country’s future? Know where you come from, where you are now, where you want to be headed and perhaps, too, where you do not want to find yourselves. Do not let the United States test its chemical weapons on your soil as they did during the Vietnam War (with the approval of your government), refuse to pay for winter maintenance on a highway that is not even yours to begin with, but still costs you an average of one million dollars per year (Alaska Highway in Yukon). Do not let your 70-year-old neighbour from down the street cast your vote. Do not let others dictate what will become of you, but seize your own authority and assert it.

If you are to be Canadian citizens, do for yourselves what no one else will do for you: stand up.

A Dangerous Method
Starring: Michael Fassbender, Keira Knightley
Directed by: David Cronenberg

4 out of 5

Myles Herod
Entertainment Editor

For those who appreciate David Cronenberg’s work, there comes an undaunted delight in knowing it will break the rules.

His origin is a gory one. Debuting in the 1970s, the Canadian filmmaker cemented his status with an array of body horror pictures, drawing upon societies discomfort for sex, violence, medicine and technology.

However, unlike like many of his contemporaries (Scorsese and Spielberg), Cronenberg saw film as just another means of art – a philosophy that has undoubtedly allowed him to avoid Hollywood constraints and rise as an original, consistently able to attract A-list talent.

So while the grotesque images of Shivers, Videodrome and The Fly are very much part of his lauded past, the new millennium has afforded revision, one that has seen him transition from mind over body.

His newest in four years, A Dangerous Method follows the relationship between the founder of analytic psychology, Carl Jung (Michael Fassbender), and Sabina Spielrein (Keira Knightley), a Russian psychoanalyst who started as his disturbed patient – seething with spastic contortions and frightening hysterics.

Over the course of six years, spanning Switzerland to Vienna, the film incorporates hypothetical notions and factual context, sourcing its screenplay on Jung’s personal letters. Soon, as their bond intensifies, a breach between doctor and patient explodes into a kinky, masochistic romance – finding the aggressive Spielrein enamored with the married Jung.

In contrast, an air of stately intellect arrives with the film’s second relationship, a man who was Jung’s hero, colleague, and finally, rival – Sigmund Freud. Played by Viggo Mortensen, an actor who usually takes the call of stoic outcasts, the role is superbly cast against grain as Croneberg and Mortensen interpret the man as an adroit and sophisticated luminary.

By all accounts, A Dangerous Method is a period piece through and through – draped in decorative attire of the time, elegant locales brimming with cobblestone and carriages. Inside, however, with its darkened corridors, the picture functions as an absorbing verbal thinker, questioning the repression of our immoral thoughts and actions.

Given the advantage of having their work and ideas readily available, the film’s reward comes from observing these historic figures speak and validate them, splendidly embodied by skilled actors.

Through Freud’s concepts, Jung breaks through with Spielrein, having her divulge memories of sexual fervor and incestual abuse, subsequently igniting their passionate affair and her eventual path of psychoanalysis itself.

Even more fascinating, though, is the contact between Freud and Jung – lavish in insight, zingers, and deceit. A good sign of a film is when you want more, rather than less.

While Freud remains calculated, cerebral, a dismayed with clairvoyance, you sense that Jung is the opposite, toying with mysticism and prophecy – but only hinted at.

Influencing their professional divide further is a salacious cameo from Vincent Cassel as Otto Gross, a rouge student of Freud’s, sent to Jung for observation. While there, explicit tales of sexual promiscuity and cocaine indulgence rattle and seduce Jung’s psyche, rationalizing his affair with Spielrein, which, in turn, forms the catalyst of Freud’s fallout. All three bring terrific nuance to their roles, oddly melding into a ménage a trios of verbal sparring.

Restraint is the key word for A Dangerous Method. Opting for dialogue and debauchery over bloodletting – this is a film that tells, but rarely shows, save for a virginal deflowering. Yes, instead of the typical ‘cronenberg-isms’ of exploding heads, the film deals with imploding relationships and desires, still undeniably sealed by the director’s acumen.

For his first historical effort, David Cronenberg unleashes a stimulating treat for the mind, one that makes you ponder and seek the writings of Jung and Freud immediately afterwards. Tell me, for a film, what’s more admirable than that?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hobo With a Shotgun
Directed by: Jason Eisener
Starring: Rutger Hauer, Brian Downey

3 out of 5

Myles Herod
Entertainment Editor

If you are going to make a horror film, go for broke. Indulge in its foreboding dread, accentuated shadows, excessive gore, and immoral integrity. Just don’t cop out. While it is frustrating to see a film cheat its intended audience, there is nothing worse than it ruining an entire genre.

Horror films of the Northern American mold have suffered greatly. Neutered, branded, and left sanitized by the PG 13 rating, an ever-growing conservatism has sought to make these pictures tamer and more profitable to the masses.

Like watching nostalgia played through a dusty VCR, Hobo With a Shotgun arrives seemingly out of the sewers from a parallel 1980s universe.

Delivering a psychotic fervor, it is comparable to the low-budget, grindhouse pictures it obviously pays homage to. But Hobo With a Shotgun does it better, hell-bent on offending anyone and everyone. Depraved visions of exaggerated gore, mass murder and human entrails wash the screen like an abstract painter to their canvas. Hobo will repel and sicken many, but therein lies its vivacity as a true trash pastiche.

Based off a fake trailer made for Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez’s movie Grindhouse, Hobo has been fleshed out by director Jason Eisener without noticeable lag. The story follows a nameless hobo (Rutger Hauer) riding a train into HellTown, a city of poverty and rampant corruption, controlled by a villainous cretin named Drake (Brian Downey).

Alongside his berserk sons, Slick (Gregory Smith) and Ivan (Nick Bateman), they find gratification in breaking bones, setting children on fire, and drowning their noses in ludicrous amounts of cocaine.

While mayhem engulfs the city streets, the hobo, with the help of a gold-hearted hooker (Molly Dunsworth), decides justice comes with a shotgun, one shell at a time.

Cranked to the limit, from acting to camera compositions, the film leaves little time to digest everything that is thrown on screen. It is not enough to be slightly deranged in order to conceive a movie like Hobo With a Shotgun – it takes passion.

A vagrant who disposes of scum with a shotgun is too easy. To succeed on this level of vileness takes a sense of humour, juggling tones of comedy, graphic violence, and the human condition.

Apart from providing the crackling vigilante storyline, writer John Davies instills Hobo with some unexpected sentiment and oddly memorable monologues from the steely-haired Hauer. Consider the scene in which he is taken back to the hooker’s bed to rest after having a knife thrust into him. As he is given a shirt to wear, the emblem of a cartoon bear adorning his chest causes him recall thoughts on the animal, developing a quiet exchange between both characters, not feeling forced, but instead creating depth.

Credit not only Eisener and Davies for this balance, but also the conviction of Hobo’s cast, invigorating characters beyond the point of simple sketches. Rutger Hauer, a superb talent for the past four decades, creates a lived-in being.

The camera catches his worn face and eyes as Eisener smartly uses it to the film’s advantage. Oddly enough, Hauer’s hobo does not thirst for blood intentionally; he only wants money to buy a lawnmower to start his own grass-cutting business.

Hobo With a Shotgun not only pays tribute to 1970s and 1980s exploitation films, it mirrors the direct-to-video heyday verbatim. Encouraging jeers and cheers, stylistic devices are brilliantly supplied to back the excitement by way of a muffled synthesized score and cinematography saturated in Technicolor graininess.

Although a hard 'R' rating comes accordingly, Eisener thinks outside the box to earn it, devising new ways to destroy the human body with absurd mutilations, shot- gunned castrations, and an ice skate to the torso – all done with tongue firmly placed in cheek.

Some may condemn the film’s perpetual bad taste, but to do so would be to miss its bizarre blending of humour and nightmarish visuals. It is not just enough to have a man decapitated with barbed wire; the film takes it further, having a woman in a white bikini soak and gyrate in his blood.

 

Subscribe to our Mailing List

© 2024 The Silhouette. All Rights Reserved. McMaster University's Student Newspaper.
magnifiercrossmenu