By: Grace Kuang
McMaster president Patrick Deane is approaching the end of his second five year-term in his role as president at the university. Over the past nine years, Deane oversaw significant changes at McMaster, such as the addition of new infrastructural developments and interdisciplinary programs at the university.
“It will be extremely difficult to leave McMaster,” said Deane. “I was welcomed here nine years ago and from that first day to this, I have been amazed at the ground-breaking work of our researchers, the commitment of our students to making a difference, and the dedication of the staff, alumni and friends of the university to expanding McMaster’s impact on our community and our world.”
In 2011, Deane penned a letter addressing the McMaster community titled “Forward with Integrity: A Letter to the McMaster Community.” In the letter, Deane emphasized that all of McMaster’s continued success will depend on the cultivation of integrity.
The letter advocated for integrity in four key and interconnected areas: student experience, specifically experiential learning, self-directed learning and interdisciplinary education, research, McMaster’s relationship with the surrounding community and the university’s dedication to internationalization.
“At McMaster, the evidence is that in the category of ‘Enriching Educational Experiences,’ which includes experiential activities, we fare a little better than our sister institutions in Ontario, but not as well as comparable U.S. Peers,” reads part of the letter.
Over the last few years, McMaster has focused heavily on experiential learning, most recently developing an innovation minor for students and partnering with Riipen Networks to create a continuing education project-based learning course.
Another one of Deane’s priorities concerned interdisciplinary education. During Deane’s term, interdisciplinary programs such as the justice, political philosophy and law program and the integrated business and humanities program were created.
In his letter, Deane also stressed his goals for internationalization.
“Internationalization of the university by the presence of foreign students, by faculty involvement in a network of research alliances abroad, by faculty and student travel for research and development purposes, and above all by the adoption of an internationalized perspective in curriculum and program design on our campus: this is not only desirable and appropriate to present circumstances, it is urgently needed,” reads part of the letter.
McMaster’s model for global engagement was solidified in 2017. In addition, last year, tuition was reduced for international PhD students.
As such, it appears that some of Deane’s largest and most controversial initiatives were implemented within the last year.
One of these was the smoke and tobacco-free campus policy, which entailed the university becoming the first one in the province to claim to be 100 per cent spoke-free.
While the policy was praised by some, other students and groups, particularly the McMaster Students Union Student Representative Assembly, cautioned against the policy in an effort to prioritize “considerations of student safety, accessibility and comprehensive access to McMaster University when considering implementation.”
This past year, Deane also helped create and implement McMaster’s free expression guidelines, which evoked mixed reactions from the campus community. The guidelines sought to strike a balance between protecting free speech and the right to protest.
However, a number of students, specifically student activists, expressed concern that the guidelines would stifle dissension and silence marginalized voices.
Deane will be departing for Queen’s University in July 2019. Currently, it is uncertain who will replace Deane as McMaster’s next president.
[spacer height="20px"][thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
By Lilian Obeng
Over the course summer, city council voted in favour of paying public tribute to Hamilton’s LGBTQ+ community. The intersections in front of city hall and McMaster University, Summers Lane at Main Street West and Sterling Street respectively, now don brightly coloured trans and pride flags.
The decision was met with praise across the board. McMaster University specifically seized on the opportunity to integrate the new crosswalks into their overall public-relations strategy — tweets, Facebook posts and even an Instagram post. A bright, simple and public display of support for a marginalized community, such as this, is unlikely to encounter many challenges. But as a queer student who has been on this campus for upwards of three years, these crosswalks are only a bleak reminder of the actual priorities of the university’s administration.
Symbolic gestures, such as these crosswalks, can be important political statements. Given the current political climate, I would be remiss if I did not highlight the need to remain firm and resolute in our solidarity with the marginalized. However, what purpose do rainbow crosswalks serve when the university fails to ensure the safety of its LGBTQ+ community?
https://www.instagram.com/p/Bl_XGqvnAcL/?utm_source=ig_web_button_share_sheet
This was best illustrated by Jordan Peterson’s visit to our campus, and the university’s dismal response to staff, student and faculty outcry. In March 2017, a McMaster Students Union ratified club invited Peterson to campus to speak on ‘political correctness.’ Needless to say, the visit was marred with controversy from its planning stages all the way through to Peterson’s arrival.
Peterson rose to prominence for refusing to use his trans students correct pronouns at the University of Toronto, citing the mere act of respecting students as compelled speech and infringing on his own rights. He has since gone on to accrue a host of misogynistic and racist views. Peterson’s bigoted diatribes have earned him legions of right-wing and white supremacist support as well as personal wealth.
Needless to say, all of this information was presented multiple times to multiple levels of the university. The President’s Advisory Council on Building and Inclusive Community brought students, staff and faculty together to lucidly explain the potential threat Peterson’s visit could pose to already vulnerable people. Our concern was met with silence, and in these times, silence is complicity.
Peterson supporters — supporters that had absolutely no affiliation with McMaster or the broader Hamilton community, physically assaulted student protesters. Members of PACBIC faced weeks of harassment both in-person and online from Peterson’s fans. The university has made little to no attempt to ameliorate this situation. The only action that has been taken were the creation of guidelines for event planners — guidelines that demonstrate that the university’s understanding of the free speech debate is informed entirely by right-wing propaganda and not the social realities that are present on our campus.
The fact remains that if our struggles cannot be moulded or integrated into the existing public relations strategy of the university, our legitimate concerns fall by the wayside. Our pointed policy solutions, our calm consultations, and even our protests are either tokenized, such as with these crosswalks, or minimized and placed aside. The LGBTQ+ community deserves more than this spectacle.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]
By: Hess Sahlollbey
Over the past week, the upcoming slate of adaptations based on DC Comics properties has been turbulent, to say the least.
For instance, Sandman, based on Neil Gaiman’s comic-book series lost Joseph Gordon-Levitt, one of the driving forces behind it, further curtailing the project. On the opposite end of the spectrum is Preacher, which is slated to debut this May with Seth Rogen as an executive producer and starring Dominic Cooper.
Hidden in all of this news was the fact that Scalped, also from DC, has been picked up for a pilot by WGN. While it’s not certain that it’ll become a series, I couldn’t help but revisit the comic-book series in anticipation.
Written by Jason Aaron and illustrated by R. M. Guéra, Scalped is a crime comic book series published by Vertigo Comics. Originally published in 2007, the series ended after 60 issues in 2012. Along the way, guest artists jumped on to elevate the ongoing quality of the series. Scalped has been collected into ten trade paperbacks and is also currently being collected as five deluxe hardcovers. So far, three of these books have been released with numbers four and five planned for April and August respectively.
The series, while fictional, is set in the present and is inspired by elements of Native American history. Specifically, story elements are derived from the American Indian movement and the Red Power movement of the 1970’s. Set in South Dakota, Scalped focuses on the Oglala Lakota inhabitants of the fictional Prairie Rose Indian Reservation. Our main protagonist, Dashiell “Dash” Bad Horse ran away from the “Rez” 15 years ago in search of something better. Now he’s returned home to find that nothing much has changed save for a new casino and a once-proud people overcome by drugs and organized crime. While his motivation for returning to the reservation is unknown at first, he soon finds himself working for Chief Lincoln Red Crow as a member of the Tribal Police. Unfortunately for Dash, neither his mother nor his old friends are happy to see him return. Little does anyone know that Dash’s real reason for returning is that he is actually an undercover FBI agent, tasked with taking down the corrupted officials.
With a premise as unique as that, it’s easy to see why a television network would want to adapt the comic. This is a series that wasn’t afraid to explore some pretty dark themes. Some of those explored themes include rampant poverty, organized crime, drug addiction and alcoholism, local politics and the preservation of their cultural identity. This series was never afraid to shine a light on a neglected part of society that is rarely depicted in the mass media.
Adding a neo-western setting, the series breaks certain cultural molds and could easily be seen as a contemporary western à la Breaking Bad due to its overall aesthetic. Much like western films, the idea of progress always hangs on the horizon. In the case of Scalped however, it’s the delicate lack of progress and stagnation on the “Rez” that makes the characters so interesting. The characterization is thus the strongest force behind this story. It’s fascinating to see the evolution that these characters go through over the span of the story. All of the characters feel organic and their problems and turmoil’s are captivating and depressing. While Dash Bad Horse may have a dark and questionable moral compass, Scalped showed us just how far a hero can fall from grace and still have the reader rooting for them.
The level of realism in the series, combined with the depiction of Native American society easily makes Jason Aaron comparable to Honoré de Balzac. Adding to that, R.M. Guéra complements the series perfectly with his gritty, dirty art. While I didn’t enjoy it at first, it quickly grew on me as an acquired taste and was greatly elevated by the change of colorist from Lee Loughride to Giulia Brusco.
Casting for this series will be key, as Scalped will hopefully be a chance for Native American actors to get some prime time roles. Neither of Scalped’s creators are Indigenous and there has been some controversy in the past over how Indigenous people and their issues were depicted and treated over the course of the series. We can only aspire however that this project won’t turn out like Adam Sandler’s recent film The Ridiculous 6 where Native actors, actresses and a cultural advisor left the set in protest of the depiction of their culture. Here’s hoping that the TV adaptation will do this critically acclaimed comicbook series justice.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
[adrotate banner="16"]
[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]
The other day I came to your store to buy a seven-dollar venti low fat extra whip salted caramel mocha with coconut milk, and the biggest outrage wasn’t the price or your misspelling of my name again, but rather the fact that your cup was just plain red. I couldn’t believe it. #RedCupGate is real.
I mean, I forgot what your cups looked like in past years (I’m pretty sure Jesus on the cross was on the cup last year?), but this is definitely an outrage. I can’t believe that you are against Christmas. What did Santa ever do to you? By the way, you sure as hell ain’t getting a gift from him this year (just like every past year, but that’s cause you’ve always been a bad boy).
These plain red cups are so offensive. Look at it. It’s just red. The colour of blood. It doesn’t matter that you have gift cards that say “Merry Christmas,” Christmas tree ornaments, Christmas CDs, a Christmas blend, and snowman cookies. How dare you say “Happy Holidays” to me? You must say “Merry Christmas.” I don’t care about other holidays. The Jews can get in line. Hanukkah can wait, because Christmas was here first.
There are just a few of us on the #MerryChristmasStarbucks bandwagon right now, so my hope is that this letter will go viral and all the Christians around the land will rally to the cause started by Joshua Feuerstein (praise be). Most of them right now are being good Christians, spreading their faith, and being nice contributing members of society. But it’d be better if they all just dropped what they’re doing and boycott a cup. Thankfully, a lot of people out there are extrapolating the beliefs of my small dissenting group of extreme fanatics to be representative of all Christians, which makes things easier for us.
Christians, if you’re reading this, the plan is to go to Starbucks, pay them money so you can get a drink that says Merry Christmas on it, and then post it on social media so that everyone can see it. We need everyone to be thinking of Starbucks and joining us in buying more drinks from this hellhole. Only then will they learn their lesson.
Alternatively, we can do what Donald Trump said, and boycott Starbucks. Then we can take all the money saved from not buying your drinks to build a wall to push back those dirty Mexicans.
Taking a page from Joshua, I’m also going to exercise the second amendment and bring my gun to Starbucks the next time I come. In fact, I’m heading to Wal-Mart right after this. Wait. We’re in Canada. Damn it. Screw this place and its polar bears.
This isn’t over you Satan worshipping bastards.
Praise God,
The Best Christians
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
[adrotate banner="16"]
[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]
By: Emily Smith
Coming out as a queer woman was a political experience for me. Intrinsically, our personal identities and experiences are political. When we are able to share our stories and create community, we come together to create social change. Recognizing this, I think it’s time to come out again in a very different way.
In July of 2010, I exercised my legal and inherent human right to choose and had an abortion. I was in my first trimester of pregnancy and my abortion took place around nine weeks. At the time I was in my first long-term relationship, which was both emotionally abusive and sexually coercive. I was struggling significantly with my mental health. My abortion was a painful decision in an unfortunate situation. It is something I have struggled with, though never regretted, for the past five and a half years.
In my four years at McMaster I’ve seen an increasing presence of pro-life propaganda on campus. Although I strongly believe in the right everyone has to an opinion, and by no means seek to eradicate groups on campus, I do think it’s important to recognize the inaccuracies and frankly emotionally manipulative tactics being used to stigmatize and marginalize the people in our community who have had abortions.
Recently I’ve seen some chalk writing on campus tarmac. One stated “your mother chose life.” I don’t know if my mother is pro-life, pro-choice, or somewhere in between, but I do know that I was a pregnancy that was planned, wanted, and prepared for. Had I been a pregnancy that was unwanted or unplanned would my mother have chosen differently? Would it have mattered? Her path would have been different, as would those around her. This tactic is frequently harnessed by pro-life groups and does not reflect the reality of choosing to have children. Pro-choice people have children on a regular basis, choosing choice.
Another quote stated that “the first inalienable human right is to life.” Many justice groups are rightfully up in arms from the moment a child is born about bodily autonomy. We protest the circumcision, cosmetic or surgical alteration, and piercing of infants. In all of these situations, we recognize that a basic human right all children should have is the right to choose what they will do with their bodies, and modifications should only be made when the individual is capable of making that decision. Yet somehow the importance of bodily autonomy diminishes when we start talking about abortion. When we allow women the ability to pierce their own ears but not to terminate a pregnancy, what are we telling women? That their bodies are their own but only to an extent. Women’s bodies are not public property. They are not walking incubators, and no one should have a say in what one person does with their own body.
Finally, a chalk message said “adoption is a loving alternative.” Adoption is a beautiful option for women who choose to carry their pregnancies but do not want to parent children, but it is an alternative to parenthood, not pregnancy. When we talk about adoption in the context of a substitute for abortion, adoption becomes a weapon in a misogynistic political agenda against women. Adoption should not be disrespected and used as a guilt tactic or presented a last ditch effort against abortion.
Every moment that this pro-life propaganda exists on our campus, more and more people are shamed, silenced and provided with false and manipulative information. Perhaps if accurate quotes were shared on sidewalks, accurate signs displayed in our student centre, or accurate pamphlets handed out on corners, we might see a marked change in how women who have had abortions navigate their university experience. If well-intentioned and productive information was being disseminated on campus our pro-life organizations would cease to exist.
When these quotes are publicly displayed the intention is clear. To silence, shame, and deny women spaces to talk openly about their abortions. When we fail to talk about abortion as a valuable and viable option for an unwanted or unplanned pregnancy we force women to see themselves as having shameful secrets. Most people can imagine what it’s like to carry with you a secret you cannot share without fear of disgust, rejection, or humiliation. There is a simple fix to this one: accept abortions.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]
Fabricating fictional stories to pass off as news is simply unacceptable for serious journalism. It diminishes the credibility of the media, it spits in the face of anyone affected by these events, and it makes fools of the public.
NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams is under investigation for claiming he was in a helicopter that had been hit with a rocket-propelled grenade in Iraq in 2003. Williams recently admitted he was never on the attacked helicopter. The military news site called Stars and Stripes also brought forward a claim from one of the crew members on his helicopter that they were an hour behind the one that was actually attacked. Williams’ response was, “and that’s the first I’ve heard of that. I did not think we were in trail by that far.”
Witnesses have also come forward stating that his coverage of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 contained inaccurate or fabricated stories, including a story about gangs infiltrating the Ritz-Carlton he was staying at. The story goes that he and the NBC members he was with were all trapped in the hotel by armed gangs brandishing guns and terrorizing guests. He made a break for it to make it outside the hotel, where a gang was ready to take the NBC vehicle they came in. Louisiana National Guardsman then appeared to confront the gang, and ensured that the NBC members could enter their vehicle and escape.
There are inconsistencies with this told story in two interviews between Williams and two separate authors named Douglas Brinkley and Judith Sylvester. The New Orleans Times-Picayune reported that Williams “rushed to the scene only to find that although a group of men had tried to enter the hotel, they weren’t armed and were easily turned back by police.” Other witnesses also claim there were no gangs at all.
There are also investigations into his reporting of events in the Lebanon-Israel 2006 war, including claims that Hezbollah rockets exploded under his helicopter. Williams has told varying versions of this story through the years with inconsistencies pertaining to where the rockets were seen. His written blog for NBC News makes no mention of rockets.
The public deserves the truth from their news broadcasts. I don’t know whether to be impressed that Williams was able to deceive his viewers for this long without being caught or disgusted that it took this long to find out. It is entirely possible that Williams remains employed after these investigations. After all, he is a large part of their ratings as there is an appeal in his confident demeanour and tone delivering stories. He continues to receive support from fans old and young across his lengthy career in the public eye.
This is unacceptable. We must not stand for liars delivering our news. We should demand our public figures tell facts instead of fiction, truths instead of falsehoods, and realities instead of fantasies. While admitting to the falsified Iraq story is admirable in its own way, the repercussions must be strong enough to demonstrate the value of journalistic integrity over ratings. Any credibility that NBC wishes to salvage rides on the decision to keep Brian Williams on their cast. I fear that the wrong decision will be made.
[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]
Update: NBC has announced that Brian Williams will be suspended without pay for six months. Lester Holt will continue to substitute anchor in his stead. "By his actions, Brian Williams has jeopardized the trust millions of Americans place in NBC News," NBC Universal Chief Executive Steve Burke said in a network statement. “His actions are inexcusable and this suspension is severe and appropriate.”
By: Anthony Manrique
The recent news surrounding Kim Kardashian’s naked photo shoot for Paper Magazine stirred up a huge buzz on the Internet. Apparently the media is so obsessed with her butt that Kim made history by “breaking the internet.” Various media outlets glorified her butt in a way that almost seems like sexual fetishism. It doesn’t make sense that the media is spending so much time talking about a person’s butt for the sole reason of it being big.
Does it even matter? All I know is that it’s just another publicity stunt.
I remember back when Miley Cyrus stirred up controversy during the 2013 MTV Video Music Awards with her antics like twerking and playing with a foam finger. At the time, she did manage to get a lot of attention for her actions, mostly criticizing her for doing such inappropriate acts on stage. A year later, she returned to the 2014 VMAs and yet again turned heads on stage when she sent a homeless young man to accept her award, in order to raise awareness for youth homelessness.
Surprisingly, she received a lot of praise from the press and the audience, with Miley looking like she did it out of sympathy for the poor guy. It seemed like everyone forgot about the events from the previous year, and that this was a chance for Miley to redeem herself. All I could feel back then was sorry for the homeless teen, because it looked like he just used up his fifteen minutes of fame.
Miley trying to highlight a good cause at the VMAs was a personal excuse to receive praise and attention from everyone who once thought of her as scandalous, and the homeless teen was just a tool to help her achieve this goal. Later on, Miley’s homeless VMA date was sentenced to six months in jail for violating probation. As for Miley, well, she’s still in L.A. doing whatever she’s supposed to be doing.
While she definitely did raise awareness for homeless youth, the way she went about it seemed more of a publicity stunt than an actual commitment. It was similar to the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge videos people made to seek attention and “raise awareness,” instead of actually donating.
For quite some time now, I’ve noticed that the media and its audience are unaware of the attention they are giving to publicity stunts that are utterly irrelevant and pretentious. Trying to understand why and what makes them interesting puzzles me. It never made sense how even the most meager of things, such as a picture of someone’s butt or using a good cause to save face, can be newsworthy.
The only celebrities who are worthy of attention are the ones that take an active role on issues that are particularly relevant. Leonardo DiCaprio and Emma Watson are some of the few celebrities who deserve praise for what they’re doing, especially for their respective stances on climate change and feminism.
No self-respecting celebrity would do a publicity stunt to gain more fame or respect. If our society keeps paying attention to celebrities who “gain fame by being famous,” what will become of those who actually deserve it?
Photo Credit: Christopher Polk
By: Imaiya Ravichandran
I, and I’m sure many of you as well (at least, I hope), visit Youtube at least once a day. Whether it is to watch the latest viral video, or to indulge in the obligatory daily dose of cute kitten videos, over one billion unique users fall victim to the endless abyss of funny, intriguing, and flat out weird content conveniently catalogued on this website. Standing alongside giant television and movie conglomerates, it is somewhat surprising that this start-up, rooted in humble beginnings above a Japanese restaurant in California, managed to become one of the world’s primary sources of entertainment. Of course, this incredible feat can be attributed to the accessibility and flexibility of the Internet, which most people prefer to the rigidity of TV and movie schedules. However, now that TV and movies are becoming increasingly available online, what else can explain Youtube’s continued success? Perhaps the answer lies in the modern “Youtube celebrity” whose content provides an inimitable degree of intimacy with its viewers.
There are several reasons why one would favour the approachable, flawed Youtuber instead of the inhumanly attractive celebrity. Though I shamelessly admire George Clooney in all his pepper-hair glory on screen, or hysterically shriek at the TV whenever Queen Bey performs, I am aware that these personalities are performing for legions of devoted fans. There is no true sense of connection between them and myself, although I often trick myself into believing otherwise (in a superficial sense…I’m not a stalker, guys). However, when interacting with a Youtube celebrity, this buffer is all but completely eradicated. Their content is so personal and genuine that you lose sight of the other hundreds of thousands of subscribers who are also closely bonding with the Youtuber in question. The reverence once felt towards the distant celebrity is now replaced with a new type of admiration, one that is summed up by the phrase: “they’re just like us!”
But they’re not just like us. In addition to surprisingly hefty salaries, Youtube celebrities possess a type of clout that many would argue is more powerful than that of their Hollywood celebrity counterparts. It stems from their uniquely close relationship with their viewers. While their following may not be as large as a traditional celebrity’s, the reach that they do have is much more influential. We put Youtubers on a pedestal, trusting them as we would a dear friend.
And so, it was understandably appalling for many Youtube audiences when news broke in March 2014 that two beloved British Youtubers, Tom Milsom and Alex Day, had been accused of sexual misconduct with multiple viewers.
In Milsom’s case, Tumblr user Olga accused him of emotionally and sexually abusing her throughout the course of their relationship; at the time of their courtship, she was only 15 and he was 21. Day’s accusers, eight in total, provided various accounts of sordid experiences with the popular vlogger, with the two most harrowing being of him coercing women to sleep with him – by definition, him engaging in rape. Milsom and Day were the second and third artists signed to the Youtube-centric record label DFTBA to be accused of some sort of sexual misconduct. Only a month earlier, former label-mate Mike Lombardo was sentenced to five years in jail for possession of child pornography.
I had been subscribed to Alex Day, or “nerimon” as he is known on Youtube, since I was 13 years old. As a staunch feminist, to hear of him and his friend’s atrocious behavior was certainly infuriating and disgusting, but first and foremost it was disappointing. It was profoundly different than if an elusive, unattainable celebrity had committed a crime. Here was a figure that I had looked up to, who I had laughed with, whose struggles and triumphs it felt like I had shared in. I was not alone in my attachment to Alex, nor in the blow that followed when my trust in him was breached. The allegations against Alex originated as blog posts on Tumblr. The diary-esque nature of the posts lent themselves to a cathartic release of his victims’ frustrations and disturbing tales of how they too had once admired Alex, only to have him use his position of power in an unmistakably inappropriate fashion.
The scandal elicited an impassioned response from the Youtube community. Response videos spread like wildfire, DFTBA swiftly dropped Day and Milsom from their roster, and a general call was made for increased discourse about the rampant presence of sexual abuse, sexism, and abuses of power in the Youtube community. The trope of an authoritative figure manipulating a less powerful victim is deeply embedded within the mores of the entertainment industry. However, it is especially pernicious in the Youtube context because it is a space in which large masses of potential victims feel safe with and close to their potential manipulators.
A small number of critics suggest that audience members guard themselves more warily against famous Youtubers. To always remember that there is a computer screen separating you and that charming British vlogger, and that you can never know anything more than what is depicted in a mere three minute long video. But I resent this suggestion. It goes without saying that it is important to be safe on the internet. It is equally important (and obvious) that one should not blindly trust a celebrity. However, to encourage barriers and distance between viewers and Youtubers would be to erode the very essence of openness upon which the Youtube community is built. If we teach viewers to not grow attached to a Youtuber, should they also not wear short skirts when walking along a street? Or have a drink before going out? Hopefully, you can understand the preposterous nature of these recommendations. They unjustly shift the onus from the Youtubers, who should be cognizant of their powerful positions and not exploit them, to the audience.
I bring all this up because recently, another Youtuber named Sam Pepper has come under fire for sexual misconduct, which he brazenly displays in multiple of his videos. Moreover, after a seven-month hiatus, Alex Day returned to Youtube with a video entitled “The Past”, in which he embarks on a half-hour tangent detailing a slew of feeble excuses “defending” his past conduct. I’m comforted that a sizeable portion of comments express contempt towards both Sam and Alex’s actions, adjudicating that sexual abuse and its perpetrators have no place in the Youtube community. However, the remaining reactions form a considerably large group who claim solidarity with the ostracized Youtubers. They suggest that “Youtube give them a second chance.” I wonder why these people feel this way. Most do not dispute the accuracy of the allegations against the Youtubers, nor do they challenge the severity of their crimes. Rather, they harken back to videos of the past, ones that depict their fallen heroes in all their charming, charismatic glory. And then, I realize that they too are victims, in some sense, of the intoxicating Youtube celebrity.
The story of Jian Ghomeshi and his lawsuit against the CBC for wrongful firing will unravel itself accordingly. It will, undoubtedly, be the top media story for the weeks that follow.
On Sunday, when the CBC announced that it was ending its relationship with Jian Ghomeshi, it was revealed that the famous Q host had hired Navigator, one of Canada’s leading “high-stakes” public relations firms.
If it wasn’t clear before, the public now knew that honest or not, Ghomeshi’s Facebook status about his private sex life was a well-crafted PR technique. Ghomeshi has been a radio host since 2002 and running Q since 2007. Media strategy isn’t a foreign concept to him; he has used it to his advantage before, and he can use it again.
It is important that Ghomeshi fans don’t blindly follow his words as they might be inclined to. This is particularly tough in situations like Ghomeshi’s, where the man at the heart of the scandal is a famous radio broadcaster, known for facilitating societal debate.
A closer look at Ghomeshi’s status finds many problematic parts – those, too, clearly crafted with a purpose. In it, he calls his ex “jilted,” painting her as a crazy person who was so angry that he broke up with her that she wanted to defame him by “corroborating” with two other women.
This line worked on quite a few people; many comments on Ghomeshi’s post sound like one bro sympathizing with the other over the sexist myth of the crazy girlfriend.
This is not to say whether Ghomeshi is guilty or not. It’s the language he used to describe his ex, the way he decided to paint her character that makes the status seem disingenuous to anyone with some respect for women.
Then he goes on to talk about how consensual his relationship with these women was.
Knowing the definition of the word consent doesn’t mean much more than that. This controversy will hopefully spark a larger debate about consent, one that goes deeper than what we’ve limited ourselves to so far. Our conversations around sexual assault have been about rape on campuses, about no meaning no, or yes meaning yes, if you live in the more progressive parts of North America.
But we need to delve deeper than that.
In the case of Ghomeshi, whether he is guilty or not, there is a lot to be said about the complexities around consent. The women that the Toronto Star interviewed who accused Ghomeshi of sexual assault expressed concern that their consent to one thing over phone or text would be misinterpreted as consent to other, unwanted and violent acts. In this context, a “yes” at some point in their conversations didn’t mean yes to everything, or anything. What the public needs to understand, and what I hope mainstream media will emphasize in future articles is that consent is not transferable, nor is it a one-time deal. Consent is an on-going process that has to make both partners feel comfortable and heard.
Just because Ghomeshi knows when to use the word to incite the most sympathy from his followers doesn’t mean that he knows how to practice it properly, or that he does so at all.
On Tuesday, Lights, a well-known musician from Toronto, came out in support of Ghomeshi, stating that he has been her creative confidante and manager throughout her career. She said that he was someone who preached female empowerment to her, and therefore cannot be someone who would disrespect women in such a gross, offensive way.
This is a harmful and hasty generalization to make. It assumes that progressive people, men or women, cannot possibly be abusive. This sort of claim trivializes the experiences of anyone who has been abused by a partner who identifies as a feminist. It is unfortunate that these messages are being spread by public figures, but on the other side of the spectrum there have been celebrities like Owen Pallett who have refused to take Ghomeshi’s words at face value.
Ultimately, the radio host’s use of consent doesn’t necessarily mean that he didn’t abuse these women, and neither does his apparent history of support for female artists. Conversations like these are critical and how we approach them will determine how safe people feel opening up about their experiences with sexual and domestic abuse. Ghomeshi should not receive any special privileges because he has a faithful fan base, or because he can hire a company that knows how to shift blame away from their clients.
The controversy should be followed with a critical and open mind. Regardless of whether Ghomeshi is guilty of sexual assault, let’s not cause any more harm to survivors of abuse along the way. We can start by calling out Ghomeshi and his PR firm on their sexist and victim-blaming language.
By: Ben Robinson
In the wake of last week’s shooting on Parliament Hill it is important to try and understand what really motivated the events in order to avoid them in the future.
At first, with the limited information available, there was speculation that it must be a terrorist attack, perhaps somehow associated with ISIL. Whenever a shooting like this happens, there is a scramble in the media to try and learn as much about the people involved as possible.
But the details that are reported are not always innocuous as they seem. Michael Zehef-Bibeau, the man who shot Cpl. Nathan Cirillo, was immediately connected with a mosque that he attended three years ago. If it had been reported that he went to a certain church three years ago would that have been deemed relevant to print?
It was also reported that Zehef-Bibeau applied for a Libyan passport, not so subtly implying a connection to North Africa. It is strange that something as mundane as a passport application would be deemed newsworthy when the same article states that Michael Zehef-Bibeau's family is from Libya and that he was hoping to visit them. The limited details the press chose to focus on about Zehef-Bibeau being tied to Libya and Islam seem to be more distracting than edifying. Thus, this all too familiar characterization of “the shooter” directs readers toward an assumption that this was yet another terrorist attack by a Muslim extremist with ties to North Africa.
To explain this away with the palatable yet highly reductive motive of terrorism may ease the dissonance for those struggling to comprehend how this could happen to the “true North strong and free.” But it also leaves individuals feeling powerless to do anything. The spectre of terrorism often seems to loom too large for people to do anything other than be angry.
A recent CBC report confirmed that the man behind the shooting, Michael Zehef-Bibeau, had been arrested multiple times and on multiple occasions came forward to police asking to be taken into custody. In one instance he went as far as telling police “I wanted to come to jail so I could clean up,” and "if you release me what's going to happen again? Probably the same loop and I'm going to be right back here again.” This man was self-aware enough to know that he posed a risk to others in his current state and so for Prime Minister Stephen Harper to come forward and say “our laws and police powers need to be strengthened in the area of surveillance, detention and arrest” in response to the shootings misses the point.
There was no need for surveillance or detection in this case; Zehef-Bibeau was forthright about the support he needed from various government agencies, and he was denied. The importance of mental health funding is more apparent than ever as we now know the consequences of neglecting it. This issue was brought literally to the steps of Parliament Hill, right outside of Stephen Harper’s door. Hopefully the real story will not be drowned out amidst the cries of terrorism.
Terrorism necessitates a greater cause, something for the public to be scared of. Who is to be feared in this situation? This was not terrorism. This was a tragedy that could have been avoided. Let's put away the calls for increased police presence and begin the preventative mental health work that so clearly needs to be done. Not one, but two men died on Parliament Hill last week, and both deaths could have been avoided.
