Photos by Matty Flader / Photo Reporter

Recently, Hamilton has seen an influx of craft breweries establishing themselves around the city. With craft beer on the rise, MERIT Brewing Company is one of the industry leaders, brewing locally in their space on 107 James St. North. 

Co-founder of MERIT and McMaster alumnus, Tej Sandhu, wanted to create a communal, welcoming space by combining a tap room, brewery, kitchen and bottle shop. 

“Really what we hope it is, is a space for community around [MERIT]. So much of what we built this place to be is to facilitate conversation, facilitate our community, and facilitate a great experience for people around these things that we love producing . . . in a space that is easy to get to, that is accessible, that’s inclusive, that is open and that is friendly and warm. Those are things that we had as our goal for what we wanted the space to be but for what we keep as our goals for everything we do as well,” said Sandhu.

MERIT Brewing Company on James Street North.

On Oct. 1, the Ontario Craft Brewers, a membership trade association that represents local breweries in Ontario, participated in a government roundtable in the Niagara region. The OCB represents the voices of approximately 30 per cent of craft breweries around Ontario

“We participated in the roundtable to provide our perspective and make sure the voice of local brewers is heard on potential changes to the alcohol system, which are critical to our future growth and success,” said the OCB via their Twitter account

(1/2) The Ontario Government is currently consulting on potential reforms to Ontario’s beverage alcohol sector. As Niagara is home to many craft producers, the govt hosted a series of roundtables this weekend w/ reps from craft wineries, distillers, cideries, and breweries.

— Ontario Craft Brewers (@OntCraftBrewers) September 29, 2019

(2/2) We participated in the roundtable to provide our perspective and make sure the voice of local brewers is heard on potential changes to the alcohol system, which are critical to our future growth and success.

— Ontario Craft Brewers (@OntCraftBrewers) September 29, 2019

The association also shared photos with Sam Oosterhoff, a Progressive Conservative member of provincial parliament from the Niagara-West riding. Oosterhoff has claimed that he wants to remove abortion rights. Additionally, he has actively opposed Bill 128 — the All Families Are Equal act, a piece of legislation that removes the words "mother" and "father" in favour of gender-neutral terms allowing all parents to be treated equally. He continues to defend his socio-political beliefs when confronted by the media. The tweets promoting Oosterhoff with the OCB were taken down after being posted.

The original tweets posted by Ontario Craft Brewers following an event with Sam Oosterhoof and Ontario breweries. This tweet has since been removed off of the OCB Twitter account.

 

Ontario Craft Brewers tweeted this photo with Sam Oosterhoff at a roundtable event. The photo has since been removed off of the OCB Twitter account.

Although not an OCB member, MERIT Brewing Company released a statement about the OCB’s event via their Facebook page on Oct. 1. 

“MERIT was not part of this discussion, nor are we members of the OCB, but we would like to say that we are unequivocally against the views of MPP Oosterhoff and outraged over the OCB’s decision to promote their work with him as some sort of gain for the industry or brushed off as part of their responsibility to work with the government,” said the statement.

MERIT turned their attention to the community that was being affected by the OCB’s statement.  The team reflected on their values of creating a welcoming, diverse space but found that the industry association that indirectly represents them was doing the opposite.

“While working together with the government is a good thing — when there's someone whose beliefs, outside of beer . . . are directly attacking not only owners of the businesses but staff members, people who are our guests and our consumers, that really strikes a chord as something that . . . the OCB did without thinking [about] what the implications are,” said Sandhu. “. . . We were angry because even if you're not an OCB member, the OCB indirectly represents our industry. They are the only association that we have. Their stance [on] promotion and their communication is reflective of our entire industry in Ontario.”

The OCB has issued an apology on Twitter

pic.twitter.com/g7kOYq48PY

— Ontario Craft Brewers (@OntCraftBrewers) October 1, 2019

Sandhu emphasized that MERIT, and all members of the OCB, had the responsibility to hold higher organizations accountable for their actions. 

While MERIT had voiced their concerns on an industry level, Sandhu also reflected on local level concerns in Hamilton. 

On Oct. 1, as a part of Hamilton’s “Fast 40” initiative, local and fast-growing businesses were recognized for contributing to the city’s economic development. MERIT Brewing Company was one business amongst many to receive the award given by mayor Fred Eisenberger.  In light of tensions between Eisenberger and the LGBTQA2S+ community, while MERIT claimed their reward, they left shortly before a photo opportunity with Eisenberger.

Merit Brewing Company has recently been recognized by the City of Hamilton for contributing to the city’s economic development. 

“There has been a ton of conversation internally about the handling of the LGBT community, the mayor’s response to the concerns that have been raised and the threat to our staff that are part of the community as well. [Our] action wasn’t meant to be a massive ‘F-U’ to the mayor, it was a way we could ask for accountability. It was something that was small that we thought would have, at the very least, an impact on showing our staff and our guests that we are standing up for them and not standing with someone who isn’t protecting them,” said Sandhu.

MERIT Brewing Company does not see themselves as a voice for marginalized communities, but rather as a microphone that allows their voices be heard. MERIT felt that their action was a step towards greater accountability among local leaders.

Regardless, you don't take a picture of brewery owners smiling and raising a glass with this guy. It's horrible PR. pic.twitter.com/W7njlY6jMu

— Robin LeBlanc, from work (@TheThirstyWench) September 30, 2019

Eisenberger has asked to sit down and meet with MERIT. While the company did not confirm a meeting before this article was released, Sandhu hopes to open a door for members of the community to start communicating with the mayor.

“Conversation is not enough; action needs to follow a conversation . . . You still need to have conversations to get to action . . . We’re trying to do our part. It’s inherent and embedded in what MERIT’s about, from why we are called “MERIT” to what we strive to do here and have be our experience. This is something that we feel is not only our responsibility, it’s our privilege to be able to speak out on these things and it’s something that we are doing because we’re passionate about it,” said Sandu.

Local businesses like MERIT Brewing Company are lending their voice to members of marginalized communities in hopes of not only starting a conversation but also demanding action. 

The Silhouette has reached out via email to Ontario Craft Brewers and the office of MPP Sam Oosterhoff for comment; however, we have not received a response.

 

[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]

Photo c/o Kyle West

By Nicholas Marshall, Contributor

This article has been edited as of Oct. 5, 2019

In February 2019, the McMaster Muslims for Peace and Justice and the Muslim Students Association hosted an event called “The Genocide of Uyghur Muslims — Talk by Uyghur Survivor”. During this event, activist Rukiye Turdush spoke about the treatment of Uyghur Muslims in Western China.

MMPJ co-presidents Batool and Elaaf, who requested to have their last names omitted from this article, explained that the event was meant to be a vehicle through which Turdush could share her experiences. Batool added that the event was also meant to raise awareness for the severe human rights abuses happening against Muslims in China.

The Turdush event came just a few months after reports were published of “re-education camps” in the Xinjiang region of north-western China, where Uyghur Muslims were being forced to abandon their religion and face abuse as detainees. In addition to reports of Mosque demolitions, the camps stand as a record of the Chinese Communist Party’s resistance against  heterodox opinions in China. 

On Feb. 13, McMaster’s Chinese Students and Scholars Association made a public statement accusing Turdush of inciting national hatred, stating that MACCSSA had contacted the Chinese consulate in Toronto about Turdush’s speech. Having anticipated the subject matter of the Turdush event, a group of Chinese students at McMaster created a group on the social media app WeChat specifically for the purpose of opposing the event. Student protestors filmed and protested against the Turdush event. Turdush herself was harassed. 

International CSSA organizations have either openly admitted or been proven to be affiliated with the Chinese Communist Party. Based on information that CSSAs at universities around the world have publicly released, the Chinese government has provided funding for individual CSSAs as incentive to populate overseas political events. For instance, the George Washington University CSSA received funding from the Chinese embassy in Washington as motivation for members to attend events welcoming President Xi Jinping to the city. 

On Sept. 22, a CSSA Evidence report was submitted to the SRA in favour of revoking the McMaster CSSA’s status. 

At this same meeting, SRA representative Simranjeet Singh delivered a presentation to the rest of the assembly called “Why We Should Revoke Club Status For The [MAC]CSSA”.

Singh’s presentation cited a 2018 report from the United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission. The report stated that CSSAs across the U.S. have governmental ties with Chinese embassies and consulates, noting that similar operations could be taking place in US-allied countries.

“The nature of the [CSSA] ties [with Chinese government] appears to involve direct subordination and political direction rather than mere affiliation or cooperation,” stated the Commission’s report.

When asked about their role in contacting the Chinese consulate following the MSA/MMPJ event, MACCSSA stated that they did not have an official relationship with the Chinese embassy. However, in a letter responding to questions from the SRA in July 2019, MACCSSA stated that they had cooperated with the Chinese embassy on issues related to cultural exchange and safety education for international students. 

The MACCSSA evidence report presented to the SRA took notice of this contradiction, alleging that the use of the word “official” was an attempt to obscure MACCSSA’s ties to the Chinese embassy. 

According to the report, MACCSSA’s failure to fully report any links outside of the MSU was in direct violation of an MSU club operating policy. The policy in question required clubs to disclose any affiliations with bodies outside of the MSU. 

As of June 19, 2019, this MSU policy now includes affiliations with political parties or governmental bodies, regardless of whether the non-MSU organization is Canadian or international.  

Singh cast MACCSSA’s act of contacting the Chinese government, which the SRA deemed to be a dangerous action, as a key detail in his decision to vote in favour of de-ratifying MACCSSA. According to Singh’s presentation to the SRA, contacting the Chinese government was an attempt by MACCSSA to intimidate students into avoiding discussions that criticized the Chinese regime. 

During the Sept. 22 SRA meeting, a Chinese student’s testimony highlighted the lack of action from MSU representatives in response to MACCSSA’s reporting of student affairs to the Chinese government. 

“If you are privileged enough to not know what it feels like to live under an authoritarian regime — one where saying something critical of the ruling party is often enough to land you and your family in prison — then please, I implore you, please listen to those who do,” said the student.

Slides from Singh’s presentation warned: “Expert testimony, including from Human Rights Watch, has confirmed that students’ safety could have been endangered if the Chinese government … got info about them attending the MSA/MMPJ event.”

“That was enough grounds for us to decide that they are a threat to free expression on campus and may be a danger to students … We cannot normalize the extremist ideologies behind the CSSA’s actions,” said Singh. 

The SRA sided with Singh, voting to de-ratify MACCSSA and cut off the club’s access to MSU resources and services. 

Over seven months after Turdush’s initial talk, she returned to McMaster on Sept. 27 in response to an invitation from the MMPJ to speak about the treatment of Uyghur Muslims in China. According to Batool, the event was a success, with over 100 spectators and no disruptions.

 

A previously published version of this article stated that MACCSSA’s act of contacting the Chinese government was considered an attempt by the SRA to intimidate students. This has since been corrected to state that it was considered an attempt by MACCSSA to intimidate students into avoiding discussions that might disrupt the Chinese regime.

A previously published version of this article stated that WeChat is a Chinese multi-purpose app used by members of the McMaster Chinese community. It has since been corrected to state that a group of Chinese students at McMaster created a group on the social media app WeChat specifically for the purpose of opposing the event. 

A previously published version of this article stated that no evidence was provided to directly connect the CSSA with the Chinese Communist Party. This has since been removed, and evidence has been presented.

A previously published version of this article did not reference CSSA’s response to questions from the SRA. This has since been updated.

A previous version of this article stated that Turdush returned to McMaster seven months after the de-ratification. This has since been corrected to state that she returned after her initial talk.

This version of the article has been updated to differentiate between MACCSSA and CSSAs around the world.

 

 

[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]

 

By Anonymous

On Sept. 22, the Student Representative Assembly decisively voted to revoke club status for the Chinese Students and Scholars Association, ending months of disgraceful inaction from the McMaster Students Union board of directors and clubs department.

As a Chinese student, I applaud the SRA’s decision to stand up for student safety. The CSSA — which is linked to the Chinese Communist Party — has openly admitted to reporting people on campus to the Chinese government. By policing people and reporting them to a totalitarian dictatorship, the CSSA seriously endangered students who criticize the Chinese Community Party — especially Chinese, Tibetan and Uyghur students with family in China, given the Chinese government’s extensive human rights violations.

Many of us oppose the genocides in Tibet and Xinjiang, object to police brutality and rising authoritarianism in Hong Kong, and ultimately yearn to one day see freedom and democracy in our ancestral homelands. For us, the SRA’s monumental decision represents a strong affirmation of our right to exist safely on campus, and a rejection of Chinese Communist Party attempts to surveil and intimidate students.

Beyond my own opinion, the SRA has received sweeping praise. Rukiye Turdush, the Uyghur speaker condemned by the CSSA, applauded McMaster student representatives for standing up for our rights. Zhou Fengsuo, a famous Chinese human rights activist, called the vote momentous. Former Canadian ambassadors to China, David Mulroney and Guy Saint-Jacques, strongly commended the SRA’s move.

However, we should not let widespread approval obscure an important nuance: the SRA’s decision to de-ratify the CSSA was long overdue because of inaction from the MSU board and staff.

The SRA’s decision comes seven months after international media first reported on the CSSA in February. However, the MSU board and staff caused most of the delay, as they were occupied with speculation about lawsuits and fretting over potential backlash, instead of actually addressing the issue.

For starters, at the March 24 SRA meeting, then-MSU President Ikram Farah stunningly claimed that there was mere “speculation” about what happened — despite numerous detailed reports from international media and Human Rights Watch.

“We look at federal, provincial, municipal, and university [policies], and … based on the information we currently have, none of that had been infringed upon,” stated Farah in the Mar. 24 SRA meeting, oblivious the reason why international media sounded the alarm in the first place.

Beyond replying to SRA members who questioned them, the MSU board of directors did nothing to address concerns. There was no public response to the international news articles or Human Rights Watch recommendations. Meanwhile, the clubs department took no action either.

Finally, even immediately prior to the vote, the board of directors continued trying to avoid the issue in the SRA meeting on Sept. 22. Alexandrea Johnston (vice president finance) suggested moving the CSSA motion to the next meeting. Sarah Figueiredo (vice president administration) and Shemar Hackett (vice president education) refused to vote on the deratification motion. MSU President Joshua Marando had conveniently left the meeting earlier.

The board’s persistent attempts to avoid touching the CSSA fueled rumours of intentional efforts to hush this issue, or self-censor, due to pressure from university administration and fear of Chinese government retaliation. Although these rumours are speculation, the MSU’s ominous silence on social media so far (in contrast to Marando’s dramatic public statement excoriating the Dominion Society, another de-ratified MSU club) does nothing to reassure concerned students.

Faced with such cowardice from the MSU board and staff, the SRA cut through the nonsense and did what’s right. While the board and staff buried their heads in the sand for seven months, it was SRA members who gathered evidence, made a presentation, and motioned to de-ratify the CSSA.

Moving forward, SRA members should continue to keep the board in check. Evidently, the board’s approach is not always correct, so having the SRA hold the board accountable makes for a better MSU.

Marando, however, needs to show better leadership. Similar to his strong condemnation of white supremacy, Marando should publicly and unequivocally make clear that the MSU will not tolerate attempts to police marginalized students; efforts to surveil and control Chinese, Tibetan and Uyghur students on campus; or the hateful ideologies that enable genocide in Xinjiang. His silence so far on these concerns is deeply worrying.

The SRA has taken a bold first step in making campus a safer place, especially for students with family in China. Now it is time for Marando and the rest of the MSU board to stop twiddling their thumbs, match the SRA’s courage, and speak out against the threats and intimidation that students face.

 

[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]

 

Photo from Silhouette Photo Archives

On Aug. 30, the Progressive Conservative provincial government announced a new directive mandating all Ontario universities to “develop, implement and comply” with formal free speech policies by January 2019. According to the official statement, if a university is not compliant, the particular institution may be subject to a reduction in operating grant funding.

In June, McMaster released updated freedom of expression guidelines for event organizers and participants following an ad-hoc committee report and first draft. As of now, it is unclear whether these guidelines qualify as a policy under the new directive.

“We are hopeful that this guidance document will meet the needs of the government,” said McMaster director of communications Gord Arbeau. “We are waiting to hear back from the province about the specifics around that directive that was issued a few weeks ago.”

Both the McMaster Student Union and Canadian Union of Public Employees 3906 which represents sessional faculty, post-doc fellows and teaching assistants, have objected to the Ford government’s mandate and McMaster’s current stance on the issue of freedom of expression.

In particular, MSU president Ikram Farah stated that she acknowledges concerns from students who feel that the directive for a mandatory free speech policy could suppress the voices of marginalized communities.

“What I have heard from marginalized and racialized students is that there is a fear that free speech legislation will be used to further limit the ability to call attention to truths,” said Farah.

Nathan Todd, CUPE 3906 recording secretary, also expresses concern with the province-mandated policy. In particular, CUPE 3906 stands with the official CUPE 3906 stance that the free speech policy could negatively affect marginalized communities and actually prevent freedom of expression.

“Our main concern is that it could give the university too much power to prevent things like organizing and mobilizing,” said Todd.

CUPE 3906 is specifically worried that the current McMaster free speech guidelines and any future policy will limit protest.

“We released a response to that policy and our policy is essentially the same for this one for Doug Ford, which is that it is actually quite anti-free speech in a lot of ways and hasn't been developed or implemented responsibly or democratically,” said Todd.

The Student Representative Assembly unanimously passed a motion in June stipulating that the MSU “advocate to the university that continuous revisions be made” to the freedom of expression guidelines.

At the Sept. 23 SRA meeting, Farah urged SRA caucus members to actively gather student feedback on the issue.

“Should it be a policy, at least let it be the best guidance document possible that is reflective of the students who will be affected by it most,” said Farah.

CUPE 3906 has been taking action by coordinating with its union members to establish a formal response to the new policy.  

Despite the MSU and CUPE 3906’s objections to the university’s stance on free expression, McMaster stands by its guidelines and commitment to “open and civil discourse.” Nevertheless, the university is willing to hear out different sides on the matter and even amend the current guiding document.

“If someone came forward with other ways of improving that document or with suggestions on how that document could be better understood or positioned, then absolutely we would be open to considering that,” said Arbeau.

For now, the university is waiting to hear back from the provincial government. By imposing a firm directive and a short timeline, the Ford government has brought the subject of free speech back front and centre at McMaster and across Ontario.

[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]

By: Jack Leila

We all know our rights and freedoms. We have the freedom of the press, freedom of religion and freedom to our own political ideologies based on section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Those few rights are just the beginning of what our rights and freedoms entail. So why are certain people silenced? Why are human rights groups at McMaster marginalized? Why do they have to be careful of who they offend when they should be worried about the people they are fighting for?

Protests at McMaster are rarely ever covered by the media. When they are, the articles are not about the positive effects of the protest, but rather police intervention and the different ways the groups were forced to leave campus.

This not only threatens the fundamental freedom of expression given to all Canadians by the Canadian government, but also what McMaster calls the freedom of expression it gives to its students.

Political correctness is important but only to a certain level. If someone is afraid to fight for a marginalized group, what kind of freedom is that?

McMaster University is made up of students with diverse voices and opinions. It is meant to support freedom of expression, but there can’t be expression without allowing students to speak out against the inequalities occurring at McMaster and around the world?

McMaster advocates equality and a good education for all students but when it comes down to it, lines blur between the school and organizations who just want to advocate equality.

This not only threatens the fundamental freedom of expression given to all Canadians by the Canadian government, but also what McMaster calls the freedom of expression it gives to its students.

Where freedom of speech is taken away from human rights groups, it is given somewhere else, perhaps in a place where it should never be.

Recently, McMaster put out freedom of expression guidelines saying, “there are very narrow grounds under which McMaster should restrict or stop a speaker or an event”.

This may have been a reuslt of the Jordan Peterson incident, where a controversial psychology professor for the University of Toronto was invited to speak at McMaster, who has claimed that he “does not recognize another person’s right to determine what pronouns he uses to address them.

For marginalized communities who have struggled to have their right to identifying themselves, allowing someone like Peterson to speak on campus is oppressive.

Given that choosing to identify yourself as you please is a legal right in Canada, it should definitely be supported on campus.

Though there are a number of student-run groups that do so, McMaster as a university should be more considerate of this in terms of indirect associations and possible interference.

I’m not in any way condoning violence. I am questioning why a person who violates the McMaster values was invited to speak at an event.

Nothing about Peterson emulates what McMaster is supposed to stand for. What he advocated for in his lecture at McMaster was despicable, rude and politically incorrect. There is a line between types of protest: protest for human rights and protests that do not support human rights activism. McMaster needs to decide where it stands and what it supports.

The protests surrounding Peterson’s visit would have never happened if he was not allowed to speak at our university.

I hope that McMaster changes the way it approaches student protests because we, the students, are those who should represent McMaster.

Does our university want to be known as the one who encourages the silencing of student voices?

McMaster needs to reconsider what it places importance on. What is more important, the press rights of someone who speaks of traditional, politically incorrect ways or the press rights of someone who wants to change our campus into a safe environment, where students can express themselves freely?

[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]

The pro-life club on campus claims that it aims to “inspire students at McMaster to think honestly about ethical issues in order to make informed judgements for themselves.” Yet, some of their posters are clearly directed at people with uteruses and the ability to get pregnant who would ever consider an abortion, as well as the idea of bodily autonomy. These sorts of displays go against their club’s mission statement to provide an avenue to make ‘‘informed decisions’’ for themselves.

The recent events have sparked debate on the extent of freedom of speech at Mac and whether we should allow groups that attack women’s rights to express their view in the ways that they do.

Philosophical discussion around personhood is fine, but direct emotional attacks on women which could prove even more damaging for people who have undergone abortions, go beyond the academic nature the club claims to embrace. The club recently organized an event featuring a speaker from the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform, an organization responsible for putting up gruesome signs on highways and funding “pro-life trucks” with images of aborted fetuses.

Who the club chooses to associate itself with tells us something about the intentions of their advocacy. The CCBR has constantly attacked the notion of ‘‘choice,’’ even claiming that “pro-choice is no choice.”

Pro-life organizations in Canada hide behind free speech to justify putting signs on bridges and holding them up on sidewalks. It might be hard to tell them to get out of public spaces and to stop harassing women with their signs, but whether this is the case on a university campus is another question.

To be clear, I’m not advocating for the silencing of these groups, or for their ability to do and say whatever they want. Our discourse around the freedom of expression around these issues has to be unpacked before any judgements are made.

Freedom of speech isn’t an absolute right in Canada. It says so in Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The government can put into place laws that limit freedom of speech as long as these limits are deemed justified and reasonable. And it’s the Supreme Court of Canada that decides what these vague words really mean. Laws against hate propaganda and defamation are some examples that the Supreme Court has deemed to be reasonable limits to the freedom of expression of Canadians.

The phrase “freedom of speech” is thrown around every time someone questions whether certain groups or people should be allowed to express their view openly even if it causes harm to someone else. The simplest form of this argument goes: what would we be as a democratic society if we didn’t allow people to voice their opinions?

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, a legal advocacy group for constitutional rights in Canada, has represented a number of pro-life clubs who have sued their schools for not allowing controversial anti-choice posters to be put up. The JCCF puts out a ranking of universities and student unions based on freedom of speech every year. This year McMaster scored a B in policy and a D in practice, and the McMaster Students Union scored a C in policy and a D in practice. These scores should not be taken at face value. In reading the report issued by the JCCF, it becomes clear that this organization sees freedom of expression as an unlimited right. It condemns McMaster and the MSU for standing by anti-discriminatory policies put in place to create a safe environment, and claims that this indicates MSU’s lack of commitment to free speech.

But it is this sort of thinking that makes the lines between free speech and hateful or harmful speech hard to draw. According to the JCCF, any consideration for hate speech takes away from an institution’s free speech. Is this really the case? The JCCF uses the example of the MSU not allowing a club to put up a poster they thought had questionable information. Does the MSU’s decision in this case say anything about their commitment to free speech, or does it say something about their commitment to not misinform the student body and maintain a comfortable environment?

A similar argument can be made for the infamous “Immigration Watch Canada” group. The organization sends out offensive flyers attacking immigrant communities mostly of Southeast Asian origin. They gave out flyers at York University last year and around Brampton over the summer.

Although none of these posters are explicitly pushing a white supremacist message, they are xenophobic, racist and hateful. Yet, the organization is still allowed to exist in Canada. Why? The argument can be made that it is their right under ‘‘freedom of speech’’ to express this view. Yet, any reasonable person will agree that there is something ethically questionable about this statement. The right of immigrants and visible minorities to not have hateful messages spread about their communities should trump Immigration Watch Canada’s right to express their views.

So what do we value more: a group’s ability to express itself with the aim to take away someone’s rights, or creating a safe space that promotes discussion but censors harassment?

[adrotate banner="6"]

Sophia Topper
The Silhouette

It’s report card time, but not for students. On Sept. 24, the Justice Center for Constitutional Reforms published its annual report on freedom of speech on Canadian campuses.  The report grades both administrations and student unions on their policies and actions.

The McMaster administration received a B for policy, and a D for its actions. These grades are largely due to the discrepancies between the Statement on Academic Freedoms and the Student Code of Conduct, as well as various other anti-discrimination policies. To receive an A, an institution must have "no prohibition on speech which a listener might find ‘offensive, ‘discriminatory’, ‘disrespectful’, ‘inappropriate’, or ‘creating a negative environment.’”

The grading methods, however, are controversial. Gord Arbeau, Director of Public and Community Relations for McMaster, stated that “there does not appear to be a clear connection between grades and the university.” He also noted that “this was the first [the University] had heard of the report…[JCCF] did not attempt to contact anyone at the university to discuss our approach.”

Indeed, the incident that the report centered on, where students were prevented from displaying an “Israeli Apartheid” banner, was in 2008, despite the fact that this is an annual report.

President of JCCF, John Carpay, revealed that for the University or the McMaster Students Union to improve their grades, they would need to release a public statement apologizing for their handling of prior incidences, or to “reverse existing policies.”

Arbeau reputed that the University has “clear commitments” to both the principles of free speech and of ending discrimination, and continued that the Statement on Academic Freedoms and Student Code of Conduct “rely on and inform each other.”

The MSU received Cs for both policy and action. Their grades were also based on the “Israeli Apartheid” incident, and the report alleges that the MSU bases their decisions on allowing free speech on the Human Rights and Equality Services office. It also draws attention to MSU’s policy on advertising and promotion, and accuses the MSU of wording it such that it could be used to censor clubs.

David Campbell, MSU President, describes the conflict between harassment prevention and freedom of speech as “difficult, that’s the crux of the issue…[but] we feel very confident in our policies.”

He also defended the MSU’s use of Human Rights and Equality Services in an advisory capacity, and responded that he didn’t find the JCCF’s critique “quite fair.”

“[Human Rights and Equality Services] doesn’t dictate any outcomes… the final decision rests with us,” he said. “[But] they do have expertise in the field”.

Despite the JCCF’s criticisms, both McMaster and the MSU received passing grades, unlike 51% of Canadian public universities. McMaster’s grades have been stagnant for the last two years, and neither the University nor the MSU is eager to revamp their policies by removing bans on discriminatory language.  Without a single university attaining an A average, it seems like McMaster will keep surfing the grade curve.

Photo credit: Silhouette stock photo

Subscribe to our Mailing List

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