Racially discriminatory healthcare, anyone? It’s free!

_{C/O Ashkan Forouzani}

By: Hadeeqa Aziz, Contributor 

Throughout school, we’ve been taught about all the ways Canada’s healthcare system is perfect. We’ve got free healthcare, for goodness’ sake!

It seems as though this phrase has made itself quite comfortable in our heads. Even now, while engaging in friendly conversation with our American counterparts, we don’t leave without mentioning: “we’ve got free healthcare”.

What our education systems have failed to teach us, however, is the masked reality of healthcare services in Canada. Various healthcare disparities most definitely exist here and remain persistent.

Indigenous, immigrant, refugee and racialized groups are at a greater risk for the negative health outcomes that result from health inequalities. These inequalities arise from poverty, socioeconomic status, race, identity and other social determinants.  

Why is this the case? Although Canada promises free health care to all its citizens, we need to take a second to examine how accessible and adequate such services are to different groups of Canadians.

Don’t believe that racism can exist in a healthcare setting? Think again. When ideas of superiority and inferiority come to life in such a way that it interferes with an individual’s health and their access to health resources, you’re staring right at racism.

Don’t believe that racism can exist in a healthcare setting? Think again. When ideas of superiority and inferiority come to life in such a way that it interferes with an individual’s health and their access to health resources, you’re staring right at racism. 

Did you know that Black, Indigenous and People of Colour communities, as well as those of lower educational attainment levels, are at greater risk for things such as diabetes, mental health illnesses, suicide rates and heart disease?

Racial discrimination has earned its title as the leading health issue affecting racialized communities. When these communities are trapped in a system where they are consistently oppressed, how can you not expect them to be at a greater risk of chronic diseases?

For example, with Indigenous communities, the experience of colonization and the permanent effects of it has resulted in large disparities between their health status — including physical, mental and social health — compared to non-Indigenous peoples.

Approximately 50 per cent of Canadian First Nations live on reserves, where poor housing conditions also lead to several health issues. These issues include increased prevalence of infectious diseases such as tuberculosis, bronchitis, influenza and more recently, COVID-19.

Of course, a conversation about racism and discrimination isn’t complete without a discussion about how whiteness and Eurocentric ideologies have made themselves embedded within modern health care practices and processes. 

Eurocentric ideas have become normalized in health care assessments, diagnosis and treatment plans. They are often used as yardsticks by which non-white groups are judged. How does that make sense when these groups have drastically unique experiences and lifestyles? Mainstream healthcare services are unequipped to adequately meet the needs of these communities.

It is also not surprising that these groups, especially immigrants, refugees and those living on Indigenous reserves do not have the same accessibility to health education. This often results from the intersections that those who identify as BIPOC have with lower socioeconomic status.

In Hamilton, 43 per cent of BIPOC live in low-income households, while only 15 per cent of white residents find themselves in the same category. See how the two determinants are often coupled with each other? Being a victim of both these health determinants inevitably puts an individual at risk of another: access to education.

Having access to health education means knowing what is beneficial and what is harmful to our bodies. When there are disparities with education attainment, these lines become blurry, leaving detrimental effects on an individual’s health. 

Having access to health education means knowing what is beneficial and what is harmful to our bodies. When there are disparities with education attainment, these lines become blurry, leaving detrimental effects on an individual’s health. 

Hamiltonians of lower-income class, which often consists of BIPOC communities, account for 27 per cent of COVID-19 cases, despite making up only 19 per cent of the population. Some determinants of contracting COVID-19 include education and money.

Being an immigrant or refugee already makes a person less likely to have access to an adequate education. Without one, a person may be less likely to know, or fully comprehend COVID-19 guidelines.

Let’s pretend that the person is fully educated on COVID-19 matters. Being of a lower socioeconomic class limits their access to resources, such as face masks and forces them into dangerous situations such as taking public transportation and living in crowded homes.

Even if they had funds to avoid all these things, racial discrimination remains the leading cause of health issues in these communities. See the trap? See how these intersections build upon each other?

Increased access to healthcare services by racialized groups must begin with first determining how these representations are manifested in our healthcare system as well as in “everyday interactions with clients”. We have to not only recognize but appreciate how multiple social identities operate in the lives of racialized communities and have a willingness to tackle issues from an intersectional perspective. Canada proudly identifies itself as a racially and culturally diverse nation — perhaps it’s time our healthcare system recognizes that.

 Having safe spaces around the university allow marginalized students to feel less alienated

_{Graphic by Esra Rakab}

cw: mentions of racism, hateful political rhetoric, child sexual abuse

If you’re on any part of political YouTube where the titles appear to be “Feminists REKT!!! Compilation”, or “Man Speaks FACTS, DESTROYS Emotional Liberal,” then you have likely heard of how safe spaces, also known as closed spaces, are for “snowflakes.” Moreover, closed spaces are framed as being a “new type of segregation” enforced by the “radical left” on campuses.

The main contesters against these spaces appear to be predominantly white professors at post-secondary institutions and (mainly white) right-wing pundits who frame the concept of having spaces closed to only certain marginalized groups to be a step backwards. In turn, they argue that there would be outrage should the tables be turned and there were spaces closed to white people.

Well. Despite all the controversy surrounding the newly emerging safe spaces on campuses across North America, I honestly feel that the main motivations for why safe spaces were proposed as a solution in the first place go largely ignored.

Even in a university as accepting and as open to improving its measures towards inclusivity as McMaster University, there have been countless instances in my primarily white program where I’ve felt degraded and humiliated as a visible woman of colour.

Even in a university as accepting and as open to improving its measures towards inclusivity as McMaster University, there have been countless instances in my primarily white program where I’ve felt degraded and humiliated as a visible woman of colour. 

This has mainly been in the form of tone policing, where if I express myself with the exact same emotion or words as another white classmate, I have constantly been told that I’m “too aggressive” and that I need to “calm down” by numerous students.

There have been instances where when I shared my status as a child sexual abuse survivor in confidence to explain how it only strengthened my convictions in feminism and as a result, I was labelled as being “too much,” and was pushed into isolation from the get-go.

With all of the hashtags, the “BLMs” and the “support small businesses” stickers plastered across the social media of the students who unknowingly engage in deeply damaging behaviour, I cannot help but lament with disappointment.

So many seemingly “non-discriminatory” people appear to be very disconnected when it comes to actually engage in the small actions within their day-to-day life that make 2SLGBTQIA+ students and Black, Indigenous and students of colour feel safe.

I was formally introduced to closed spaces at Mac while volunteering with the Women and Gender Equity Network, a survivor-centric organization dedicated towards empowering those experiencing gender-based violence and educating Mac on such issues. While I was initially confused as to why many of WGEN’s events were closed to different groups, I soon understood why. 

Like myself, there are people out there who experience microaggressions and discrimination for an identity they cannot control. Just like me, they are emotionally exhausted at having to bite their tongues when a snarky comment is made about their existence in university, a historically white institution, or when they make white people around them uncomfortable when they don’t fit into a neat little box of how a model minority should act like.

Like myself, there are people out there who experience microaggressions and discrimination for an identity they cannot control.

Even if a remark here and there may not appear to be the end of the world, from my personal experience, these small, yet deeply painful moments build up until they’ve become a full-fledged trauma and they build up until you feel as though maybe you really don’t belong on a campus like Mac.

That is why we need closed spaces. Marginalized students who are at risk for identity-based discrimination need a space to simply talk about their experiences with other students who share these experiences. They need a space with other students who will understand each other without having to do a million, painstaking explanations to set the context.

Many universities are already notorious for not taking allegations of sexual assault, racism and any other forms of discrimination seriously. However, given that instances of discrimination frequently happen in a subtle, systemic form where the student has a lot at stake socially should they react at all, there is almost no way for students to deal with and talk about these very real issues.

Yes, the real world is not this nice, but offering safe spaces to students as a therapeutic tool to cope with these injustices is the least we deserve.

Photo by Cindy Cui / Photo Editor

Historically, McMaster Students Union presidential candidates often have big dreams to tackle issues concerning marginalized communities. Topics that reappear every year include accessibility, reducing financial barriers and sexual violence support. While these platform points can be well-intentioned, they can often be examples of poor allyship instead. Using people of colour, the 2SLGBTQ+ community, disabled people and survivors as talking points for campaigning can be insensitive if candidates are unable to follow through with their platform points.

There are clear examples of platforms that have done this. In 2018, past MSU president Ikram Farah campaigned on reducing financial barriers by re-evaluating the Ontario Student Assistance Program’s structure and reworking it to accurately reflect tuition cost discrepancies between different programs. This would mean that two students who paid different tuition amounts, and who previously qualified for the same amount of financial aid, would instead receive aid that was proportional to their costs. Although Farah completed her presidential term in April 2019, any advocacy done surrounding OSAP hasn’t had a huge impact on OSAP’s structure.

In 2019, current MSU president Josh Marando promised to hire an additional sexual violence response coordinator to address the lack of support for survivors of sexual violence. Marando still has three months left in his term, but the efforts into hiring a new sexual violence response coordinator seem to be lacking. So far, an additional sexual violence response coordinator has yet to be hired.

In addition to an absence of follow-through, candidates also often fail to consult adequately. This year, MSU presidential candidate Krystina Koc aimed to address student safety due to the Westdale and Thorndale break-ins that occurred last year, and to increase support to Maccess. However, Koc’s consultations about student safety were limited and she failed to consult Maccess regarding how to best improve support.

Incoming MSU President Giancarlo Da-Ré’s plans to improve accessibility by making the MSU website compliant with the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act and increasing the number of courses that use Echo360 to record lectures. He also wants to implement consent culture modules that would be mandatory for welcome week representatives. Although Da-Ré states he has done 100 consultations and has platform points surrounding accessibility and consent, he did not consult Maccess or the Women and Gender Equity Network prior to campaigning.

Evidently, solidarity with low-income students, people of colour, survivors and disabled people have been a large topic of discussion within presidential platforms. However, these campaign points are rarely acted upon or are executed poorly. This leaves me and many others with questions: if these points don’t result in any visible change, why have them in your platform at all?

During campaign season, presidential candidates are trying to win students’ votes. Therefore, it’s usually important to maintain a good public image. Nothing looks better than advocating for a marginalized population. Regardless of whether these candidates actually care for the marginalized populations they’re advocating for, if they’re coming from a place of privilege and put us into their platforms, it can seem like they’re trying to win brownie points for being good people.

Additionally, this allyship quickly becomes performative if the candidates don’t follow through when it comes to supporting marginalized communities — which they often don’t. Even if you have the best intentions to help others, it is hard to change systemic oppression in a one-year term because these structures have been in place for centuries.

Typically, advocacy movements are initiated by marginalized communities themselves, not presidents. This can be seen with the WGEN, which was created to provide a safe space for women and trans people, as well as students that face sexual violence. WGEN was approved by the Student Representative Assembly because of a community survey that provided statistics of students who faced assaults, misogyny and sexism on campus. Although the SRA did come into play with the creation of this service, consultations and surveys were important in its creation, which is what the presidential candidates have been failing to do. In addition, WGEN was spearheaded by women, trans people and survivors advocating for its existence, proving that marginalized communities have always been at the forefront of these movements — not the MSU president. If the MSU president is serious about advocating for marginalized communities, then they need to consult with the groups who represent the needs of these students.

Despite Koc and Da-Ré’s well-intentioned platforms for improving peer support services and consent education respectively, they failed to consult the communities that are directly affected: Maccess and WGEN. How will you help improve support and remove systemic barriers if you do not talk to those that are directly affected?

Becoming the MSU president doesn’t mean that you suddenly have the ability to support marginalized people. Anyone and everyone can support movements to dismantle oppressive barriers — instead of campaigning on the idea that you will support marginalized people during your presidential term, start by supporting them in your everyday lives. Talk to the people you know and ask them how you can support them. Actually consult the marginalized communities you hope to support, not the institutions that oppress us. Even if you can’t make a huge change during your one-year term, you can still make meaningful change through your individual actions as a person. But if you’re not willing to commit to your platform and actually support marginalized students, please leave us out of it.

 

[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]

 

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.

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.

 

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.

“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 by Kyle West

By: Elliot Fung

On Oct. 14, the McMaster Students Union Student Representative Assembly unanimously passed a motion to formally oppose the provincial government’s mandate that all publicly-assisted colleges and universities in Ontario draft and submit a free speech policy by January 2019. In addition, the SRA asks that the government withdraw the mandate immediately.

The eight-part motion responds to the requirements outlined in the provincial government’s free speech policy mandate. The main consequence for non-compliance takes the form of cuts in operating grant funding, which is vital for many programs and services on campus.

According to MSU president Ikram Farah, the decision to oppose the government mandate is being driven primarily by concerns made by students to the SRA that a free speech policy will limit open discussion and silence the opinions of marginalized communities and dissenters.

The SRA believes that the government mandate is being implemented under the guise of free speech but, in reality, is being used to censor dissent towards hate and bigotry.

“Given the feedback and comments made from a majority of students, the SRA took a stance to protect free speech because this policy dictate form is a sham by which free speech will be limited, not protected,” said Farah.

Ikram’s characterization of the mandate as a “sham” is also substantiated by the apparent lack of consultation from the provincial government with universities, students and student advocacy groups.

One part of the SRA motion addresses a clause in the government mandate that states that compliance with the free speech policy will be a requirement for the recognition and funding of student groups. The SRA opposes the clause as they interpret it as an attempt to limit the ability of students to protest or express dissent lawfully.

The SRA motion contends that there is no need for the free speech policy as barriers to free speech and expression do not exist on campus. They believe that the long-standing Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is sufficient in protecting freedom of speech and expression. In addition, the motion argues that reasonable limits to free speech already exist in the form of federal and provincial laws and the Student Code of Rights and Responsibilities.

In addition to making an official stance against the government mandate, the SRA is also acting on ways to get the mandate withdrawn. In particular, the MSU is working with its provincial lobby partner the Ontario University Student Alliance.

During the OUSA General Assembly, which took place from Nov. 2 to 4, one of the decisions made was to formally oppose the mandate and communicate this stance to the government. Whether or not this will end up being effective in getting the mandate withdrawn, however, remains uncertain.

It is not yet clear whether McMaster University’s existing free expression guidelines, which were developed last year, will be sufficient for compliance with the policy.

Students were given the chance to voice their concerns about the government mandate directly with university officials, particularly McMaster President Patrick Deane and Arig al Shaibah, the associate vice president (Equity and Inclusion) during the MSU’s Town Hall held on Nov. 14.

[spacer height="20px"][thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]