By: Anonymous
What’s the difference between an angry yellow vest and an angry queer or 2SLGBTQ+ person?
Everything.
There’s no question of that in my mind, or in the minds of most other like-minded people in the 2SLGBTQ+ community, especially when it comes to the recent yellow vest attacks at Hamilton Pride . The question we’re asking is: why are there still people that don’t think so?
People who insist “both sides” have done something wrong. People who insist that if the queer community stopped being so “unreasonable”, there could be a productive discussion in which everything would be resolved. People who sigh with a sort of martyred world-weariness as they ask: “why can’t we all just get along?”
Countless Twitter posts and opinion pieces have been made touting those views, particularly by heterosexual individuals who don’t have our community’s lived experience. People who don’t understand this struggle, who just want things to be “peaceful”.
Has anyone ever considered that we are the ones who would very much like “peaceful”?
I, for one, would love the peace to celebrate my bisexuality in the park, proudly wearing as much blue, pink and purple as I could possibly fit on my body. There is nothing I would have liked more than to go to Pride Hamilton without fearing attack by religious extremists. Or to go to the “Hamilton for who?” rally without feeling my stomach drop as I read the words “Yellow Vest meetup point” written in chalk on the pavement just outside the bounds of the event space.
I’d love to walk around downtown Hamilton now without worrying about the yellow vest demonstrations at City Hall. Without wondering if, somehow, this will be the day the wrong person will sense that I am a queer woman. Without tensing my entire body every time I see a flash of neon yellow out of the corner of my eye.
The ones who don’t want things to be “peaceful” are the right wing extremists who attacked Hamilton Pride unprovoked. I don’t approve at all of the word “protest” in this context; that connects this group far too closely with legitimate community organizers trying to raise awareness for LGBTQ+, feminist, and environmental issues, among others. No, it was an attack, and so it should always be called.
More specifically it was an attack by a group that is anti-Semitic, anti-2SLGBTQ+, and Islamophobic, among other things. An angry queer or 2SLGBTQ+ person is angry because their right to celebrate their identity has been violated, and public institutions have been incredibly insufficient in protecting it. An angry yellow vest is angry because members of marginalized communities they hate dare to exist in public spaces.
Equating these two groups in their anger, especially in Hamilton right now, is harmful beyond belief. And no, the 2SLGBTQ+ community will not be “getting along” with people that consider it their “right” to attack them at their own celebration.
Furthermore, opening oneself to “reasonable” diplomacy is not the way to go. Hate groups do not act in good faith. They cannot be “reasoned” with. And if the community has to take a hard stance when the alternative is politely standing still to be hit with helmets, so be it.
Many of those who use these “both sides” arguments do not, or do not choose to, understand the social context behind these two different types of anger. It’s easy to not understand when it poses no direct threat to one’s daily life or existence. It’s easy to think of this as a homogenous “disturbance” when one doesn’t understand the demands these two sides are making.
The extremists want the 2SLGBTQ+ and queer communities to stop existing publicly and to live in fear.
The queer/2SLGBGTQ+ community would very much like to hold a Pride event in the park (which quite a few children and teens were at, by the way) without wondering if they’re going to make it home safely. Something that they currently cannot do.
I, for one, think the difference is as clear as crystal.
On Nov. 9, recipients of the Wilson Leadership Scholar Award, one of McMaster University’s largest scholarships, held a dinner meeting in partnership with the Socrates Project to discuss free speech and McMaster’s current guidelines in light of the larger province-wide focus on the issue.
The event was invite-only, consisting of nine Wilson Leaders and alumni and approximately ten additional guests.
The topic of free speech was chosen as a result of the Ontario government’s recent announcement that all Ontario universities must formulate a “free-speech policy” by January 2019.
McMaster currently has a “guidance document” outlining “acceptable” forms of protest for event organizers.
[spacer height="20px"]The Wilson event allowed participants to share a meal and exchange ideas on free speech and how McMaster should move forward. The focus, according to Wilson scholar Monish Ahluwalia, was simply to promote critical discussion in an open environment, not to come to any definitive conclusion or recommendation.
“We are all from very different backgrounds and programs and experiences,” Ahluwalia said.
“We are hoping we can end with a group of people who have had this discussion and who will open their minds up to some different views hopefully and come out with a more holistic understanding of what free speech is.”
The Wilson Leadership Scholar Award is an award given to three undergraduate students and three graduate students each year. It provides them with up to $50,000 in funding and unique mentorship and leadership opportunities.
This small dinner was the first of its kind that the Wilson scholarship had hosted. However, the event was also an extension of the Socrates Project, which has facilitated many events this year on social issues and art projects.
Wilson scholars Josh Young and Ahluwalia agree that the small size of the dinner helped promote dialogue and dissent.
[spacer height="20px"]“Smaller group-oriented discussions seem to foster more organic discussion. It is not forceful,” said Young.
“We’re curious to see if this is something that students find valuable,” Ahluwalia added. “Moving forward, we are not decided on whether we want it to be invite-only or public. We fear that with too many people, it might get hard to control. It might lose its value.”
The idea of more productive discussion in small groups of select students raises questions about inclusion and exclusion and how to best ensure that everyone’s voice is heard and respected when it comes to contentious issues.
In effort to include more voices, yesterday, the McMaster Students Union hosted a town hall open discussion at TwelvEighty. MSU President Ikram Farah, McMaster President Patrick Deane and McMaster associate vice president (Equity and Inclusion) Arig al Shaibah were there to field questions from students.
Both the Wilson dinner and the MSU town hall are products of the university’s focus on the issue of free expression against the backdrop of the provincial government mandate.
Carleton University and the University of Western Ontario both released free speech policy drafts in Oct. 2018. Last month, both the MSU and the University of Toronto Students’ Union condemned the government’s free speech mandate.
As the January policy deadline nears, McMaster students can expect more dialogue and speech on the question of “free speech” on campus.
[spacer height="20px"][thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
by Ruchika Gothoskar
Doug Ford, Ontario’s new premier, has set out guidelines that give Ontario universities until Jan. 1, 2019 to develop a free speech policy on campus, a hot-button topic among the Progressive Conservative party after several high-profile incidents involving speakers with conservative views.
McMaster is no stranger to such engagements, after the highly contentious appearance of controversial psychology professor Jordan Peterson at McMaster in 2017, when his lecture was shut down by protestors.
The PC government made it clear that Ontario colleges and universities must come up with free speech policies that “include a definition of freedom of speech and adhere to principles based on the University of Chicago Statement on Principles of Free Expression”.
The University of Chicago’s document currently states that colleges and university are places for open and free discussion, that institutions should not shield students from ideas they disagree with or find offensive and that university or college community members cannot obstruct the freedom of others to share their views. Should Ontario post-secondary institution fail to implement this policy, they risk facing major funding cuts.
The reality of this situation is that we have had this conversation before, many times. McMaster began creating an anti-disruption policy in 2017, a draft that outlines acceptable methods to protest appearances by polarizing figures. The document was created by the university's committee on protest and freedom of expression in response to an increasingly polarized political and social climate where protests on campus are becoming more common place.
The question now is not whether or not McMaster will adhere to Ford’s demands on free speech policies, simply because we know that McMaster’s already been eager to shut down disruptions and allow for “free discussion” from the jump. What needs to be thought about now is who this policy is hurting, and what kind of dog whistle is embedded in the creation of policies like these.
Implementing school wide policies that do not allow for things like trigger warnings or safe spaces are ultimately harmful for everyone involved. These content disclaimers and spaces allow for individuals to decide how or if they want to engage. For people who experience trauma, such as sexual assault or attempted suicide, unexpected re-exposure to traumatic events can provoke a strong negative emotional response, impeding on their ability to learn and interact appropriately.
Furthermore, the threat of cut funding is one that hits home for many. Playing around with an institution's funding is a bold declaration. Many, if not all, post secondary institutions admit students, hire staff and create boards on the sole and main expectation that they can honour employment contracts or periods of study. This makes non-compliance with the free speech policies high risk, putting not only students’ livelihoods at stake, but also administrators’ and educators’.
Realistically, when implemented, policies like these do nothing but reduce advocacy for minority groups and the left hand political spectrum, leave students without a voice and further silence those who already come from marginalized backgrounds. Activist and writer Nora Loreto says it best, “free speech is freedom from reprisals from the state. This [policy], instead, is a stunning attack on the free speech of anyone in the university of college community.”
Oftentimes, when individuals speak out on acts of oppression, such as sexism or ableism, they are told that they are being politically correct. This ultimately derails the conversation and forgoes an opportunity for a mutually beneficial learning experience, counterproductive to the nature of university. With political correctness and trigger warnings, we are still able to have difficult conversations. And we should; being uncomfortable is often necessary in learning as it means we are challenging what we know and critically engaging with what is presented to us. Adopting a politically correct perspective ensures that these conversations are constructive and that we recognize our words for what they are: impactful.
On Feb. 15, the university released its first draft of guidelines highlighting McMaster’s commitment to freedom of expression and what it deems acceptable limits to protest. Campus activists are concerned that the guidelines unfairly constrain dissent and silence marginalized voices.
The guidelines were based on a report developed by the ad hoc committee on protest and freedom of expression. Members were selected by Patrick Deane in consultation with groups including the McMaster University Faculty Association, McMaster Students Union and Graduate Students Association.
McMaster announced their intent to consider issues of protest and freedom of expression on May 3, 2017, two months following the Jordan Peterson protests on campus.
The report outlines a number of recommendations for the university, such as the development of an online lecture series aimed at improving education about topics such as free speech and activism. The report recommends that the series be sponsored by the MacPherson Institute.
“I have found the MacPherson Institute useful, with getting help and expert knowledge about teaching, active learning and the like,” said Neil McLaughlin, a member of the committee. “I have improved my own teaching working with them, but there has not yet been a concerted effort to address directly some of the most controversial issues.”
“We are dealing with more issues than was the case in the past. We all have things to learn, and debate.”
Neil McLaughlin
Committee member
Ad hoc committee on protest and freedom of expression
The guidelines list examples of what the university would consider acceptable and unacceptable protest. Generally speaking, the guidelines list any sort of behaviour that would impede an event’s progression as unacceptable, such as blocking the audience’s view by standing or preventing the audience from paying attention to the speaker.
“I think universities across Canada, and certainly in the US, could benefit from more attention to the dynamics of dealing with highly controversial and politically contentious issues than we have given to the topic,” said McLaughlin.
“We are dealing with more issues than was the case in the past. We all have things to learn, and debate.”
In addition to articulating the university’s stance on freedom of expression and protest, the new freedom of expression guidelines stress the responsibility for event organizers to communicate and enforce them.
In particular, in the event that dissenters do not adhere to the guidelines, organizers or moderators are asked to first inform the individual or group that they are disrupting the event and will be asked to leave should they persist. If they continue to interfere, Security Services can take action.
Although it is stated in the guidelines that speaking events should only be cancelled in extreme cases, it remains unclear what constitutes an extreme case.
Campus activists are concerned that the guidelines will unfairly constrain protest and harm marginalized groups in the community.
According to one activist, who asked to be anonymous, the guidelines excessively infringe on the right to civil disobedience.
“As an organizer, this puts me both in a dangerous position and in a position that forces me to keep silent, narrowing what I can and cannot do or say,” said the activist, who argues that white supremacy and bigotry will persist in the face of a lack of accountability.
While the university believes the new guidelines will curtail disruption efforts, activists are encouraging students to reject them.
The university secretariat will receive feedback on the guidelines until March 30.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
The original image used online for this article was not the one used in print, and has been switched for consistency.
By: Alex Bak
A university is a place of academia and should serve to prioritize the enhancement of knowledge and provide opportunities for character growth.
Last year when University of Toronto psychology professor Jordan Peterson came to lecture on free speech and political correctness at McMaster, he was met with student protestors and was unable to deliver his complete lecture.
Seeing as he had to move the lecture outdoors and would abruptly interrupted, McMaster was met with a poor reputation in protecting free speech.
Freedom to speak one’s mind is an integral aspect to understanding complex issues by developing ideas on different perspectives.
McMaster’s forthcoming anti-disruption policy addresses the global criticisms that the university has had with censorship and the lack of protection for freedom of speech.
With outstanding rankings globally and nationally for academics, the dismissive “D” in protecting free speech that McMaster received needs to be addressed.
Seeing as he had to move the lecture outdoors and would abruptly interrupted, McMaster was met with a poor reputation in protecting free speech.
This policy will work to McMaster guests like Peterson to share their ideas and perspectives without being met with a bullhorn.
Though this may limit speech in one capacity or another, the policy will ultimately allow for a more respectful manner of speech and controlled discussion where one’s views can be shared in a more organized manner. The policy will protect free speech, not limit it.
The anti-disruption policy usually deals with anti-protesters and is often charged with increasing marginalization of minority groups and attenuating their voices.
McMaster’s forthcoming anti-disruption policy addresses the global criticisms that the university has had with censorship and the lack of protection for freedom of speech.
This topic brings out a very important and controversial debate on whether unregulated, resolute freedom to speak one’s mind is necessary for equality or if there needs to be a change to enable equity in speech.
Given the ethical framework that the policy will undergo in the development process, marginalized voices will still be heard just as equally as other voices deserve to be.
The policy will merely prevent students and others from blocking, obstructing, disrupting or interrupting speech at campus events.
According to Patrick Deane, the new policy will be tailored to engage “in developing guidelines around the limits to acceptable protest intended to assist event organizers and participants, as well as those seeking to engage in protest, rather than an anti-disruption policy”.
Although this sounds more like a political response than a forward answer, it sparked a thought that perhaps a policy built around set indices for the topics discussed by guest lecturers and protest governed with set parameters and recommendations may be the solution for the unique McMaster community.
An adoption of a policy that is balanced between assessing acceptable levels of protest and gauging the ethical values of the guest speaker can produce a healthy medium for learning; one in which neither of the groups are overly censored or their voices unheard.
The policy will enable for guests and groups to be respected and allow for diversity of opinion to be heard rather than shut out by the sound of protesting bullhorns.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
On Nov. 13, an article published in the Hamilton Spectator highlighted McMaster’s development of an anti-disruption policy aimed at barring students from disrupting future speakers on campus.
In his article for the Spectator, Andrew Dreschel praises McMaster president Patrick Deane’s prioritization of an anti-disruption policy and his commitment to free speech. He argues McMaster does not currently protect free speech sufficiently, citing low scores from organizations such as the Campus Freedom Index as evidence.
Deane, however, has expressed interest in clarifying the new guidelines being developed since the article’s release.
“The university is engaged in developing guidelines around the limits to acceptable protest intended to assist event organizers and participants, as well as those seeking to engage in protest, rather than an anti-disruption policy,” said Deane in an email interview.
The university’s efforts come in the wake of the disruption that Jordan Peterson experienced when he came to deliver a lecture at McMaster last March.
In particular, after being disrupted by student protestors, Peterson was forced to leave the room and complete his lecture outside.
Following the protest, both the Revolutionary Student Movement (Hamilton) and the McMaster Womanists put out statements on their social media stating they were verbally and physically accosted while protesting the event.
Deane wrote a letter that defended Peterson’s right to speak on campus, citing the university’s commitment to academic freedom.
According to Dreschel, Deane has already “established a committee of academics to talk about what the ethical frame for [the guidelines] should be.”
“Once complete, [the guidelines] will, of course, be made widely available to members of the McMaster community,” said Deane.
Campus activists are concerned with the university’s anti-disruption efforts, arguing McMaster does not adequately protect marginalized groups on campus. All activists who spoke wished to remain anonymous out of fear of violence.
“Protest is the only way powerless people can give themselves a voice,” said one student activist. “Any university that tries to protect free speech by threatening marginalized students with punishment if they protest is a university where a single institutional perspective dominates,” they added.
The campus activist explained that the university’s commitment to free speech is eroded by the fact that it is endorsing a policy aimed at constraining activism.
Another campus activist believes that the policy will allow right-wing groups to evade accountability when inviting and condoning bigoted speakers in the future.
“It gives them a way to hold politically incorrect events without fear of being shut down,” she said. “When students spoke out about their concerns with having Peterson speak, the school actively ignored those concerns. The only way students were able to get their message across was through disrupting the event to protect the LGBTQ community on campus.”
The exact guidelines will likely be completed early 2018.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
By: Morgan Li
Recently, the Hamilton Spectator published an article announcing, in a sneering mix of opinion and loose fact, that McMaster is “developing an anti-disruption policy”. The decision appears to be prompted by the vicious right-wing backlash to Mac’s alleged failure to protect freedom of speech on campus, particularly in the wake of Jordan Peterson’s visit to campus last March.
In the article, Andrew Dreschel references a poor grade assigned to Mac’s practices and policies of “free speech” by a Campus Freedom Index. This index is compiled by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, a purportedly “independent and nonpartisan” non-profit organization. Their website presents an attractive face, framing the group as being in defence of respectable concepts like freedom, equality and constitutional freedoms. However, upon even the slightest further glance, this crafted image of impartiality falls apart.
The JCCF was founded, and continues to be led by John Carpay, a failed right-wing politician affiliated with a number of conservative advocacy groups and think tanks. The cases it chooses to take on and defend under the guise of free speech show a clear partisan bias. Their latest legal challenge is against Alberta’s Bill 24, which would prohibit outing LGBTQ+ children in gay-straight alliances. Previous JCCF lawsuits have taken up the case of an anti-LGBTQ+ couple that was barred from adopting children, a marriage commissioner whose license was revoked for refusing to marry same-gender couples as well as various anti-abortion organizations that have faced opposition.
That it has also decided to take issue with student-led protest of Jordan Peterson, most known for his refusal to correctly gender non-binary transgender students, is unsurprising. The rallying cry for “freedom of speech” that the JCCF, as well as many of those it defends, is so fond of wielding is one that has long been used by the far-right to obscure their activities and ideological agenda.
An article in the Torontoist from July this year explains this in detail, grounding it in a fairly recent history of white nationalist organizing in Toronto. Writer O. Berkman provides a background on Paul Fromm, a well-known self-identified white nationalist, and his cohort. Then a young University of Toronto student in the middle of a growing anti-war movement, Fromm and his fellows’ political involvement had begun in the condemnation of so-called far-left extremism and “leftist troublemakers”.
Under the guise of concern over their “right to dissent”, he has voiced support of (in his own words) American Nazis, Holocaust deniers and other white supremacists for decades, eventually establishing the Canadian Association for Free Expression for that very reason. All of these are talking points that should sound familiar to anybody who has been engaged in today’s campus politics.
More recently, the emergence and activities of student groups like the Students Supporting Free Speech at the University of Toronto have followed a close enough course to elicit deep concern. While arguing for the right of free speech of Jordan Peterson, the Halifax Five and similar figures against an “intolerant left”, SSFS has managed a dubious feat of drawing Fromm himself to one of their events. That the invocation of constitutional freedoms is little more than a deflection becomes particularly apparent too when we ask who, faced with institutional censure, isn’t afforded these defences. In the United States, Johnny Eric Williams, Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor and George Ciccariello-Maher, to name only a few, have been subject to far more severe and immediate consequences than Jordan Peterson for little to no justifiable reason, and these often accompanied by threats of violence and murder.
Politically motivated campaigns across the country now target progressive campus organizations, such as the Ontario Public Interest Research Group and other PIRGs, or McGill’s Daily Publications Society, for defunding. Rather than emerging to decry these, the groups that supposedly exist to innocuously protect freedom of expression are comfortably silent or, at times, even participate in these attacks.
Only in the last few weeks, University of Toronto faculty have expressed alarm over Jordan Peterson’s professed intentions to create a website to identify and advocate for the removal of university courses that he finds politically objectionable. By no coincidence, these are largely, in his own words, “women’s studies, and all the ethnic studies and racial studies”— fields of study that centre marginalized populations often left out of more mainstream curricula.
Similarly, it should be noted who it is to most vocally speak out against the right-wing campus demagogues that operate under the pretence of respectability — students who are more often than not racialized, transgender, women, queer and/or holding other marginalized identities.
The eagerness with which the McMaster administration now concedes to what are barely veiled right-wing demands is unacceptable, all the while it comes as utterly predictable.
Through these “anti-disruption” guidelines, Mac continues to demonstrate how the university remains a colonial institution that, complicit in transantagonism and white supremacy, will always capitulate to the far-right. Institutional condemnation of the “rowdy” students who stand against Peterson and his ilk, long now known to be responsible for harassment and violence towards activists, can and should be understood as a direct attack on trans, racialized and other marginalized students on campus. Make no mistake: no part of this debacle has ever truly been about free speech, and it is a victory to the far right when we accept any attempt to frame it that way.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
By: Pavle Arezina
I attended a talk from psychology professor Jordan Peterson on March 17, 2017 at McMaster. What I and others saw and experienced was shameful. It was a failure on the university security for doing nothing, a failure as a student body for not being able to listen to an opposing opinion without spouting vitriol and a failure on McMaster for condoning this behaviour.
Have we, as a respected university, come to a point where opinions deemed invasive to someone’s safe space must be stamped out immediately? This crusade led by the select few to destroy the ability to speak freely about certain topics that offend them is a dangerous trend that needs to be addressed at McMaster.
At the event, I saw more people convert to Peterson’s view on topics he has discussed because of the unethical behaviour shown by the protestors. There were many who only wanted to have an honest debate about the pros and cons of Jordan Peterson’s stance on Bill C-16 and other issues.
Through the barrage of hate sent by these vocal protestors, Peterson calmly spoke to the majority who strained to hear the message he was stating. Even more impressive was that he tried to start a dialogue with the protestors at the beginning of the lecture, despite the fact that the three professors planned for the panel dropped out due to pressure from this minority. The drone of slurs he received made it clear that he would be getting nowhere.
Protesting had the opposite effect of what they are trying to achieve. You think being screamed at and equated to a worthless human being will make me consider your opinion more valid than a person who is offering open discussion?
Where was the campus security to remove these people? The amount of people in the room alone should have caused them to eject anyone not in a seat due to the fire hazard. They did not want to appear discriminatory against a certain subset of people. They did not want to remove people who are clearly disrupting the event, clearly getting into Peterson’s face and presenting a safety hazard.
It seemed as though McMaster was scared of damaging their reputation, and was willing to risk the safety of their students instead of attempting to remove the protestors.
It is clear that there is a majority of students who wish to educate themselves and learn more on topics that interest them. The more open we are to considering ideas that are different, discussing the merits of them and debating in a civil manner, the better off as a university we are.
We have sacrificed our ability to critically think about issues in the name of not offending every group on campus.
As a society, imposing views on a group of people is never an answer to any issue we face. Instead, we should collectively come to a solution that addresses the issues we all face. Our neighbours to the south represent what can happen when you demonize a set of people on their beliefs instead of engaging in healthy debates.
I am not saying to approve anything anyone wants to preach about. People who incite violence towards groups or doesn’t follow the rules set forth by the university should clearly be denied access to a platform. We should not get rid of events and clubs that support and provide a place of safety for those marginalized.
All we can do is take a long hard look at the state of free speech at our campus and ask whether more can be done to protect it.
The pictures, names, and detailed resumes of students involved in the contentious Boycott, Divestments and Sanctions campaign in North America are now easily compiled for your convenience in a website called Canary Mission.
The purpose of Canary Mission is to identity individuals who engage in activities that are “anti-Freedom, anti-American, and anti-Semitic,” so that these “radicals” don’t become the “employees of tomorrow.” In a response to the backlash it has received, Canary Mission says that its real end goal is to act as a deterrent for students who spend their undergrads campaigning in favour of boycotting the state of Israel.
It’s not the public nature of the website that’s predominantly worrying. All of the people featured on the website have likely already made their opinion public through Facebook posts, tweets, videos, and rallies. Any employer can easily do a background check and uncover the same information. Public shaming is a tactic that takes place everywhere along the entire political spectrum. The social justice left has ended careers of those who have recklessly tweeted out offensive statements, and similar things have happened on our campus as well.
So while the public shaming aspect of it is concerning, it’s not what I find most frightening about the website. If the information they have compiled about each activist is false, they will most likely face legal action, and if it is not false, then all they have done is compile already available information.
However, the website is part of a disturbing pattern of deterring public speech in the West, that lies beyond the BDS movement and its critics.
It warns anyone who criticizes Israeli policies and occupations to think twice or find themselves featured on a website that will forever associate them with anti-semitism. In doing so, it silences those who question these ideas, by threatening to destroy their public image.
"The website is part of a disturbing pattern of deterring public speech in the West, that lies beyond the BDS movement and its critics."
Another instance of this sort of public speech being deterred through scare tactics happened recently in Canada. When the email exchange between a CBC reporter and a public relations staff for the Minister of Public Safety that suggested campaigning for BDS could be seen as a hate crime under Canadian law became public, the MSU quickly released a statement dismissing the claims as “egregious.”
Radical acts are vilified as being anti-Canadian and anti-American. A valued cultural identity is used to make the radical act appear as a foreign act that someone who is Western, in support of freedom, in support of these two countries, would never do. Whether this fits into the American or Canadian identity is decided by a select few people with a lot of power and a large audience to legitimize their words.
McMaster is no stranger to the complexity of the Israel-Palestine and BDS debate. People from both sides have complained about the animosity they have felt on campus throughout the discussion. These feelings are even more impactful in a university the size of McMaster, where you’ve probably met someone who strongly stands with either side. However, while we should be cautious that only non-violent, peaceful, and non-hateful activism takes place on our campus, knee-jerk reactions to activism as being hateful only further reinforces its initial goal to change the way we talk about an issue in the first place.
Deterring activism through a negative platform such as Canary Mission is a way of maintaining a specific political stance as the only correct stance, and erasing the other sides of the discourse from the public sphere. It cuts activism at its root by threatening the livelihood of potential activists.
The activism that BDS campaigners partake in is not criminal. This logic of deterring an act by threatening someone’s livelihood applies to crimes, not non-violent activism. That’s why it is left in the hands of the judicial system, not to the whims of the public and individuals that can possibly benefit from silencing certain viewpoints.
Given the lack of consensus among experts and world leaders on the Israel-Palestine conflict—I’m not suggesting that they are the epitome of moral and ethical guidance but rather a good sample of the complex nature of the conflict—it is illogical to deter activism and debate as if the right answer has already been found, and it is illogical to claim that anyone who disagrees needs to be punished publicly.
The website, along with the recent Canadian story, is an incredibly concerning method of control and silencing. As long as an activist group isn’t encouraging hatred and violence towards a group of people, why is their activism harmful, and who’s to say it is?
The ability of groups to silence with subtle threats of losing one’s place in the world, of having fewer career options and a bleak future ahead, is detrimental to the open nature of our academic environment. If we can’t have these discussions in the Western world, where we pride ourselves of being champions of freedom and human rights, then when can they happen?
The discussion isn’t about choosing one side over the other. I hope that even after the vote in favour of BDS at this year’s General Assembly, respectful discussion can continue at McMaster about international issues that, in one way or another, affect us all.
[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]
Due to Jean Touitou’s first name, it should come as no surprise that the Tunisian-born founder of French label A.P.C. has largely built his credibility as a designer upon his jeans.
Because of the hard-ons that his raw denim and clothes elicit within both the street wear and fashion communities, Touitou has normally been given free reign to say whatever he wants. Oftentimes, as is the case with his very public disagreements with Saint Laurent’s Hedi Slimane, this carefree willingness to step on toes is entertaining; everyone loves a well-dressed old cynic whose very being pulsates with antipathy.
But last week, Touitou went from loveable ornery designer to racist appropriator. While presenting A.P.C.’s Fall/Winter ’15 collection, which includes a boot designed in collaboration with Timberland, Touitou held up a sign that read “LAST N*GGAS IN PARIS” and went on to give a lengthy description of one look.
“I call this one look Last N*ggas in Paris. Why? Because it’s the sweet spot when the hood—the ‘hood—meets Bertolucci’s movie Last Tango in Paris. So that’s ‘N*ggas in Paris’ and Last N*ggas in Paris. [Nervous laughter from the audience] Oh, I am glad some people laughed with me. Yes, I mean, it’s nice to play with the strong signifiers. The Timberland here is a very strong ghetto signifier. In the ghetto, it is all the Timberlands, all the big chain. Not at the same time—never; it’s bad taste. So we designed Timberlands with Timberland…”
Naturally, Touitou’s insensivtive commodification of black culture raised the ire of the public. In defense of his loaded remarks, Touitou cited his friendship with Kanye West, with whom he produced a collection last season. He told style.com, “as a matter of fact, when I came up with this idea, I wrote to him, with the picture of the look and the name I was giving to it, and he wrote back immediately saying something like, ‘I love this vibe.’”
If Kanye’s vote of confidence seems a cheap way to justify using a racial slur to sell clothes, that’s because it is.
Yes, the Timberland workboot has been an almost ever-present fixture within the rap scene, with its stars flaunting their wheat Timbs in videos and fans subsequently adopting them. But more concerning has been the fashion world’s complete co-opting of a boot that has been beloved by not just rap fans, but the working class as a whole. Snooty publications have betrayed their lack of perspective by their attempts to pass off the boot as a new trend.
Timberland naturally took a dim view of Touitou’s musings and immediately cancelled their collaboration.
Touitou has since apologized, saying, “when describing our brand’s latest collaboration, I spoke recklessly using terms that were both ignorant and offensive. I apologize and am deeply regretful for my poor choice of words, which are in no way a reflection of my personal views.”
While Timberland was quick to sever relations, the conversation ignited by the debacle has been useful in how it didn’t just look at Touitou’s error and instead focused on racial appropriation elsewhere. Julianne Escobedo Shepherd’s piece for The Muse, “APC Designer: I Can Call My Clothes ‘N*gga’; I’m Friends With Kanye” is probably the best one for how it dealt with the fetishization of black culture with a refreshing frankness.
Let’s just hope that other designers wise up and start treating other cultures with respect, not for the sake of their lucrative collaborations, but for the sake of being better human beings.
[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]