By Nicholas Marshall, Contributor
Grits. Reds. Libs. We need to talk. Let us consider Justin Trudeau’s domination in the 2015 federal elections. Here, Trudeau, the son of the heavenly father of our Constitution, descended from the lofty peaks of Canadian society to liberate our wretched souls from the clutches of Harper’s conservative austerity. I take it you were feeling pretty confident this time around. Trudeau was a media darling, beloved on the world stage and, in contrast with our neighbors to the south, a head of government that was hoping to unite our diverse population with Canada’s virtues of multiculturalism and equality.
But then, the scandals started rolling in. They began as relatively innocuous misdemeanours; his trip to India donning garb of another culture may have seemed like a substantial embarrassment, but it was only foreshadowing whats to come.
Things started to get more serious when the Liberal government approved the expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline. The Trans Mountain pipeline is poised to carve a path straight through the Liberal rhetoric on climate change, and undermine every word that spilled out of Trudeau’s mouth about protecting future generations.
Nothing could have prepared us for the big fish: the SNC-Lavalin scandal was a disaster for public confidence in our prime minister. A private corporation lobbying the government to change the law in their favour so that they could escape conviction was and is an international scandal. But to also pressure and demote your attorney general and then lead a coverup inside your own cabinet demonstrates a profound lack of respect for the political process and the rule of law. In fact, according to the ethics commissioner, the sitting prime minister had broken the law. At least things couldn’t get any worse, right?
We soon learned that the prime minister was “two-faced” in more ways than one.
So, where do we go from here? Justin Trudeau has been involved in scandal after scandal, while Andrew Scheer, the Conservative party leader, is climbing in the polls. Scheer, the leader who pinky promises that his personal opinions about gay people won’t inform his policy decisions.
So what do we do?
The truth is, most people like how the Liberals brand themselves, but in practice they don’t like watching their feminist darling sell war machines to Saudi Arabia. So, perhaps it’s time to wake up to the fact that Liberals campaign themselves as New Democrats and govern themselves as Conservatives, especially when they know no one is looking.
This election, it’s time we build our image of the Liberal party based on actions and not on words. We should recognise that the policies the Liberals win on are the actual policies of the NDPs and the policies they sneak in behind our backs are Conservative.
And, we must keep in mind that when Canadians don’t have the appetite for a scandal-ridden Liberal, voting Conservative is a counterproductive exercise in masochism (see Doug Ford). When your sheep start to bite, you don’t start shearing wolves.
This election has only just begun, so now is the time to get to know your candidates and evaluate them based on what they offer you as a citizen. Take nothing at face value, and remember that these people may not be exactly what you expected. But if you give it time, I’m sure they will all reveal their true colours to you.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
By: Sophie Hunt
It has been said that Bill Cosby is a comedic legend, a cultural icon that has influenced the lives of people across the world. Fans still flock to his shows and pay money for front-row seats in order to listen to his jokes. Yet there is a problematic undertone to Cosby’s performances that these people are ignoring.
There are many dedicated fans of comedy that have chosen to look past the recent sexual assault allegations made against Cosby. Nearly 20 women have stepped forward claiming that Cosby, either decades ago or in recent years, sexually assaulted them in various ways. Despite the allegations and charges that began to surface as far back as 2005, fans of the comedian stand with him and continue to support his career. Cosby has recently visited three cities in Southern Ontario, including Hamilton, and avid fans still attended his comedy show, despite the presence of protestors willing to speak out against Cosby at his events.
The reflexive response of Cosby’s fans is not an isolated incident. Many influential celebrities continue to maintain their fan base despite any wrongdoing on their part. We participate in a culture that allows a celebrity’s popularity and career to cloud the conversations about social issues that should come about from scandals such as Cosby’s.
Why have people chosen to ignore the incredibly serious claims made by these women? Fans have been quoted as saying they support the comedian regardless of the allegations made against him, simply because they enjoy his comedy and have grown up watching Cosby’s work.
There is a passive acceptance in our culture that brands influential individuals as untouchable by the backlash that should come about from the crimes they commit. Regardless of whether or not the claims of these women are true, a precedent must be set when dealing with allegations of this nature. The fact that these women’s claims are so willingly overlooked invalidates their voices, and instead works against their efforts to bring to light horrible crimes that potentially have been committed.
The central concern here is the blatant disregard these fans have for the women that have come forward and revealed their claims against Cosby. Instead of supporting the rights of women who have suffered from sexual assault, or even acknowledging that these allegations exist against Cosby, fans are choosing to turn a blind eye to the overall implications of Cosby’s performances. By allowing him to continue to tour, fans are implicitly working against efforts being made to give voice to those who are fighting for the rights of sexual assault victims.
Cosby’s extensive and influential career does not- and should not- completely discredit the allegations that have been made against him by a continuously growing list of women. His “legendary” status should not invalidate these claims, whether or not he is proven guilty. The voices of these women cannot be ignored, and a vital change needs to be made in the way society views celebrities in the wake of serious allegations made against them.
By: Imaiya Ravichandran
I, and I’m sure many of you as well (at least, I hope), visit Youtube at least once a day. Whether it is to watch the latest viral video, or to indulge in the obligatory daily dose of cute kitten videos, over one billion unique users fall victim to the endless abyss of funny, intriguing, and flat out weird content conveniently catalogued on this website. Standing alongside giant television and movie conglomerates, it is somewhat surprising that this start-up, rooted in humble beginnings above a Japanese restaurant in California, managed to become one of the world’s primary sources of entertainment. Of course, this incredible feat can be attributed to the accessibility and flexibility of the Internet, which most people prefer to the rigidity of TV and movie schedules. However, now that TV and movies are becoming increasingly available online, what else can explain Youtube’s continued success? Perhaps the answer lies in the modern “Youtube celebrity” whose content provides an inimitable degree of intimacy with its viewers.
There are several reasons why one would favour the approachable, flawed Youtuber instead of the inhumanly attractive celebrity. Though I shamelessly admire George Clooney in all his pepper-hair glory on screen, or hysterically shriek at the TV whenever Queen Bey performs, I am aware that these personalities are performing for legions of devoted fans. There is no true sense of connection between them and myself, although I often trick myself into believing otherwise (in a superficial sense…I’m not a stalker, guys). However, when interacting with a Youtube celebrity, this buffer is all but completely eradicated. Their content is so personal and genuine that you lose sight of the other hundreds of thousands of subscribers who are also closely bonding with the Youtuber in question. The reverence once felt towards the distant celebrity is now replaced with a new type of admiration, one that is summed up by the phrase: “they’re just like us!”
But they’re not just like us. In addition to surprisingly hefty salaries, Youtube celebrities possess a type of clout that many would argue is more powerful than that of their Hollywood celebrity counterparts. It stems from their uniquely close relationship with their viewers. While their following may not be as large as a traditional celebrity’s, the reach that they do have is much more influential. We put Youtubers on a pedestal, trusting them as we would a dear friend.
And so, it was understandably appalling for many Youtube audiences when news broke in March 2014 that two beloved British Youtubers, Tom Milsom and Alex Day, had been accused of sexual misconduct with multiple viewers.
In Milsom’s case, Tumblr user Olga accused him of emotionally and sexually abusing her throughout the course of their relationship; at the time of their courtship, she was only 15 and he was 21. Day’s accusers, eight in total, provided various accounts of sordid experiences with the popular vlogger, with the two most harrowing being of him coercing women to sleep with him – by definition, him engaging in rape. Milsom and Day were the second and third artists signed to the Youtube-centric record label DFTBA to be accused of some sort of sexual misconduct. Only a month earlier, former label-mate Mike Lombardo was sentenced to five years in jail for possession of child pornography.
I had been subscribed to Alex Day, or “nerimon” as he is known on Youtube, since I was 13 years old. As a staunch feminist, to hear of him and his friend’s atrocious behavior was certainly infuriating and disgusting, but first and foremost it was disappointing. It was profoundly different than if an elusive, unattainable celebrity had committed a crime. Here was a figure that I had looked up to, who I had laughed with, whose struggles and triumphs it felt like I had shared in. I was not alone in my attachment to Alex, nor in the blow that followed when my trust in him was breached. The allegations against Alex originated as blog posts on Tumblr. The diary-esque nature of the posts lent themselves to a cathartic release of his victims’ frustrations and disturbing tales of how they too had once admired Alex, only to have him use his position of power in an unmistakably inappropriate fashion.
The scandal elicited an impassioned response from the Youtube community. Response videos spread like wildfire, DFTBA swiftly dropped Day and Milsom from their roster, and a general call was made for increased discourse about the rampant presence of sexual abuse, sexism, and abuses of power in the Youtube community. The trope of an authoritative figure manipulating a less powerful victim is deeply embedded within the mores of the entertainment industry. However, it is especially pernicious in the Youtube context because it is a space in which large masses of potential victims feel safe with and close to their potential manipulators.
A small number of critics suggest that audience members guard themselves more warily against famous Youtubers. To always remember that there is a computer screen separating you and that charming British vlogger, and that you can never know anything more than what is depicted in a mere three minute long video. But I resent this suggestion. It goes without saying that it is important to be safe on the internet. It is equally important (and obvious) that one should not blindly trust a celebrity. However, to encourage barriers and distance between viewers and Youtubers would be to erode the very essence of openness upon which the Youtube community is built. If we teach viewers to not grow attached to a Youtuber, should they also not wear short skirts when walking along a street? Or have a drink before going out? Hopefully, you can understand the preposterous nature of these recommendations. They unjustly shift the onus from the Youtubers, who should be cognizant of their powerful positions and not exploit them, to the audience.
I bring all this up because recently, another Youtuber named Sam Pepper has come under fire for sexual misconduct, which he brazenly displays in multiple of his videos. Moreover, after a seven-month hiatus, Alex Day returned to Youtube with a video entitled “The Past”, in which he embarks on a half-hour tangent detailing a slew of feeble excuses “defending” his past conduct. I’m comforted that a sizeable portion of comments express contempt towards both Sam and Alex’s actions, adjudicating that sexual abuse and its perpetrators have no place in the Youtube community. However, the remaining reactions form a considerably large group who claim solidarity with the ostracized Youtubers. They suggest that “Youtube give them a second chance.” I wonder why these people feel this way. Most do not dispute the accuracy of the allegations against the Youtubers, nor do they challenge the severity of their crimes. Rather, they harken back to videos of the past, ones that depict their fallen heroes in all their charming, charismatic glory. And then, I realize that they too are victims, in some sense, of the intoxicating Youtube celebrity.
By: Ben Robinson
The issue of when the law should involve itself in the world of sports has always been contested, but perhaps never so much as it has of late. Over the past decade, high-profile athletes like Michael Vick and Ray Lewis have gotten into legal trouble that has had major consequences for them professionally.
This debate about when off-field actions should affect on-field actions has recently surfaced again, as five NFL players have been involved in domestic abuse incidents in the past month. When the video of Ray Rice abusing his wife surfaced on the internet at the beginning of the month, the internal quarrel of the NFL was palpable. They were caught in the dilemma of being a for-profit corporation that makes its money from having stars like Ray Rice continue to play games, but also wanting to at least appear to be concerned with moral issues for the sake of public relations. Being so torn, the league stumbled through the process, sending mixed messages by initially suspending Rice for only two games, before extending the suspension indefinitely. What eventually swayed the commissioner toward stronger disciplinary action was public opinion.
In general, major sports franchises and large corporations want to maintain good public relations. It’s not necessarily because teams like the Baltimore Ravens have particular personal convictions about being anti-violence, but when it comes down to it, maintaining a certain image of morality for these teams can be a cold and calculated economic decision. And yes, it is lamentable that organizations like the National Football League do not champion causes like anti-violence unsolicited. However, this desire of corporations to “look good” presents an interesting opportunity, as social media makes it easier than ever for the public to make their opinions about said companies known to the world instantly. Platforms like Twitter made it possible for Roger Goodell and the NFL to assess public opinion within minutes of details being released about Ray Rice assaulting his wife.
And so we learn from this whole NFL domestic abuse debacle that, if only for reasons of self-interest, what we think about giant international corporations matters to them. They long to be in good standing with the public in hopes that it will increase profits. Being perceived as a “moral organization” becomes smart business practice. As such, this affords the general public a great deal of power in the ways that we interact with these businesses. The public has the power to ensure that morality does have some place in big business, as we essentially function as stockholders in these organizations – despite the fact they we may not actually own any shares on paper. That's why Nike dropped Rice and Wheaties dropped Adrian Peterson. Whether or not Nike has a policy that they will not support criminals is irrelevant if public opinion is so strongly against domestic abuse that they have no choice but to assent. The same goes for the NFL team in Washington and the former owner of the Los Angeles Clippers. In an era where a negative public image can destroy a company in less than 24 hours, the public has a great deal of power.
It has been said before that you can vote every day with your money, but in this instance we need to be sure that it’s about more than money. We now have the ability to utter a collective “shame on you” to companies that once seemed larger than life itself, and you may not realize it yet, but they’re listening.
However, the influence social media has on public opinion also has the potential for negative consequences if it goes unchecked. Because social media is oriented towards the optics of an incident – what people perceive as having happened versus what actually happened – there is a chance that what truly happened might matter less and less. I bring this up not to suggest that Ray Rice was actually innocent, but rather to suggest that in other circumstances, there is a dangerous opportunity for people to be wrongly convicted by the notoriously merciless jury that is the world wide web. The high-speed nature of social media requires that companies act fast when scandals arise, sometimes so fast that they may be forced do so before they have all of the facts, or even worse, being forced to let someone go who you know to be wrongly accused in order to save face.
Wherever you stand on the spectrum of social media’s power to form public opinion, and consequently illicit action from corporations, it is clear that more than ever, public opinion is a force to be reckoned with.
Two weeks ago, the celebrity nude photo hacking took the internet by storm. Now the filth has settled and the masses have been taught for the umpteenth time that people shouldn’t be shamed for bearing their body. (That so many people still don’t get that message does not bode well for the future.) As we begin to forget, perhaps too quickly, about this invasion of privacy, consider what this means for your nude snap practices.
To repeat what many others have said, you’re free to do whatever you want with your own body. Do not let this well-publicized incident deter you from taking pictures but it’s important to make sure it is what you really want. There are many good reasons for taking a nude photo – as a means for maintaining a long distance relationship comes to mind, but your significant other asking for one is not one of them. Never feel pressured to take a naked picture. While these are tough waters to navigate as it may involve rejecting someone you love, these pictures are too intimate and powerful for them to be given out due to pressure.
So you’ve decided that you want to send this nude pic. The next thing to keep in mind is extra precautions you should take. While it shouldn’t be something you should be concerned about, these photo leaks have repeatedly proven that the world is filled with turds disguised as normal human beings. I’m hopeful that one day these people come to their senses, but for the time being, encrypt your files and set up strong unique passwords. Apple also has a nifty feature that requires a two-step security check for another device to access your account.
While I’m sure your nudes, in which your lips are pursed and your body is contorted for optimal sexiness, are so smoking hot that they should always be followed by flame emojis, the truth is that you’re no Jennifer Lawrence. There won’t be millions of perverts searching for your picture if it ever got leaked into the public and they are less likely to be leaked to begin with. There’s less risk associated with your naughty pictures, so there’s no real need to change your nude policy due to this event.
That being said, less people caring about your nude pictures also mean there are less people who care about you if they were ever leaked. You are sorely deluded if you think the FBI will open up an investigation for you if your pictures got out. This is not to say that you are responsible for what happens in the event that your picture makes its rounds in your social circle, but simply that what follows will likely take a big toll on you – and there’ll be less help than you expect.
Ultimately, nudies are such a strange and vulnerable form of self-expression in modern courtship that it would be a shame if anyone stopped because of this recent leak. Take these tips into consideration and continue to snap away in front of your washroom mirror. Just stop using that awful flash, it’s distracting from your good-good.
