Recently, I’ve been in the throes of a group project that requires students to address a social issue. At the start of the semester, I groaned inwardly when classmates expressed their interest in an environmental topic. During presentations about environmentally related issues, I resisted the urge to roll my eyes.

Before you peg me as the anti christ of environmentalism, let me tell you that I believe we need to take better care of our environment. In fact, my summer job for the past three years has been picking up garbage and planting greenery.

However, the idealistic and utopian ideas that tumble out of my peers’ mouths like rainbow-coloured vomit is appalling. Not only does this show a lack of understanding in terms of how things work realistically, but it is often only substantiated by information gleaned from biased pieces that exclude the full picture and have no accountability for misinformation.

If oil were a person, I am certain some of my fellow students would form a mob, hang him in the Academic Quadrangle and feed his remains to the koi fish in the pond. However, what they neglect to consider is just how many petroleum products touch our lives. Did you wear a sweater today? Oil product. It rains a lot in Vancouver, thank god for umbrellas! Oil product. Did you brush your teeth today with a toothbrush? Oil product.

What students neglect to consider is just how many petroleum products touch our lives.

I’m not advocating that you go out and purchase a foam finger with the words “#1 Oil Sands Fan” printed on the front, but I do think it’s high time that students opened their eyes to reality. Unless you are hiking the mountain to school, sporting ‘Adam and Eve’ leaf couture, you cannot feasibly say that you are accustomed to a lifestyle without petroleum products.

The grim reality is that we currently do not have any other energy sources that can replace and improve on what we get from oil. So no, the oil sands are not in business solely because greedy oil tycoons want to watch the world burn as they soak in bathtubs full of crisp hundred dollar bills; oil is actually something we rely on to maintain the quality of life modern society demands.

In a tutorial, my TA asked if we supported pipelines. I was the sole person to raise my hand in support. My classmates’ eyes burned into me as the TA asked for my reasoning. My answer was simple enough, but a revelation to the dissenting crowd: oil was going to be transported regardless, and I’d rather have it done via the lesser of evils.

A quote from a Forbes article serves as a poignant reminder that “1.5 million gallons of crude oil spilled in a single day last year in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, and 47 people were killed” during a railcar accident a little over a year ago. Plus, let’s not forget that “five out of the 10 largest oil spills in US history were from boats.” Pipelines aren’t perfect, but are you really advocating what’s best for the environment by protesting against them?

When it comes to the environment, enough is enough. Students, of all people, should know that, while ideals are really nice and we all yearn to live in the romantically simplistic world they paint, these notions are just not realistic.

During the week of October 20, Canada’s role in the ongoing War on Terror reached a new level, as the country was the victim of a pair of terror attacks. Two members of the Canadian Armed Forces were killed on home soil while another was injured in what appeared to be targeted attacks by ISIS sympathizers. Amazingly, these attacks have not seemed to damage the Canadian psyche, but have instead drawn out the best qualities that Canadians have to offer.

On Wednesday morning, when a rifle shot claimed the life of Corporal Nathan Cirillo as he stood ceremonial watch over the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, bystanders rushed to his aid and attempted to save the reservist’s life — delivering CPR to the fallen soldier while the shooter was still in the area.

As the shooter entered Parliament, we saw police and security services perform their duties with incredible calm under pressure. While our elected members of Parliament prepared to defend themselves with whatever was at hand, retired police officer Kevin Vickers, the Parliamentary Sergeant-at-Arms, shot and killed Cirillo’s murderer before he could claim any more lives.

While many news networks, including CNN, gave into hyperbole and emotionalized coverage, Canada remained calm in the face of the unknown threat. CBC, anchored by veteran broadcaster Peter Mansbridge, kept Canadians informed of the situation developing in the capital without allowing the story to devolve into wild speculation.

Amazingly, these attacks have not seemed to damage the Canadian psyche.

Other Canadian broadcasters were also quick to focus on the heroes of the day, and on what makes this nation and its people great. Our political leaders were on hand to remind us that now is the time for the Canadian people to stand firm, with Prime Minister Harper informing the world that “Canada will never be intimidated.”

When Parliament reopened the following morning, it did so with increased security measures, including lack of public access, but our government representatives were prepared to do their duties. Kevin Vickers was honoured with a standing ovation from a grateful House of Commons, as he performed his daily ceremonial duties. Opposition Leader Tom Mulcair acknowledged the previous day’s actions, stating “We don’t know the names of all the heroes, but we all saw heroic gestures yesterday.”

In true Canadian fashion, Liberal Party leader Justin Trudeau extended a hand to the Muslim community with the statement that “yesterday was a terrible perversion of your faith” and further reminded all of us that we are “a nation of open minds and open hearts and we won’t be intimidated into changing that for anybody.”

But the strongest display of unity was to come from the Prime Minister himself. Anyone remotely familiar with Mr. Harper knows that he is not one for public displays of emotion, which makes what we saw on Thursday even more impressive, as he crossed the floor to deliver a pair of handshakes, which he then transitioned into hugs, to both Mulcair and Trudeau.

For a brief moment, Canadians were witnesses to three men — who by all accounts can’t stand each other — unified in the face of tragedy and adversity, providing a microcosm of the unity that is occurring across the country. Canada will continue to stand, the True North strong, free, and united in defence of the principles that have made this nation great.

Recently, Honduras became the eighth individual state to have a free trade agreement with Canada. Rabble’s Don Davies was quick to call out the government for providing “economic backing to an undemocratic regime that commits, or tolerates, wide-spread human rights abuses.”

This deal has become part of an ongoing discourse on the ethics of cooperating with morally reprehensible regimes around the world, but also seems to highlight the hypocrisy surrounding such a discourse, as well as the weakness of nation-focused approaches to human rights.

Economic partnership with Canada remains such a minuscule imperative for Honduras that, whether or not this partnership exists, Honduras’ domestic policy is unlikely to change. By opening up Canada’s markets to Honduras and vice-versa, we are not condoning the policies of the pseudo-democratic government, nor are we supporting them.

Similarly, by withholding a free trade agreement based on our amorphous moral code, we would not be encouraging Honduras or similar states to change their ways. The moral statements that we make, though they seem resolute and strong, bear little significance; a debate which centres around Canada’s enabling of the brutal Honduran government to commit various atrocities and human rights abuses, rather than taking a stand and making a moral statement, is unimportant.

The key to addressing human rights issues is multilateralism, not bilateral free trade agreements.

It would, however, be wrong to say that Canada is powerless against morally corrupt regimes, like in Honduras. A multilateral approach to dealing with human rights globally would involve cooperation from all states, a democratic consensus as how to approach such topics, and a concerted effort to put aside petty political agendas for the common good of the international community.

Human rights abuses in Honduras are not Canada’s problem. The international community must be far more prudent about applying its norms and developing its institutions to adequately deal with human rights issues, which are global in nature.

Empowering institutions such as the United Nations to implement elections monitoring, to add enforcement measures to ensure adherence to conventions, and to expand the scope of the UNHRC’s Universal Periodic Review would be a good start. This would ensure that human rights issues around the world are looked at equally, making human rights a dimensional issue — an ever-changing and evolving discourse in international relations.

Furthermore, Canada has its own issues with human rights to address — the NSA’s PRISM program which Canada supports, and the abhorrent discrimination against Aboriginal peoples, for example. Canada is in no position to criticize the human rights situation in other nations. Thus, a multilateral approach is not only the most effective way to deal with human rights, but it is the only morally defensible way.

When states imply the rhetoric of morality to condemn the actions of other states, it is almost always in the self-interest of the former. If Canada reversed its free trade agreement tomorrow, we would still import products from China and export weapons to volatile regions around the world.

The agreement is inconsequential, but the discourse around it is revealing. One thing is clear: civil rights are not commodities that Canada can export.

Picture me in the fourth grade — a little girl in a bubble vest, sobbing over a report card while eating chocolate. I had failed to get an A in one of my courses, and all my shame and disappointment came in a flurry of tears and an amplified sweet tooth. I can look back at this memory now and have a good chuckle, but even as a child, I always set high expectations for myself.

These lofty expectations, you see, have been the love and bain of my existence. Growing up, my dad always pushed me to do my best, and fed my (then) ambitions to become a civil engineer-humanitarian lawyer, who also animated for Disney. I had big dreams for myself, and I thought that this was great. To have a goal to work towards is a healthy and beneficial thing, especially if it’s something that is meaningful to you. Self-efficacy — the strength of one’s belief in one’s own ability to accomplish tasks or goals — is also critically important to actually accomplishing these goals.

However, while high self-expectations motivated me to put forth my best work, I developed a cycle of confirming my own self-worth, in the process. Each time my work was assessed, I believed it was an assessment of who I was as a person, and as my parents’ marriage deteriorated, I began setting expectations for myself that were out of my control, and assumed responsibilities that weren’t mine to bear.

I believed that I could hold my parents’ marriage together by being the ‘perfect daughter.’ I had put their happiness into my own hands, and I tried to reassure myself that doing enough good things would fix our broken family; but when my parents finally divorced, I was met with the crippling truth that it would never be enough. To me, this translated as, “I’ll never be enough.” Though it felt good to earn that little ounce of self-worth from doing good deeds, a wave of shame and guilt for not trying harder would come rushing after.

When I began to self-harm, I had slipped into a major depression that made me all the more susceptible to feelings of worthlessness. I believed that every cut would compensate for each one of my failures. But of course, cutting didn’t solve any of my problems, and only made me feel more ashamed and empty.

Each time my work was assessed, I believed it was an assessment of who I was as a person.

As I look at my surroundings, I realize that we live in a society that tells us that we need to be more than who we are. We hear that we’re not pretty enough, or muscular enough, or smart enough, and it hurts. It takes a lot of effort to reach that bar, and when we miss and come tumbling back down, it takes a lot more to get back up again.

Yes, oftentimes I still slip, and fall, and it takes awhile to stand up. But I am grateful for my faith, and amazing friends and family who tell me that I am enough, and support me the whole way through. My ambitions have changed, but I’ve learned to revel in the big accomplishments as well as the small, intimate ones of daily life. Over time, I’ve become better at recognizing what I can and can’t handle, and on a good day, I’ll even get a decent amount of sleep. Though it’s a bumpy slope, I am ever so slowly learning to become more content with who I am.