Home Blog Page 1302

Election 2013: Informing your vote

By
EIC
-
0

Provincial Election

 

A breakdown of current political issues, candidates, and party policies, just in time for May 14

By Leah Bjornson
Photos by Stephen Rees, Stephen Hui, Kris Krug

Democratic participation in BC has steadily declined over the last few decades, dropping to the point where only 55 per cent of the 2.9 million registered voters cast a ballot in 2009. Of that statistic, the lowest registration rates are for young voters.

In a poll conducted by Elections BC in 2010, it was found that on average, only one-third, 34 per cent, of the 20-24 year old group cast a ballot in the three Provincial elections that have taken place since 2001. However, in the 18 to 19 year old age range, three out of every five registered voters cast a ballot. The fact that this cohort had a higher percentage of votes cast than the BC average provides a glimmer of hope for increased democratic participation by BC’s younger generation.

But does a vote really matter if it is not informed? To help you make it to the ballot box, and to make a thoughtful, informed decision, The Peak has put together a comprehensive guide to leadership candidates and the political issues in BC today.

Leadership Candidates

Adrian Dix 

Some might have been surprised when Adrian Dix was elected the leader of the BC New Democrats in April 2011, considering his involvement in a scandal which ended the leadership of once-premier Glen Clark. The controversy involved charges that Clark had approved his neighbour’s casino application in return for renovations to his home. Dix, who was then chief of staff to Premier Clark, was fired by the premier after it was revealed that he’d falsely backdated a memo in an effort to protect Clark.

Dix has since expressed regret for his actions, telling press at a conference in 2011, “I take responsibility for my mistakes. I always have . . . I own them.”

Although Dix was not involved in politics immediately following the incident, he re-entered the political arena and was elected as an MLA in 2005. Since then, Dix’s policies have displayed a commitment to quality public education as well as readiness to challenge current policies. Over the past few years, Dix has lead a coalition that saved certain East Vancouver schools from being closed and was also the executive director for Canadian Parents for French, BC-Yukon Branch, a non-profit organization that promoted language education. More recently, Dix led the NDP’s successful fight against the HST.

Adrian Dix’s proposed plans for the future include a plan for health reform that would add $254 million in spending over three years. Dix has also floated the idea of selling BC Place, suggesting that the NDP government would prefer to spend the stadium’s predicted operational losses of almost $60 million over the next three years on hospitals or social programs.

Christy Clark 

The BC Liberals have exalted our current Premier as a politician dedicated to “putting families first, defending and creating jobs, and creating a more open government” in BC. However, Christy Clark’s successes over the past two years have been undercut with recent falling poll numbers, suggesting this Premier’s time may be up.

Clark became the Premier of BC in 2011 after she won the BC Liberal Party’s leadership election on February 26, 2011. First elected to the legislature as an MLA in 1996 and working as the Minister of Education and Deputy Premier from 2001 to 2005, Clark has since demonstrated a commitment to a consistent, focused platform centred around jobs, families, and open government.

Such policies include the BC Jobs Plan (“Canada Starts Here”) which is comprised of a package of policies meant to encourage the creation and protection of BC jobs by taking a leadership position federally and promoting fiscal prudence. In recent years, the provincial government under Clark has increased the minimum wage and cancelled the training wage, created the Family Day holiday, and released reviews of government companies like BC Hydro and Community Living BC. In response to criticisms of overspending, Clark counters that she hopes to have a debt-free BC in 15 years.

Clark’s Premiership has been plagued by political controversial decisions like the adoption of the HST as well as personal critiques, the most recent of which concerned allegations of her running a red light while driving her 11-year-old son Hamish to hockey practice. Further criticism has surfaced as to whether or not voters can judge the Liberals based on Clark’s two years as leader, or whether the problems of the past 12 years should be given more thought. Whatever the cause, the Liberal’s poll numbers are trailing the NDP’s by 14 points, up from trailing by 17 points since the last Angus Reid poll in April.

Jane Sterk

The Green Party leader began her career, not in politics, but as a teacher with the Edmonton Public Schools, teaching at the University of Alberta, Grant MacEwen College, and University Canada West in Victoria. Jane Sterk first became involved in politics when she ran as a federal candidate in 2004 and as a provincial candidate in 2005, becoming a councillor in the Township of Esquimalt from 2005 to 2008.

Since 2007, Sterk has led the Green Party of BC with a focus on strengthening internal party structure, implementing disciplined financial controls and retiring the party’s long-term debt while working actively for sustainability initiatives.

As an Esquimalt councillor, Sterk pursued several environmental policy shifts, including the adoption of an urban agriculture resolution, a community garden by-law, a pesticide by-law, and the creation of a pedestrian charter. Although the BC Green Party is similarly focussed on environmental issues, Sterk has worked this election to show that the Greens are more than a one-issue party. Through decentralization, sustainable economic policies, and accountable democracy that responds to the wishes of British Columbians, the Greens are attempting to shift from an environmental alternative to become a legitimate option for BC voters.

John Cummins

For 18 years, Conservative Party Leader John Cummins has represented British Columbians throughout the evolution of Canada’s conservative movement first as a Reformer, Canadian Alliance, and finally as a Conservative MP. During the Leadership debate on Monday, April 29th, Cummins presented himself as a third and better option than NDP and Liberals. On the BC Conservatives’ website, Cummins is advertised as the better choice between “transparency and deception”, “listening and arrogance”, “government of the people and a government of special interests”, and between “common sense and political correctness”.

If elected, Cummins has pledged to pursue certain policies which promote fiscal austerity while bringing jobs back to British Columbians. The Conservatives plan to achieve this goal by eliminating the Carbon Tax and the province’s debt, ensuring a re-balance between urban and rural British Columbia in order to make northern and remote regions of the province attractive to newcomers, developing the province’s natural resource wealth, and giving young British Columbians the first opportunity to fill jobs that are now being taken by temporary foreign workers. In addition to these goals for job creation and economic stability, the Conservatives have been sure to address the need for a strong social safety net “for those who truly need assistance.”

Election Issues

The Economy and Job Creation

The economy and job creation have been a focus for all parties this election, who all propose different solutions to put the province on track to becoming a Canadian economic leader.

The Liberals have actively promoted job creation over the last couple of years through the BC Jobs Plan, “Canada Works Here.” This plan has been the focus of Clark’s administration, and attempts to put BC in first or second place in Canada for job creation and economic development by 2015. Highlighting the importance of the BC Jobs Plan when it was first implemented in 2011, Premier Clark said, “Our goal is to be the economic engine of Canada because by creating jobs you create strong families and government has the money to pay for the healthcare and education we all want.”

The NDP sees the problem as one of skill shortage. Their solution is in post-secondary education and skills training. The party plans to improve access to job training by providing $100 million in needs-based, non-repayable student grants. When asked how his party might fund such a large project, Dix replied, “It will be funded by reinstating the minimum tax on large banks.”

The Conservatives have proposed three keys for success in this area: first, through high-wage job creation; second, by investing in the province’s natural resource development; and third, through investment in skills training and apprenticeships.

The Green Party proposed a complete shift from the current Liberal government’s economic platform, pointing to the deficits created by the current economic model as the reason. According to Richard Hosein, media contact for the Green Party of BC, “Our current economic model leaves us with fiscal, social and ecological deficits.” The Greens believe, BC must transition from an economy that depends on growth and consumption to one that promotes sustainability.

The Enbridge Northern Gateway

Much debate has centered on the Enbridge Northern Gateway project, a plan which involves constructing a crude oil and liquids pipeline from Alberta to British Columbia. The project would create 217 jobs, but has raised concerns as to its environmental, economic, social and cultural risks.

The Liberals have been criticised for their non-committal reaction to the pipeline project. Clark recently defined the government’s position as “committed to economic development that is balanced with environmental protection” and in favour of environmental review of the Enbridge development. However, the Liberals do support pipelines in BC if they meet necessary criteria and prove to be beneficial to the community as a whole. Clark said last year when the government outlined its heavy oil pipeline requirements, “We need to combine environmental safety with our fair share of fiscal and economic benefits.”

Both the NDP and the Green Party have declared their fervent opposition to the pipeline, although Adrian Dix has been criticised for changing his opinion on the pipeline in the past months. Rob Fleming, NDP environment critic, recently was quoted as saying, “New Democrats have taken a principled stand against the Enbridge pipeline. We will ensure B.C. voices are heard and B.C. interests are protected with a “made in B.C.”environmental assessment.” The Green Party echoes the NDP’s environmental concerns, and adds that, if created, the pipeline would actually ruin more jobs across Canada in the fisheries and tourism than it would create.

The Conservatives have pledged their full support for the project, “provided that it passes all necessary environmental reviews” according to Kristy Fredericks, Director of Policy, Research and Communications for the BC Conservatives as quoted in Darpan Magazine. Cummins expressed his belief that the economic benefits of the project outweigh the environmental concerns, and that the project should be implemented as soon as possible.

The Justice System

Engaged citizens have also expressed their concerns over BC’s justice system. The courts experience large delays, exemplified by the fact that over 2,500 cases have been open for at least 14 months without being decided upon. To alleviate these backlogs, the different parties are proposing solutions to fix our flawed justice system.

The Liberals are proposing a 10-point plan to fix the current problem. The plan includes the creation of a Justice and Public Safety Council, a new scheduling system, and increased use of technology to increase the courts’ efficiency. However, support for the Liberals in the justice sector has fallen sharply, especially since the 2011 Stanley Cup Riots.

The Conservatives have pledged to increase funding to the courts, as they claim that the system has suffered a lack of resources over the last decade. The party hopes that increased numbers of judges, sheriffs, and other officials will increase the expediency of the courts and result in “timely justice.”

Rather than focusing on improving the justice process, the Green Party believes that the justice system would be best improved by making communities safer through the establishment of a provincial police force, a restorative justice program, and an independent police complaints system.

The NDP’s platform on the justice system promises to strengthen access to justice and improve community safety by putting millions in legal aid and crime prevention and restorative justice programs.

Conclusion

No matter whether you are a student or a seasoned voter, this upcoming Provincial Election has provided British Columbians with much to think about when casting their ballots. Will the Liberals be elected on their platform of support for families, job creation, and fiscal prudence, continuing their history of twelve straight years in office? Or is it time for the NDP, who even after Christy Clark’s impressive composure in the April 29th Leadership Debate have overtaken the Liberals in the polls because of their focus on social spending, skills training, and support for the environment? It could even be that British Columbians have grown tired of these two dominant parties, and might resort to the sustainability-driven Greens or the fiscally responsible Conservatives.

As it stands now, Angus Reid polls point to an NDP victory of 41%, with the Liberals polling 34% of the vote and the Greens and Conservatives coming in with 12% and 10%, respectively. Such an election would result in a huge NDP majority government, according to UBC Prediction Markets. While there is still time for the Liberals, Greens, and Conservatives to gain ground, there are only two weeks left before the election on May 14th.

For SFU students looking to vote, information regarding registration and voting locations can be found on www.elections.bc.ca.

Remembering Boston

By
EIC
-
0

SFU professor was minutes from reaching the Boston Marathon finish line when the bombs went off

By Kristina Charania
Photos by Christopher Penn

On an average day on Boylston Street in Boston, Massachusetts, the air hums with conversation, the rustling of shopping bags and take-home restaurant containers, and the clicking of swaying metal flower baskets hanging from old-style lampposts. At first glance, Boylston Street looks much like parts of West Vancouver and Gastown.

On April 15th at 2:50pm, the scene was much different. After the explosion of two bombs set off thirteen seconds apart — the first within moments of the finish line — the area smelled like a mixture of fresh fireworks and smoke, according to SFU psychology professor Rachel Fouladi. She was minutes away from the Boston Marathon finish line when she heard the blasts, still nestled amongst nearly 5,700 other runners yet to complete the race.

“The police didn’t automatically recognize what happened,” Fouladi said. “They were walking a bit slowly, and one officer was reaching for his communication device. It’s a difficult sound to recognize at first — how often do we hear a bomb go off?”

Fouladi said she stuck to positive thoughts as she continued to run, with no one immediately stopping her and no visual indication of what had occurred. “It certainly did cross my mind that the explosion was a bomb. But, I thought, it could have also been an accident, a blast at a construction site, bleachers falling — of course, I had hoped not — or the scaffolding archway for photographers near the finish line.”

Spectators and volunteers then stopped her and 25 other runners between the intersections closest to the bombing sites. If they had been even a second later in stopping her, Fouladi would have found herself amidst the chaos and destruction created by the packed pressure-cooker bombs.

After the scramble to borrow spectator’s cell phones and send text messages over a poor connection, groups of on-foot enforcement, police on bicycles, and a SWAT car rushed towards Boylston Street. Fouladi’s group was instructed to evacuate away from the bomb sites a few minutes later.

Although she is now safe and sound in Vancouver, Fouladi encourages increased marathon participation after witnessing the warmth and kindness of other participants in Boston. It’s crucial, she notes, that people continue to put one foot in front of the other to demonstrate the power of community engagement.

“These are beliefs I take to heart. I try my best to encourage other people to discover for themselves what I’ve discovered through marathon running,” she says. Fouladi herself progressed from relaxed interval training to running a half marathon in 2007.

“At this race, I even met a fellow running his 19th Boston Marathon. He had a little pot belly, and by the look of him you’d never have guessed he was a runner. People of all ages came from a variety of places like North America, Colombia, Japan, and Scotland — everywhere. Many repeat participants get to know each other and recognize people that they see at these races and ask, ‘How have you been this past year? What other races have you run this year? Is your foot feeling okay now?’”

With hundreds of volunteers and 42 kilometres of clapping and cheering spectators, much of the marathon’s spirit also comes from those people who selflessly administer race packs and run aid stations whether they take part in the race themselves or not. “Kids even offer the runners cut oranges, liquorice sticks, gummy bears, water — all sorts of items. If you’re thirsty as you run, there’s probably somebody along the route that will offer you something,” she says. “It’s really sweet. All of these actions are so innocent and positive, so it makes me extremely sad that these bombings happened.”

Besides organizing SFU’s Terry Fox Run and hosting informal run groups on a weekly basis, after her experience in Boston, Fouladi invited the community to join her for a run on the university’s Burnaby on a rainy Sunday afternoon. A total of eleven runners participated, including three children, the head of the university’s Health and Counselling office, a Lower Mainland resident, and two SFU students. One student brought her father along, who had participated in the Boston Marathon in 2011.

“She had been standing where the bombs went off this year when she had gone to support her father two years ago. For them, it had also been a close call. If they had been there this year instead, they would have experienced what I and others had experienced,” said Fouladi.

After 45 minutes of running around the track through a mixture of hail and snow, the runners stopped to change direction at 2:50pm — the time of Boston bombing — and ran silently for ten minutes in recognition of others’ sorrow and as a sign that people should not stop running or living their everyday lives.

“Even for those people who emailed me and couldn’t come to run because of other obligations, they were still thinking of us,” said Fouladi. “That’s another great thing. Not running with us doesn’t actually mean that you aren’t participating at all. You’re still there in spirit.”

SuperFunUniversity! #1

By
EIC
-
0

supersized

By Brad McLeod

Apolitical Cartoon: BC May 2013 Provincial Election

By
EIC
-
0

Apolitical Cartoon 1

Concept by Brad McLeod

Illustration by Ben Buckley

Moe answers not delivered

By
EIC
-
3

A response to his previous article “Ask Questions, Get Moe Answers”

By Isaac Louie

Dear Moe,

On the last article you wrote: “If you claim that just because not enough people voted, the election process is somehow flawed, or that the legitimization of the incoming directors should be questioned, then you are directly negating and undermining democracy and the time and effort of those active members of our community that actually voted in the last election.”

Moe, this is exactly what democracy is about — questioning decisions to gain a better understanding of issues. I read Joe’s article as addressing the broader concern of student apathy, and relating your vote score (which you were the first to bring up), does not mean you get to stop listening to these voices of criticism. 23 per cent voter turnout out of 25,000 students equals 5,750 students. Of those who voted, only 1,962 students voted for you, or 34 per cent of all voters in this election. Thus, those votes don’t actually represent the voting majority in this election, as 431 students voted no and the other 3,357 students spoiled the ballot.

I think the main point in all of this dialogue (Facebook comments, Peak articles, and Peak article comments) is that the SFSS executive continues to approach student issues in a top-down approach by telling us students that this society is “yours” and to “take it back.” This communicates a fundamental separation of the Board from the rest of the student body in an “us-versus-them” mentality.

I hope I speak on behalf of most students when I say that this student society is ours and that our voices and concerns need to be heard and acted upon by the executive. We need to be respected by them, as it is your role to serve us students, and not for you to boast about your votes.

Further, the disqualification of Alia Ali goes to show how troubled the state of our student politics is if people can run for board while knowingly ineligible.

I want to let you know that I am a student who has attended Board meetings, SFSS committee meetings, and Forum meetings only to have my concerns fall on deaf ears. SFPIRG is still without a lease from the SFSS, even after the Space and Oversight Committee violated SFSS policy to recommend the termination of the lease without consultation (which has been renewed and re-negotiated every time over the last 30+ years).

A room in the Women’s Centre all-gender space is still mouldy and has posed a health hazard for over two years. In the time since this has been brought to the board’s notice (two years ago), we have seen the creation of a Build SFU space (which is empty most of the time). What message does this send? You were present at the meeting in which the Women’s Centre Collective brought that up, so I ask you now, when is that going to be fixed?

This call for student accountability is nothing new. Remember the Annual General Meeting when the Yoga Club called on the executive board for more transparency and accountability? I do. We need better behaviour from our board and more than kind thanks for our input. We need fortitudinous action.

Prevalence of abortion undermines a mother’s rights

By
EIC
-
1

WEB-Genocide Awareness-Alison Roach

A response to the criticisms against the Genocide Awareness Project

By Suzana Kovacic
Photos by Alison Roach

A few years ago, I received a distressed phone call from a friend. She had just found out that she was pregnant.  Her doctor strongly advised abortion because of an abdominal x-ray he had ordered to assess the cause of her abdominal discomfort.  He had failed to recognize that her symptoms may be due to pregnancy and recommended abortion because of the x-ray dose her baby had received at such an early stage in pregnancy.  It would seem her doctor recognized he could be held liable for any harm caused to the unborn child due to his failure to first determine if his patient was pregnant. Abortion would cover up his mistake and protect him from potential litigation.  Abortion, however, was not what his patient wanted or needed. I helped my friend find a different doctor who treated both mom and unborn baby as equal patients, and my friend went on to deliver a healthy baby girl.

I was reminded of the difficulties facing pregnant mothers when witnessing some of the recent responses to the Genocide Awareness Project by SFU Lifeline. Opponents seem to believe restrictions on abortion undermine women’s rights. I am now seven months pregnant and like my friend, have seen how the prevalence of abortion undermines a mother’s rights. The general acceptance of abortion by society and by large segments of the medical profession has created a culture which limits a mother’s choice to receive optimal care for herself and her child during pregnancy.

Too often, mothers facing a pregnancy crisis are steered towards abortion presumably because it is a cheaper, easier or a more convenient choice. Abortion, like any medical procedure, is never 100 per cent safe. While abortion is always lethal to the baby, abortion can also carry significant risks to the mom. The recent high-profile death of a New York mother following a botched 33-week abortion testifies to the risks, as do the numerous documented cases of mothers being taken from abortion clinics in ambulances following emergency complications.

Unrestricted legal access to abortion is based on the notion that legal abortion is safe, and illegal abortion is unsafe. A recent study examined the effect on maternal mortality following a ban in 1989 on therapeutic abortions in Chile. Instead of maternal mortality rates increasing as mothers turned to illegal abortion, the mortality rate decreased. Chile now has a lower maternal mortality rate than the US. The study attributed this decrease to delivery by skilled birth attendants, access to maternal healthcare services such as nutritional programs, and an increase in women’s educational levels.

Mothers and their unborn children deserve good medical care, not abortion. Direct abortion is never medically necessary to save the life of a mother. In order to understand this statement, it is necessary to first recognize there is a fundamental difference between abortion and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child.

A pregnant mother diagnosed with uterine cancer, for instance, can have her uterus removed in order to save her life. That the life-saving surgery results in the death of her unborn child is not the intent of the surgery. In the case of medical complications that arise after the unborn child has reached 22 weeks (the age of viability), the child is delivered prematurely to allow both mom and baby to be cared for. Restrictions on abortion do not affect the availability of care offered to mothers during pregnancy.

Pregnant mothers are vulnerable. Unrestricted access to abortion increases the vulnerability of mothers and their unborn children. Initiatives like the Genocide Awareness Project should be welcomed because they help us recognize that a pregnant woman is not one patient, but that mother and child are two equal patients who should each be afforded the greatest care medicine can provide.

 

What we need to reassess about rape and online crime

By
EIC
-
0

WEB-Online Crime-Vaikunthe Banerjee

Putting new labels on mislabeled terms

By Tara Nykyforiak
Photos by Vaikunthe Banerjee

What do the tragedies of Amanda Todd, Rehtaeh Parsons, Audrie Pott and the Steubenville rape trial conjure up? For one, the disheartening state of rape culture in our North American society. Second, a re-questioning of the impacts cyberbullying has on its adolescent victims. And third, the painful awareness surrounding teenage suicide.

Outside of the case involving Port Coquitlam teenager Amanda Todd, rape was carried out by adolescent males toward their intoxicated female counterparts. In a society that teaches “no means no,” these young men took the absence of a no as their opportunity to do what they wanted to their victims.

It is not good enough to simply say “no means no” without further elaborating what that really means. No can mean a verbal expression of the word, but it also means being able to speak that word, and when a person is not in their right mind to express their consent (ie. under the influence of alcohol), it is the responsibility of the other person involved to step back and stop from going any further. This should not be up for debate, and needs to be better communicated to the younger members of our society in order for these misconceptions and episodes of rape are not perpetuated.

In all but the Steubenville rape case, each of the victims saw no alternative but to take their own lives after nude photos were spread of them without their consent. These young women were victimized twice over when the rights to their bodies were violated — once when they were raped, and twice when their rapists distributed their private images with classmates.

It is never okay to take a photograph of a person unable to provide proper consent, and this message needs to be better communicated to adolescents. So much of a teenager’s life is conducted on the internet, and the potential to torment and cause pain is more and more powerful.

When a young woman’s private photos are shared online, not only does bullying occur, but so do many more grave problems. This is serious and criminal, and needs to be regarded as such. I can say that I side with Stephen Harper when he says, “what we are dealing with in some of these circumstances is simply criminal activity. It is youth criminal activity, it is violent criminal activity, it is sexual criminal activity and it is often internet criminal activity.” This is further exemplified when violent and sexual youth criminal activity results in the suicides of multiple female adolescents. So now the question is: why do we continue to provide our teenagers with the technologies appropriate to commit these crimes without the direct and open communication necessary to prevent them from happening?

It is obvious to me this communication is not being taken seriously. If it was, Todd, Parsons, and Pott would not have been driven to suicide when those who distributed their photos were not seriously dealt with. Is it not enough that the victims came forward to speak about the wrong that had been committed against them? That the rights to their bodies were taken away the night criminals spread private and damaging photos of them without their consent?

By stepping forward, these young women knew the crimes that were carried out against them, but the schools and police did not treat them as such. Just as anti-bullying campaigns are made, so should the awareness of these violent sexual crimes being carried out by young people today. These incidents are out there in our media, so the excuse of lacking knowledge does not exist. It is time we addressed the issue and call it by what it really is, a crime.

 

 

COLUMN: Locating the truth among fallacy

By
EIC
-
0

May 6 2013 Hitler

Helping you to better handle the truth

By Ben Buckley
Photos by Ben Buckley

Information bombards us every day in the form of news, advertising, and entertainment.

This wouldn’t be a problem, except for the fact that our brains evolved to hunt and gather food on the savannah, not to sort out large amounts of information and separate truth from opinion. As a result, our human brains are prone to many biases and heuristics that can lead us to believe things without good reason. This isn’t to say that humans are not capable of sound reasoning, but it takes a conscious effort. The purpose of my column will be to outline a few of the fallacies and persuasion techniques used in the media, and how to avoid being taken in by them.

With everyone discussing the news on the internet, it’s more important than ever to know the difference between a valid argument and a fallacy. Formally, a fallacy (pronounced “phallus-ee”, so get your giggling out of the way now) is an argument where the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. More helpfully, a fallacy is when you try to argue for some proposition, but you bring up facts that have no bearing on whether the proposition is true.

To illustrate this, I am going to start with a statement that I hope we can all agree on: one plus one is two. This statement is true no matter which language you translate it into; if you say “eins plus eins gleich zwei,” it is still true. The truth remains if you say it with a sarcastic tone in your own voice, if you write it out in sticks and stones, if you shout it on a street corner, or if you append it to the end of a misogynistic YouTube comment. It remains true no matter who says it, whether it’s you, your grandmother, Neil deGrasse Tyson, or Adolf Hitler.

It’s even true if you include it in a fallacious argument: If you say, “The moon is made of cheese, therefore, one plus one is two,” the argument as a whole is a fallacy, but that doesn’t change the fact that the conclusion is true. This means that if I come along and say, “one plus one can’t be two — Hitler believed one plus one is two, and he was evil!” I am wrong, because I’m using irrelevant information to try to conclude that one plus one is not two. You’re probably familiar with the “argumentum ad Hitlerum” — a popular fallacy on the internet — and a special case of “argumentum ad hominem,” (a case in which one attacks an opponent instead their argument).

If this all seems condescendingly obvious, bear in mind that what holds for “one plus one equals two” holds for any true statement, and what holds for “one plus one equals three” holds for any false statement. In practice, fallacies are covert, and they come up when dealing with more complex real-world topics. This is no excuse to stop exercising basic reasoning skills. As long as a fallacy continues to persuade an audience, it will continue to be used. It is my hope that, through this column, I can help make the most common fallacies a little less effective.

The division of equality

By
EIC
-
0

WEB - chasm

By Mohamed Sheriffdeen
Photos by April Alayon

The popular perception of Western feminists is of militant misandrists — chips firmly lodged in shoulders — perpetually decrying societal repression both real and imagined. Perhaps this is an unfair designation, and most feminists might claim that those doing the designating are closeted misogynists. They may be right, but it’s hard to identify with a movement that tries to encapsulate an enormous range of issues within a very narrow us-versus-them mindset while actively romanticizing, even fetishizing, historical inequality and gender warfare.

But how does one define feminism? It seems like a straightforward enough answer to an arbitrary question, but the way we answer it pigeonholes the ongoing march to equality into separate camps: feminism as a definition of an individual’s quality versus feminism as an evaluation of an individual’s worth. Let me explain.

Mary Berry, a judge on The Great British Bakeoff, made her name as a food writer, publishing over seventy books in a wildly successful career spanning four decades. She is, by all accounts, an ideal pin-up for feminism: a self-made woman who has gained international fame and respect as an authority in her field without having to make personal sacrifices (Berry has been married for almost fifty years and is a mother of three). But she doesn’t buy into feminism, labeling it a ‘dirty word’. Berry specifically knocked the idea of protracted maternal leave, believing it affects small businesses from employing women with or planning to start families. She’s not anti-female mind you, claiming she “would always stand up for women,” but she doesn’t want “women’s rights and all that sort of thing.”

Feminists have lined up to castigate Berry in the press as an antique who took advantage of rights won by suffragettes before slamming the door behind her. Others, like veteran broadcaster Joan Bakewell, strangely went into damage-control-mode on Berry’s behalf. “When I read that, I felt that Mary belonged in a completely different world,” Bakewell noted before trying to reclaim Berry’s allegiance to the feminist flag: “I think Mary would expect to be paid a decent wage for the job she does. . . as much as a man. So to that extent she is a feminist without realizing it.”

In a moment of reflection, Barbara Ellen of The Guardian pointedly inquired whether feminists sport a bizarre form of sensitivity or neediness that drives a desire to claim every successful woman as one of their sisterhood; but then regressed and concluded it best to treat every successful anti-feminist woman with the same disdain they treat the movement. Two steps forward, one step back, as though success and feminism are mutually inclusive. It is no longer sufficient for women to attain success on the same level as a man; they are required to exceed them in the public sphere to be considered a proper feminist while their efforts in the private sphere are labeled irrelevant. And God help them if they’re not on board with the movement.

This infighting is set in relief by feminist movements in the Middle East and India. A month ago, a nineteen-year-old Tunisian woman posed topless online with the statement “my body is my own and not the source of anyone’s honour” provocatively writ across her chest. Her actions inspired a number of others to similarly protest the aggressively paternalistic Arab governments that claim absolute morality by way of religious interpretation and attempt to “own” and oppress women. While flawed, this idea of controlled nudity is an absolute expression of freedom, transcending womanhood. A person has the right to govern themselves, their bodies, careers and actions without fear of persecution, assault, or belittlement; their quality unrelated to gender.

Feminism is no outdated concept. Gender driven inequality and violence are international pandemics akin to sectarian aggression and terrorism. Unequal access to literacy and professional opportunities has hamstrung women globally, condemning innumerable lives to endless subservience. The need for a united voice, the so-called ‘sisterhood,’ is integral to women realizing their full potential.

This is where the functional definition of feminism fails. While modern feminism has retreated from its more radical roots, wherein sects called for the systematic eradication of female-male relationships and proselytized societal upheaval. The core tenets of feminism have always been emancipation of women from dependency and establishment of equality. But equality is seemingly no longer satisfactory.

Feminists cannot agree on who is a true feminist nor what constitutes true feminism; instead of focusing their efforts on eliminating qualifiers and perceived inadequacies associated with one gender or the other, ultra-feminists (irrespective of the degree of radicalism) demand a certain type of woman.

In an article for Slate, author Hannah Rosin bemoaned the anxiousness of angry young feminists to sharpen their pitchforks as she recounted memories of book signings around the country: “I can feel it when they [the audience] save their applause…for when I mention a sin committed against the women of America. Or when a well-prepared member of the crowd…reads back to me [statistics] about the tiny percentage of female CEOs, as if I’d never heard them before.” Even more incredulous was the hypersensitivity over the obituary run in The New York Times for Yvonne Bell, which led off with, “She made a mean beef stroganoff.” Critics of the obit lambasted the paper for highlighting Bell’s domestic abilities, as though sharing an endearing personal trait somehow minimized her extraordinary accomplishments.

Modern radical feminism dwells in a loop. Despite envisioning a utopia populated and managed solely by women, it constructs a hierarchy where domestic achievements are considered lesser than professional accomplishments. Despite reaching out to men to achieve acceptance and a status as equals, it identifies men as enemies, reinforcing divisions. It feeds on its own identity crisis, while sullying its own name.

The popular movement Who Needs Feminism? wisely elected not to define the term itself, instead focusing on eliminative negative connotations associated with it. This is probably feminism’s best bet as the weight of unfocused internal arguments, demanded allegiance and petty divisions may yet sink the entire enterprise, rendering the movement irrelevant.

But then again, I’m a man. What do I know?

The Peak is hiring new Distribution Coordinators!

By
EIC
-
0

Sorry, applications are no longer being accepted.

1...1,3011,3021,303...1,444Page 1,302 of 1,444

Simon Fraser University’s independent student newspaper since 1965.

For advertising inquiries: [email protected]
For promotional inquiries: [email protected]

© The Peak Publications Society

Simon Fraser University’s independent student newspaper since 1965.

For advertising inquiries: [email protected]
For promotional inquiries: [email protected]

© The Peak Publications Society