Student Blog #5: Inequality and the Caste System in India

...but there the laws of religion, the laws of the land, and the laws of honour, are all united and consolidated in one invariable system, and bind men [sic] by eternal and indissoluble bonds to the rules of what, amongst them, is called his [sic] caste.

Edmund Burke (1852:310)

Just the other day, the Starphoenix ran a story about a couple in India who were attacked with machetes for having married outside their caste. The wife remains in intensive care while the husband sadly succumbed to his wounds. Despite being caught on CCTV cameras the attackers remain at large (The Starphoenix 2016).

Discrimination based on caste – including prejudice against “untouchables” or “Dalits”, “backwards castes”, and other markers of difference based on descent – is a significant social justice issue in contemporary Indian society. Caste is a complex system of social stratification which allows for little, if any, possibility for social mobility outside of the particular caste into which one is born. According to Human Rights Watch (HRW) approximately 260 million people are affected by caste-based discrimination worldwide, most of whom reside in the South Asian countries of Nepal and India (HRW 2016). Low caste people regularly suffer discrimination in many forms, including perpetual extreme poverty, degrading and humiliating work, violence enacted by upper caste militias and police, and obstacles towards accessing education. Furthermore, women experience additional discrimination due to intersections between caste, gender, and poverty, which put them at even greater risk of sexual assault, forced sex work, violence and indignity through crimes from which the perpetrators walk with impunity (HRW 2016). Despite caste-based discrimination being rendered illegal under India's constitution since gaining independence from Britain in 1947, corruption within the justice system and ineffective bureaucracy makes filing complaints and seeing justice enacted remains prohibitively complex and ineffective for most people.

Last summer I had the opportunity to connect with a very interesting organization working to end caste-based discrimination in the villages surrounding the city of Varanasi, India. The Peoples' Vigilance Committee on Human Rights (PVCHR) was started in 1996 by Lenin Raghuvanshi and his wife Shruti Nagvanshi, along with musician Pandit Vikash Maharaj, poet Gyanendra Pati, and historian Mahendra Pratap. I was lucky enough to get to meet with Dr. Raghuvanshi for an afternoon to hear about his personal story and the projects in which the PVCHR are involved, and I was inspired by their breadth of scope and creative approaches to community-based social justice work.

What initially prompted me to seek out the PVCHR was a personal question that I had about the appropriateness of applying universal human rights – which I regarded as a Western construct – in non-Western cultural contexts. It is not that I was in any way in support of exploitation based on caste due to reasons of cultural relativism, but rather skeptical of the use of the language of human rights by aid organizations that apply western interpretations of human rights to developing countries. While there are certainly examples from the last six decades to suggest that human rights language can be mobilized for imperial purposes, my brief time at PVCHR helped to shift my thinking towards the possibility for social justice initiatives to use the language of human rights in an effective culturally attentive way through community based work.

Though textual evidence confirms that forms of the caste system have existed for hundreds of years in the Indian subcontinent, the contemporary form of right-wing Hindu nationalism which promotes casteism – known as the Hindutva movement as championed by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) organization – was formed in the 1920s as a manifestation of British colonialism (The Kashmir Scenario 2014). Alternatively, PVCHR identifies tolerant, plural, and syncretic threads in Indian society throughout history, promoted by famous figures such as Kabir and Raidas in the 15th century. As such, the question of caste politics is open to change from within the society itself and to assert alternative forms of political, social, and religious identity against fascist political currents is by no means an imperial act, but is rather a radical act of social justice. Rauna Kuokkanen notes a semantic distinction, used by the International Indigenous Women's Forum (FIMI), between “harmful traditional practices” and “violence in the name of tradition”, which I think illuminates the realization that I experienced while listening to Dr. Raghuvanshi and other people at the PVCHR (Kuokkanen 2014:133).

While the work of the PVCHR began as an advocacy group for low-caste peoples it has grown to include intersectional initiatives working against neoliberal capitalism, nationalism, and fascism, towards supporting justice for women, Muslim minorities, children's rights to education and food, labour groups such as auto-rickshaw unions and weaver's cooperatives, and victims of police torture, to name a few (PVCHR 2011). The PVCHR are just one example of grassroots organizations around the world working to enact change where the official avenues fail to deliver justice to marginalized groups. While I remain skeptical about some of the “official” mobilizations of human rights discourse I believe that the language of human rights can offer a framework for grassroots social justice struggles.

- Thomas Seibel

References

Burke, Edmund. 1852. The Works and Correspondence of the Right Honourable Edmund Burke, Volume 7. London: Francis and John Rivington.

Human Rights Watch 2016. https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/03/11/un-human-rights-council-general-debate-ending-discrimination-based-caste-and-descent

The Kashmir Scenario. April 13th, 2013. “The need of the hour is to create new dynamics and debate within India: Lenin Raghuvanshi”. URL: http://thekashmirscenario.com/2014/04/13/prominent-activist-co-founder-peoples-vigilance-committee-human-rights-pvchr-lenin-raghuvanshi-conversation-mushtaq-ul-haq-ahmad-sikander-early-life-influences-work-h/

Kuokkanen, Rauna. 2014. “Confronting Violence: Indigenous Women, Self-Determination, and International Human Rights”, in Indivisible: Indigenous Human Rights. Joyce Green, ed. Fernwood Publishing: Halifax.

The Starphoenix. March 15th, 2016. “Graphic video shows Indian 'untouchable' hacked to death after marrying upper-caste woman”. URL: http://thestarphoenix.com/storyline/graphic-video-shows-indian-untouchable-hacked-to-death-after-marrying-upper-caste-woman

PVCHR 2011. “Call for a neo-Dalit movement to overthrow feudalism, neo-fascism and neo-liberalism through a popular action”. URL: http://www.pvchr.net/2011/07/call-for-neo-dalit-movement-to.html

Student Blog #4: A Critique of “Pop Culture Feminism”

While I was walking to class recently, I noticed the cover for that week’s edition of the Sheaf, the University’s student newspaper.  The cover had a photo of the famous World War II propaganda poster “Rosie the Riveter” on it, which had encouraged women’s participation as workers in war industries; except Rosie’s face had been replaced with Taylor Swift’s. Since that moment, I’ve been thinking about the piece, called “In Defense of Pop Culture Feminism.” I’ve been thinking about it so much that I believed a response piece was necessary.

The author of the piece claims that feminism is on the rise in part because celebrities like Emma Watson and Taylor Swift are identifying as feminists. She argues that this is important for the feminist movement, and that “serious” or “academic” feminists need to stop bullying Taylor Swift for her so-called “watered-down feminism.”

First, I take issue with her distinction of “’serious’ feminists,” as though the inclusion of feminist theory in academia is a bad thing. Gloria Steinem, an American radical feminist and journalist, who has expressed rather problematic opinions in the past, has said: “nobody cares about feminist academic writing…these poor women in academia have to talk this silly language that nobody can understand in order to be accepted…knowledge that is not accessible is not helpful.” Many philosophers use this elevated language – Kant or Noonan come to mind – and many of us struggle with their density to the point of frustration. But has anyone ever called them “silly,” or implied that they’re just trying to keep up with the Big Dogs of academia? I am aggravated by the suggestion that feminist theory should not be adopted in the philosophical canon because it is important critical theory in all fields. To criticize those who endeavour to advance the field with scare-quotes on “serious” feminist issues is to further divide the study of feminism in academia. Yet, the author praises pop-culture feminists for supposedly bringing feminists together.

The author further clarifies that pop-culture feminism is “based around ideas of girl power, female solidarity, and that feminism is for everyone.” The author also notes that while pop-culture feminism is deserving of critical analysis, it is valuable in that it makes gender equality appeal to the masses. On its base level, feminism is for everyone. To be sure, that is an important point. Yet, if that’s true, someone should remind Taylor Swift that identifying as a feminist means feminism is for women of colour, women who are not able-bodied, women who are impoverished, transwomen, etc.

I am, of course, assuming that the author did not do an in-depth search of why pop-culture feminists like Taylor Swift face an enormous amount of criticism within contemporary discussions of feminism. Taylor Swift, with the status that she has, has an extremely loud voice. And she has used it, time and time again to dismiss feminist issues that do not directly service her exact type of (tall, white, slim, blonde) “girl power” and “female solidarity.” Other than culturally appropriating in her music videos (see: Wildest Dreams), or glamourizing abusive relationships (see: Blank Space), I can tell you about one important example. Last year Nicki Minaj called out the music industry, arguing that “black women influence pop culture so much but are rarely rewarded for it.” She is very clearly pointing out systemic racism and sexism in the music industry directed against black artists. In short, Nicki Minaj is using her powerful voice to speak for many who don’t get the chance. Taylor Swift, by contrast.  nominated for the award Nicki Minaj believed she was snubbed for, hit back: “I’ve done nothing but love and support you. It’s unlike you to pit women against each other. Maybe one of the men took your slot.” Um, this wasn’t about you, Taylor Swift!

The author of the Sheaf article further clarifies the position from which she writes this article: “I am a white, straight-passing, middle-class, cisgender woman. I speak from a position of unearned privilege. I’ve never experienced discrimination based on my race, class or sexual orientation. Also, I’m a huge Taylor Swift fan.”

So I must ask, why is a “white, straight-passing, middle-class, cisgender woman” deciding what is and isn’t problematic within our understanding of feminism and feminist theory? Taylor Swift’s self-serving feminism is not intersectional, and it ignores the serious issue of racism in society, which in “serious feminist” terms would make swift a privileged and wealthy White Feminist. To support this type of ignorance is dangerous because as a white, wealthy woman within feminism, Taylor Swift has a powerful and elevated position. To exploit others in order to elevate herself, is to further diminish the voices of the women below her. Also, to exploit existing patriarchal structures within society – which encompasses sexism and racism – is to ignore these issues to to her own benefit. So when another white woman hails the “feminist” achievements of a White Feminist like Taylor Swift, it in turn diminishes the valid concerns of women of colour, who are given less of a voice already.

This was an extremely frustrating article to read. The Sheaf has a wide-reaching base within our University and I am concerned about the number of people who will be given the wrong idea about feminism after reading it. I agree that feminism should be accessible to everyone (if feminism excluded men completely, we would just be shouting into a vacuum). However, this inclusionary sentiment is necessarily challenged by intersectionalism, which is like feminism 2.0. Intersectionalism is the acknowledgement that feminism does not need to be about raising ourselves to the status of men anymore. In fact, men face a crappy deal due to patriarchy’s expectations of hyper-masculinity and aggression almost as much as women do. Intersectionalism acknowledges that feminism now needs to be about defeating patriarchal standards so that the most marginalized people in society can rise up, and that includes people of colour, people who are not able-bodied, people who are impoverished, LGBTQA+ people, etc. To look at power systems that reward white, slim, able-bodied women like Taylor Swift (who no doubt work very hard) but to question why these systems don’t in turn reward people who look much different that Swift, yet work equally hard (if not more so given the obstacles faced) is essential.

Is this to say that no celebrity can be a good feminist role model? Absolutely not. I do agree that young feminists should have someone to look up, to make feminism “cool” and “accessible” but not to simplify it. Rowan Blanchard, a young Disney Channel actress and great pop-culture feminist has noted: “feminists issues include sexual assault, rape, abortion, Planned Parenthood, domestic violence, equal education, and the wage gap…many [White Feminists] have not accepted the fact that police brutality and race issues are our issues too…the way a black woman experiences sexism and inequality is different from the way a white woman experiences sexism and inequality.” I would genuinely like to see Taylor Swift make an acknowledgement like this.

The author of this Sheaf article concludes that “the job of celebrities [isn’t] to be ‘good feminist activists.’ They’re entertainers. They’re here to sing, act, or market a reality show, not to be feminist scholars.” Wait, so which is it? Celebrities should be hailed for the hard work they do of bringing feminism to the masses? Or they should be praised because we don’t expect more from them in the first place? I’d have to disagree here and note that celebrity women aren’t brainless entertainers, dancing around a stage and incapable of a complex thought; women, even celebrities, should be capable of engaging in a conversation about feminism and social justice.

Everyone has the right to call themselves a feminist, and decide for themselves what that should mean. My issue, however, arises when celebrities use this position of power to further advance themselves at the cost of others.

- Raquel Alvarado

Student Blog #3: Racism and Social Justice

We often overlook the large amounts of social injustice and racism in our everyday lives until something brings it to our attention. Recently I received a gentle reminder of this at a popular hotel downtown Saskatoon. My two friends and I were entering the hotel on a Saturday evening at the same time as a young aboriginal couple. While we all stood waiting for the elevator, a security officer approached the group and began to ask the couple their first and last name, while writing everything down on a piece of paper. At first I thought that this may be just protocol to document visitors of guest, but then the security officer left without taking any other names. I was shocked at how someone could be so blatantly prejudice and not even see anything wrong with it.

American election season

As the American election season officially begins tomorrow, many progressive voters seem excited about the Bernie Sanders campaign.  Outside of the United States, Sanders looks like a fairly mainstream social democrat, but inside the country he certainly seems like an aberration of the American political tradition.   That being the case, I was fascinated by this recent piece on one of the American founders, Thomas Paine.  Clearly there is an intellectual radicalism within the American tradition, which Sanders seems to be channeling.  Fascinating stuff in an otherwise bleak and scary election season inside America.  

Student Blog 2: Health Care Inequality for Women

Inequality in the health care system just does not happen in the United States or in other countries that does not have a universal health care system. Health care inequalities are happening right here in Canada too.  Health care inequality just does not happen to other people, it happens to women like you and me every day.

When I was in my 20s I got sick, I mean really sick.  I was seeing more doctors then my 70- something year old Granny.  At this point in my life I had worked as a health care aide for about six years, so I thought I knew how the medical system worked.  However, my time as a health care aide did not prepare me for the inequality that I would face as a female patient.
By design our health care systems gives doctors (and to a lesser extent nurses) all the power in the delivery of healthcare.  It is truly amazing the power that doctors hold over someone else’s health. Patients really have little say in how the medical system treats us and/or our bodies.  Patients are taught from an early age not to question doctors or nurses and not to second guess the quality of our care. In my experience, many doctors see their patients as a commodity that they need to treat as fast as possible in order to make the most money from the health care system.

When I got first sick, I truly believed that doctors were there to help me. However I quickly learned that this was not the case.  I was often treated like I was dumb, and when I pointed out how bad my lab results were I would be told that it really did not mean anything.  If continued to push for the results, I was told that my medical problems were caused by stress and that I should see a therapist.  I had little power in these appointments and I often left the appointment thinking maybe I was crazy.
I remember one time leaving an appointment and going to a friend’s house crying because I felt so belittled by the latest doctor.  I was telling her and her mom what happen and they told me that this is what happens in our medical system.   My friend said all women are treated like this, and her sister who has MS, was told she was crazy on multiple occasions by multiple doctors before she was diagnosed correctly.   After this I started asking other women about their health care experiences and many of them had similar stories: many women had been labeled crazy by a doctor.  This is when I truly started to understand that women are treated differently than men in our health care system.  I also learned that if you added any other labels in front of woman such as young, poor, immigrant, and/or minority your health care experience was often worse than my bad experience.
When I finally was given my official diagnosis, it was not the victory I thought it would be.  It was just another way to show me that I was powerless and that women’s health in general was not a priority in our health care system.  My diagnosis was not given in person or over the phone, it was sent to me in a letter, where the doctor wrote that my tumour was of no concern; except it was of concern, this little tumour was affecting my life, my overall health and it was affecting my marriage.

 I called to make an appointment with the doctor, to discuss this matter and I was told she did not want to talk about it and when I asked if I could get a second opinion, I was told,” no and that the matter was closed.” After hearing this I knew I need to find a doctor that cared about me and my health. I was lucky my husband’s job allowed us to move and I was able to start over in another health care system in another province.

The new health care system still had the same power dynamics at play, but this time I was older and wiser and I knew how the system worked.  I had also learned how to work the system.  I also made sure I found a family doctor that was female and who understood how my tumour was impacting my life, health and marriage.  I remember explaining to her at my first appointment that I was not crazy, that I was sick because of this little tumour that was of no concern. I am not sure if it was because she was female, or if it was because she was knew to the Canadian health care system, but I found a doctor that care for me and would spend her own time looking for the best specialist to take  care of me.  With my family doctor’s help, I finally was able to receive the medical care and surgery that I needed.

Today I run a support group, and one of the things that many of the women tell me is that they were not prepared for was how they are treated by doctor, nurses or the medical system in general.  Many of the women tell me that they feel like second class citizens in our universal health care system and that every test, appointment, procedures was/is a fight to get.

-Debra Kulcsar

Student Blog Post #1 W2016: Global Capitalism and Democracy

Towards the end of the first chapter of James Cairns and Alan Sears’ “The Democratic Imagination,” the authors describe the application of the globalised paradigm of neoliberal capitalism through the spread of westernized systems of democracy.  Regarding the opportunity for development of greater political stability in Libya in 2011, Barack Obama noted “even as we promote political reform and human rights in the region, our efforts cannot stop there.  So the second way that we must support positive change in the region is through our efforts to advance economic development for nations that transition to democracy” (21).  

Cairns and Sears temper Obama’s purported motives of selfless intent with perspectives of economists who point out that the advancement of democracy internationally also provides supportive conditions for self-interested western nations to increase their GDP by means of increased export, bolstered by stable and reliable governmental institutions including courts, an independent judiciary, and rule of law (21).  In addition, although economic development in the form of industrialization allegedly leads to greater quality of life for citizens in impoverished nations, it also conveniently alleviates the responsibility of more prosperous western nations to provide foreign aid, whether directly or through contributions to the United Nations or other NGOs.  

An example of a case study that illustrates the damage of an emphasis on capitalist democratic politics to the detriment of liberal human rights (or really any structure which could be called “ethical”) is the garment industry in the Global South.  No longer called the “third world”, the Global South has been collectively redefined as “developing” or “underdeveloped” countries.  The self-centeredness and egocentrism underlying the agenda of western nations in their overseas promotion of democracy becomes apparent when one asks whose definition of “development” is being prioritized.  For example, Jeff Noonan discusses the life-blindness of money-value growth as measured by quantifiable data such as GDP that conceals the practically unrestrained environmental damage caused by capitalistic economic growth (142).  This is especially true in the global south where industry regulations can vary from being loosely enforced to practically nonexistent.  Simply put, it is more convenient for western nations if the environmental degradation inherent in modern industrial practices is relegated in the far-off global south.  In relation to the textile and garment industries, the amount of chemical waste and polluted water and air is enormous, with the World Bank estimating that the textile industry alone produces 20 per cent of all global industrial water pollution.  Such an emphasis on “development” conceals the fact that such practices are not authentically in the best interest of said nations’ inhabitants.  

Solutions for sustainable economic growth and local development which respect the integrity of the environment and human rights are considered impossible to implement if the residents of the Global South are to progress towards experiencing the same quality of life as westerners.  That is, quality of life as defined by access to a wide range of goods and services produced by a competitive local market or imported from the west, particularly consumerist domestic goods like cosmetics, clothing, food, and entertainment.  The cultural propaganda promoted within the content of such goods further reinforces narratives of the prestige of western democracy.  Thus, a common-sense western style of thinking dictates that the only option available for “developing” nations is industrialization since it opens additional avenues for export, reinforces the legitimacy and prestige of democracy, and prevents environmental damage from taking place within the borders of western nations.

Another benefit of western “development” is increased access to the inexpensive and easily exploited labour force of the Global South, which arguably has an even greater impact on its respective societies than environmental degradation.  In the garment industry, women primarily dominate the workforce due to structural issues of patriarchy worldwide.  Capitalist practices of ruthless exploitation in the garment industry add to the oppression by further subordinating them, especially in Muslim countries such as Bangladesh where women are conditioned to not have a voice.  

On a personal note, I’ve had the privilege of doing some research and writing on the topic of the female-dominated workforce in the textile and garment industry since the Rana Plaza collapse in Dhaka in 2013. I have talked at length with friends and family regarding the inhumane practices that are entrenched in the labour system due to a lack of international intervention for the promotion and securing of workers’ rights.  I’ve noticed when sharing information regarding the desperate working conditions of garment labourers that there is a point at which individuals tend to reach “maximum saturation,” indicated by a glazing of the eyes.  I’m guessing that this indicates that the individual is either overwhelmed with the horror of it all and is experiencing feelings of hopelessness, or, that they’re apathetic and don’t desire to have their belief system challenged regarding the westerner’s entitlement to cheap and disposable clothing.  Westerners have become accustomed to having access to inexpensive, disposable clothing for so long without asking questions or thinking about it critically that it’s become part of the cultural narrative.  

On the topic of the conflation of life-value and money-value in capitalism, Noonan writes:

the money-value system is the ruling value-system of liberal-democratic capitalist society.  As the ruling value-system it is the ultimate basis of legitimacy of both public policy and individual choice...This instrumentalization of life requirements and capacities is the basic structure of ethical harm in liberal-democratic capitalist societies.  Where policy and people mistake the growth of life-value for the growth of money-value, they can support policies or make decisions in their own lives which reduce life-value but increase money-value without noticing the loss of life-value” (144).  

The money-value system as the ultimate basis of legitimacy for individual choice is illustrated by the fact that I can purchase an exceptionally cute cream-coloured boho-inspired peasant top at H&M for $15 and not worry about it if it just sits in my closet or I throw it out because it’s so cheap.  I would argue that “cheapness” is the guiding rule for purchasing upheld by the vast majority of western consumers, and not whether the person who constructed the garment received a fair wage or worked in conditions that were reasonable.  I make this observation (at least on behalf of those who identify as women) based on the outrageous success of fast-fashion retailers such as H&M, Joe Fresh, Forever 21, Zara, Charlotte Russe, Bershka, Primark, Topshop, Uniqlo, etc.  But if cheapness is the only ethical standard informing our habits of consumerism, by extension, we are also making judgments regarding the value of labour for the individual who produced the garment, and ultimately, of their life-value (or lack thereof).

Following the Rana Plaza disaster in 2013, subsequent collapses and fires happened in Bangladesh in other factories, bringing some much-needed international media attention to some of the worker’s rights deficits in the nation.  Information on the complex situation of the garment industry is becoming harder to avoid, which means that hypothetically, the consumption patterns of fast-fashion shoppers should be evidencing development of an ethical conscience in alignment with increased awareness.  Following the 2013 disasters in Bangladesh, however, the fast fashion industry had its most successful year ever.  

So why do westerners abandon residents of the global south to their dreary futures?  In my estimation, it’s because of underlying beliefs of entitlement to western privilege based on imperialism.  If I were to translate this statement into a mathematical equation in order to depict this relationship in the reductionistic quantitative terms typically appropriated by capitalism, I estimate that it would look like this:

Whereas w = white people and b = brown people,  w > b

Although, to make the equation more accurate, there could be a number of variables that contribute to structures of consumption fostered by western privilege. Perhaps individuals feel that the west is entitled to reward itself for having attained a certain standard of living, or that they’re helping people in “developing” nations to obtain a higher standard of living, or perhaps they live under a rock and are not aware of the media attention that has been paid to Bangladesh in the past few years, or perhaps they are simply wilfully ignorant and refuse to acknowledge their role in a system that has and assuredly will continue to contribute to a system of human oppression.  Regardless, I think it would be appropriate for the international sphere to quit prioritizing western interests by labelling the global south a region of “developing” or “underdeveloped” nations, and use the more fitting label of “nations vulnerable to exploitation” or perhaps “habitually exploited nations.”  

At the domestic level, I repeat the words of Lenin in asking, “what is to be done?”  Bangladeshi workers who survived the tragedies of 2013 and were asked for solutions to the problem simply encouraged westerners to continue to purchase Bangladesh-made garments.  At the same time, a BBC documentary shot after the Rana Plaza disaster in 2013 recorded a male factory worker as saying, “after five hours of  sleeping, in the morning we have to get up at 5.  My mind doesn't want to do this, brother.  This, in fact, is inhuman.  Compelled, we are compelled.  We are prisoners.  We have to come."  Another documentary produced by the Australian Broadcasting Company in 2013 reported that there had been 43 factory fires in the past 18 months.  A Globe and Mail article from October 2013 reported that according to a national safety assessment performed by Bangladeshi engineers, approximately 90 per cent of Bangladesh’s garment factories are structurally unsound.  

The vast majority of textile and garment TNCs are well aware of the working conditions in Bangladesh but are unwilling to reinforce the vast changes needed to systems of labor through firsthand on-the-ground checks that ensure appropriate standards of building safety and labour practices.  A few have signed on to organizations such as the Bangladesh Fire and Safety Accord (BFSA), which provides a minimal structure of accountability by ensuring the structural stability and fire-preparedness of factories.  The Joe Fresh brand, which was heavily implicated in the Rana Plaza disaster for having subcontracted an order to the factory, resisted responsibility for weeks after the disaster, despite Joe Fresh clothing items being strewn about the wreckage.  They eventually signed on to the BFSA.  Minimal-intervention organizations don’t address numerous other continued violations of worker’s rights such as denial of work breaks, forced over-time, lack of access to plumbing facilities and running water, lack of ventilation, sexual harassment of women by male co-workers and overseers, and so on.  Perhaps, however, the evidence of a few fast-fashion companies signing on to the BFSA following the media blitz is a hopeful sign that collective action in the form of consumer pressure can produce change that moves in the direction of respecting the rights of workers.

My own solution has been to purchase everything I need or want from local second-hand shops.  I work at a consignment store, which makes it much easier for me to find what I need.  If I can’t find said items locally through the second-hand market, I try to find a product that’s made in a country where ethical standards of labour are enforced, such as in North America or Europe.  I’ve written to a few companies to tell them that I think they have ethical responsibilities that need to be fulfilled or to tell them that I appreciate them joining organizations such as the BFSA.  I figure the BFSA is better than nothing - it’s a start.  Despite the pleas of Bangladeshi garment workers to continue buying Bangladesh-made clothing, I don’t buy “fast fashion” anymore.  I recognize that for garment industry workers, this industry is their livelihood, but I’m also extremely reticent to support an industry that places individuals in such a difficult double-bind (you can be a working slave and make a tiny amount of money, or you can be unemployed and be free but possibly starve) and causes emotional anguish because of its oppressive practices.  

I would rather advocate for change through letter writing and spreading awareness rather than directly feeding into a system that ruthlessly exploits.  On that topic, I was thinking today about how I used to revel in my victory as a fashion hunter when I found a pair of basic black pants by Joe Fresh on the clearance rack at Superstore for a measly $3.  I’d reminisce with my woman friends about my “thrill of the find” and that I managed to get several years of use out of them.  It only dawned on me today as I started to write this piece - talk about western privilege.  An actual human being with as much intrinsic worth and as much capacity to feel and think as myself may have died for me to wear those $3 pants.  

-Courtney Bowman 

Social Justice and the Common Good is back in W2016!

St. Thomas More College's, INTS 400 Critical Perspectives on Social Justice and the Common Good is back for Winter 2016.  This year, we're featuring new readings on the environment, which includes reading Naomi Klein's, This Changes Everything and Pope Francis' Encyclical Letter with a strong focus on the good and the environment (Laudato si).  We will also be reading on a variety of local, national, and international topics including Indigenous rights, women's rights, LGBTQ rights, critical political economy and workers' rights.  As last year, we'll also be posting student blogs featuring their own observations on social justice and the common good.  Please feel free to contribute along with the discussion!

- Prof Smith

Student Blog #9: Empathy as a Tool for Social Justice

A couple weeks ago, my peer Whitney Loerzel wrote an excellent blog on the importance of critical thinking as a tool for social justice. She states: “Critical thinking is not some meaningless intellectual exercise. On the contrary, there are numerous examples of individuals using critical thinking to create a better, more just world”. Critical thinking allows for creative thinking. In this blog, I wish to build on Whitney’s thoughts and suggest another creating thinking process, one that is retrospective in nature and expressed through empathy.

My thoughts on empathy as a tool for social justice have been lingering for some time, though I have not identified it as such until very recently. This identification was spurred by my recent conversations with peers and friends, both in Canada and Guatemala, concerning the pervasiveness of child marriages in that country. This topic recently came to my attention through a New York Times article written by Stephanie Sinclair entitled “Child, Bride, Mother”. In Guatemala, 53 percent of women age 20 to 24 are married before age 18, and 13 percent before age 15 (Sinclair). This norm, prevalent in more than 50 countries, strips young girls and women of many of their human rights, fuelling a cycle of social, economic and political oppression.

Conversations with my peers and friends in Canada on this topic have been interesting and insightful. Everyone acknowledged the gender injustices surrounding this prevalent norm but when the big question of “What can we do to change this?” was pressed, the most common response seemed to be: “I’m not sure, those are big issues. I am just happy to be living in Canada.” I have to admit, I shared the same feeling in that moment. However, my feelings soon shifted after talking with some of my female friends in Guatemala. This topic is very personal as many of their friends or families are part of this statistic. Patriarchy (“machismo”) manifests itself in many aspects of their daily lives and is a constant struggle. Accurate empathetic insight into their struggles re-engaged me as an individual which was followed by a sense of responsibility.

This example is not used to make claims of some people being more empathetic than others. Rather, it is to highlight the gap or distance between perspectives on social justice issues as a lived reality as opposed to a topic of conversation. This gap, I feel, disconnects us as humans and strips away important perspectives that have the potential to stimulate empathy.

I believe empathy has a critical role to play in creating positive social change. Cultivating empathy requires us to step outside of ourselves and experience the world through other perspectives, particularly those of the grassroots. This personal interaction requires us to not only think critically, but understand the needs and conditions of those around us- near and far. In brief, I believe that empathy fuels connection. Connection, in turn, builds solidarity that can lead to social change.  I encourage everyone to not only critically engage with social justice issues, but explore their own empathy as a tool for social justice.

-Rebecca Tatham

Student Blog Post #8: Indigenous Knowledge, Culture and Building the Social Economy

This week in class I am leading discussion on Priscilla Settee’s, “Indigenous Perspectives on Building the Social Economy of Saskatchewan."

I am by no means an economist or a political scientist like many of my classmates, but I find Settee’s work incredibly compelling. Perhaps more compelling to me is her conviction to Indigenous values and their application today.

I come from the college of archaeology, a place where I regularly learn about Indigenous people’s culture and history. I genuinely love learning about the cultures of the first peoples that inhabited Saskatchewan and being part of their recovery and protection.

I am quite familiar with Saskatchewan’s 14000 year history of inhabitation and can inform you as to why a specific projectile point or tool is better than another. I hope to someday be employed by a field that protects  Indigenous people's material past from being destroyed by the hand of the multi-billion dollar pipeline projects.

Yet modern indigenous culture and the culture Settee argues for is completely foreign to me. There has been a disconnect in my mind because I associate the material remains I see with individuals from 4500 years ago and not the culture that lived on and exists today.

I must ask myself why? Is my privilege as a middle class white male unchecked? The short answer to this question is without even realizing it until putting myself and my own experience under the microscope: yes, it is.

I now consider this a great failure on my part as a student, a human being, and a citizen of this wonderfully multifaceted cultural landscape we known as Canada. As I enter my career I hope to remedy this situation and open pathways of access for Indigenous peoples into the archaeological process and share their history as equals. I believe a better understanding of Saskatchewan's history can genuinely be beneficial for all involved and begin a discourse that will bring our multicultural mosaic together as equals.

-Kevin Nyborg

Education and Pedagogy

Last week, students in INTS 400 Critical Perspectives on Social Justice and the Common Good had a fruitful discussion on the role of education, pedagogy and "how we learn" in modern universities.  The discussion originated in response to this article from conservative commentators Barbara Kay and Adam Daifallah.  I brought the article to class in order to ask the question that the article accused us of never asking: do universities teach students "what" to think rather than "how" to think? 

The discussion was impressive.  Students reflected on their experiences, discussed the broader state of education (including difficulty of access) and how students tailor their arguments to different academic situations.  

I was impressed with the high level of intellectual responses from the students.   After class a student sent me this poem which I found to quite adequately reflect how many students (including myself) felt as we were navigating our education.  Well done class! 

There is something I don't know
that I am supposed to know.
I don't know what it is I don't know
and yet am supposed to know,
and I feel I look stupid
if I seem both not to know it
and not know what it is I don't know.
Therefore, I pretend I know it.
   
This is nerve-racking
since I don't know what I must pretend to know.
Therefore I pretend to know everything.

I feel you know what I'm supposed to know
but you can't tell me what it is
because you don't know
that I don't know what it is.

You may know what I don't know,
but not that I don't know it,
and I can't tell you.
So you will
have to
tell me
everything.

R. D. Laing

Student Blog #7: The Importance of Critical Thinking

There was a recent news article that caught my attention and caused me some concern. This particular article was discussing a recent mail out that was sent to an MP’s constituents that contained information related to Bill C-51. A survey was included in which individuals were offered two options regarding their opinions on Bill C-51: they could either agree with the bill, as it is imperative to take additional action to protect Canadians from terrorism, or they must disagree with implementing Bill C-51 because, “terrorists are victims too.” I laughed to myself as I read it: what a blatant example of the fallacy of the false dilemma this argument is! The fallacy of the false dilemma (or false dichotomy) occurs when an individual presents only two opposing views when in fact other possibilities exist. In regard to Bill C-51, one might have perfectly valid reasons for not supporting this legislation, such as its impedance on privacy rights and civil liberties, which have nothing to do with sympathizing with terrorists. This example immediately brought back “fond” memories of Vic Toews who in 2012, used a false dichotomy when he told Canadians that they are either with Conservative government or, “with the child pornographers”, in regard to Bill C-30. I am sure many Canadians were delighted to be categorized as being “with the child pornographers,” simply because they opposed the content of Bill C-30.

As ridiculous as these two examples are, we may not realize that we encounter fallacious arguments on a regular basis. For example, how many times do we witness a straw person argument in our lives? A straw person argument (commonly called a “straw man” argument, but I am a feminist after all) is one that misrepresents your opponent’s position in a way that makes it easier to attack and refute. The ever-present red herring, the deliberate raising of an irrelevant issue, seems to be a staple in argumentative discourse. However, our discourse need not be mired in fallacies. Invalid arguments, although very easy to make, are also easy to detect with the right tools. Thus, the concept of critical thinking is necessary to eradicate such fallacious arguments.

Critical thinking is the process of assessing claims and arguments with rational, cognitive thought. A critical thinker does not accept unfounded claims and is familiar with common fallacies. I presented you with the fallacy of the false dilemma, the straw person, and red herring, but there are many others. There are the fallacies that contain irrelevant premises, such as the genetic fallacy, the fallacy of appealing to popularity, tradition, emotion, and so on. Other fallacies are those with unacceptable premises, like begging the question or deploying a faulty analogy. Critical thinking is also about embracing new knowledge through discovery, and is tremendously important when evaluating and forming opinions.

Why is critical thinking so imperative? Firstly, far too often fallacious arguments slip through the cracks and are deemed valid. It becomes dangerous when people of power use fallacies to win support and make policies. Without the power of critical thinking, individuals accept invalid claims and arguments that undermine truth. Secondly, there is a risk of basing one’s beliefs and opinions on biased, unsupported, and/or fallacious claims. What you stand for and whom you are depends on the kinds of knowledge that you deem to be valid and worthy of acceptance. If you do not think critically about the reasons for accepting claims, you risk allowing others to form your opinions and beliefs for you. Every day, individuals are bombarded with information. The media, through the advancement of technology, now permeates our lives so completely that it is nearly impossible to ignore. Social media is another entity that offers the user an abundance of information and opinions. With all this information streaming into our lives it is important to be able to assess what is valid and worthy of our attention.

I equate social justice and the common good with individuals making and accepting arguments grounded in evidence. A good and just society is one that seeks truth and turns away from claims that lack credible evidence. Critical thinking is the tool that separates truths from falsehoods. A just world requires a foundation of trust, and if claims and beliefs are based on invalid or inaccurate premises, how can the good or justice prevail? Relying on unfounded claims to form opinions most certainly hinders the common good.

Critical thinking is not some meaningless intellectual exercise. On the contrary, there are numerous examples of individuals using critical thinking to create a better, more just world. It has empowered women to no longer accept that they somehow are subordinate to men and thus should be afforded lesser rights. Thinking critically has also made clear that skin colour has no bearing on the value of a human life. In my own life, critical thinking has changed the way I look at and consume food.

I have been vegan for several years now and this choice, despite what so many people think, was one the easiest decisions of my life. I critically assessed the arguments that supported an animal-based diet against those that opposed consuming such a diet. After evaluating arguments, I came to the conclusion that the arguments made in favour of a vegan diet could not be ignored, such as the appalling treatment of animals, the damage to the environment, and the waste of resources that goes into livestock production that result from an animal-based diet. Critical thinking gave me the tools to discover that I could lead a perfectly healthy and enjoyable life foregoing any animal products, a decision that has greatly increased both my physical and emotional well being.

If more people thought critically about the world around them, I truly believe that positive change would ensue. If politicians, for example, could no longer rely on unfounded claims or the politics of fear to win support, and would be forced to convey concrete and factual claims to the public. Individuals would support their own arguments with logical, factual evidence and would accept nothing less from others. The media would be required to conduct and present truthful reporting. Most importantly, the world would be truth seeking, rather than retreating into falsehoods.

In order to be a critical thinker you must refuse to go through life in blissful ignorance, accepting unsupported claims and fallacious arguments. Critically engage with the world around you, and live with a passion for learning and a hunger for new knowledge. Take control of your own learning, don’t let someone do it for you; that is, know how to properly access facts and knowledge for yourself. Demand evidence and know when a valid argument is actually being made. Know the structure of a valid argument (that the premises support the conclusion), and when making an argument, always make sure you have sufficient and supportive evidence. Familiarize yourself with the basic fallacies and when evaluating claims for yourself always ask, “Is this a valid argument?” Whenever partaking of any information from the media be aware of any biases or conflicts of interests, and know what source your information is coming from (FOX News will provide a very different entertainment experience from BBC News).

The more I learn, the more I realize I know very little, as there is always so much more knowledge to acquire. A critical thinker never stops or fears learning. She or he is always prepared to embrace new territory, and move forward, rather than retreat into ignorance. It is important to examine your own life and challenge your own beliefs through a lens of critical thinking. Are your beliefs supported by evidence and truths?  Or, are you allowing falsehoods and fallacies to structure your life? A healthy amount of skepticism is often necessary when listening to opinions and arguments. Do not isolate yourself from different points of view; instead actively seek out opinions that are different from your own. If your views cannot stand up to criticism, then they were never strong enough to be held in the first place. Changing a strongly held belief is not a sign of defeat, but rather the mark of a truly open-minded critical thinker. Critical thinking, although a very simple act, has the power to change the kind of world we live in.

-Whitney Loerzel

Bill C-51 and Human Rights

Yesterday, thousands of Canadians took to the streets in protest over Bill C-51: the Anti Terrorism Act.  You can see some pictures here.  You can read about the government of Canada's rationale for the Act here and a brief summary of the criticism here. The government claims that C51 is necessary to give security agencies more power to combat the threat of terrorism while civil liberties advocates argue that C51 could be used to crack down on legitimate protest.  What are your thoughts on the Bill and its relationship to social justice and the common good?  Will C51 make Canadians safer or will it undermine basic civil liberties across the country?

Student Blog #6: #KXL Why Now?

I recently read an article in the Huffington Post titled “Obama Declares Venezuela a Threat to U.S National Security” (Mason and Rampton 2015).  The United States is an oil-rich country that loves to take heavy oil (or crude oil, dirty oil, etc.) from a so called, ‘strong’ ally (if it ever was) and use it domestically. However, the U.S is the number one purchaser of crude oil from Venezuela.  Yet, if this failing relationship continues, a strain on imports from that country, no matter how unlikely, could happen.  This short introduction brings me to the main point of this article: America, finish building Keystone XL!

If you are reading this article I can assume that you have some knowledge on the debate surrounding KXL. But let’s quickly recap: The Keystone Pipeline has been planned for about six years now.  This multi-year debate on Keystone XL is actually just phase four of the project.  This project began in the early 2000s when I was just a little tot in school. Since then, oil prices have risen as the ‘War on Terror’ began and Canada’s (well Alberta’s) northern oil sands began to interest companies that needed to transport oil out to the Gulf Coast to ship it to China or another overseas country.  Phase one was approved under the Bush administration in 2008.  Phase two is also now complete. Phase three has been put into construction.  Phase one runs from Alberta to Steele City, Nebraska, Phase two runs from Steele City to Cushing, Oklahoma.  Phase three continues this down to Texas, where it branches off to two ports.  There is a heck of a lot that goes on between those places however.  Phase four is where the current controversy arises.

KXL would duplicate Phase one, however, with a shorter, more direct route and a wider pipeline.  This pipeline does not just carry Canadian oil. American crude oil would join the Canadian oil in Baker, Montana.  The main debate for anti-KXL activists would be that the pipeline is dangerously bad for the environment (along with other issues).  Supporters of KXL, including myself, argue that oil is an essential commodity to grow the world economy and that the pipeline is a safe way to move oil to refineries.  Furthermore, the pipeline would improve both countries politically, socially, economically and whatever other word you can think of that ends with ‘ly’.

The Sand Hills region in Nebraska presented a problem with environmental concerns.  KXL was originally planned to go right through this beautiful region, which also supplied eight states with clean drinking water.  TransCanada, a Calgary based company, immediately proposed fourteen different routes the pipeline could take, including one that completely avoided the Sand Hills region.  In November of 2011, the Nebraska Legislature passed two bills to allow TransCanada to alter the route.  A year earlier, in 2010, the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a report stating that KXL would pose no real threat to the environment as long as all safety procedures are followed.  A few months following the TransCanada route change in Nebraska, TransCanada issued an environmental study stating that “based on extensive feedback from Nebraskans, this reflects our shared desire to minimize the disturbance of land and sensitive resources in the state” (Reuters 2012).

Now, I understand defending TransCanada’s claims with their own claim is problematic, however, the Federally regulated EPA’s report is clear.  The environmental risks are minimal.  However, the potential of an oil spill also looms large for anti- KXL activists.  A spill would obviously pollute the air and any water it contaminated, however, the main issue of water contamination was avoided when TransCanada re-routed the pipeline around Sandy Hills.  Moreover, as many scholars have suggested, if there was a leak around the “Ogallala Aquifer” (the Nebraska fresh water reserve), it would not be bad enough to penetrate the aquifer.  It is obvious that a spill into fresh water would take a lot of money and time to clean.  A spill would affect wildlife and agriculture in the area of the spill and that would be devastating for many ecosystems.
Yet, the argument that KXL could negatively affect these ecosystems is overstated.  Look, I completely understand that a pipeline is not going to save our environment.  However, it is not going to necessarily hurt it and that is my point.  There are already numerous pipelines that go East-West or North-South through and around the Sand Hills of Nebraska.  Although they are minor compared to the proposed size of KXL, they are still there moving oil daily.

Here is another fact to consider: we are all dependent on oil!  From the natural gas or coal power plants powering our homes, to the electric car you are thinking about buying or your stove at home, they all have one thing in common: they need oil.  A large portion of Canadian GDP is determined by how many barrels of oil are sold.  Provincial and Federal economies all, to some extent, rely on oil. Where does North America get that oil from? You guessed it, by train from Canada and developing countries around the world.

Well Mr. President, why not drastically eliminate your dependence on moving oil by train and approve this pipeline? If you google which is the safest way to move oil, pipeline beats rail every time.  There were over 1000 rail accidents last year in the U.S (over 100 deaths) and only eleven pipeline accidents.  The last human fatality due to pipeline accident was in 1988, my eldest sister had not yet been born (she is 25).  Pipelines are safe and it is as simple as that.  There are thousands of reports, articles, and essays to defend this point. Ideally, the Barack Obama administration would use the small economic gain from this pipeline to end some of their dependence on third world oil and maybe actually help develop those countries.

KXL would also create jobs.  This is a key point pro-KXL supporters bring up.  The U.S State Department released a report in 2012 stating that 40,000 jobs would be created during the construction of KXL.  Although most of them are not permanent, that is still 40,000 jobs America! The President, in 2013, publically stated that KXL would maybe produce “2,200 permanent jobs” (Reuters 2013).  The President clearly was not pleased with his State Departments findings, even still, isn’t 2,200 jobs better than zero?  This is an essential reason why public opinion polls all support the KXL in the U.S.  The Republican Party received a majority in the Senate in the 2014 fall election partially because of its support of KXL.  The Republican led Congress and Senate then passed KXL in January and sent it to the President for approval.  President Obama vetoed the bill just two weeks ago and the Congressional override did not produce its needed two thirds majority to support the project.

It is looking more and more unlikely that KXL will pass and this is problematic for both of our countries.  As Canadian Ambassador Gary Doer stated “the choice is to have it come down by a pipeline that he approves, or without his approval, it comes down on trains” (McCarthy 2013).  The U.S is already using Canadian oil, receiving millions of barrels of oil daily.  Much of that oil comes through pipeline and crude oil will be used no matter what, so it is our challenge to make it as safe as possible.

KXL would drastically improve both of our nations’ economies. It would bring more Canadian oil to the U.S, thus eliminating its dependence on third world countries.  KXL would produce more jobs for both countries and ultimately make the movement of heavy oil safer.  Those summary points, in my eyes, drastically improve our common good.  There is no liberal way out of this debate, either you agree with me, or you think KXL is dangerous.  To those against, I strongly encourage you to really think about this issue and why we depend on oil, or what good oil can do for our society. KXL would do wonders for the common good of both Canada and the United States.

-Wyatt Carleton
Twitter: @WACarl10

Addressing inequality

Perhaps it is a measure of how far our society has moved away from addressing issues of inequality, but this week the International Monetary Fund released a report stating that declining unionization is fuelling income polarization in developed economies.  In their words:

"we find strong evidence that lower unionization is associated with an increase in top income shares in advanced economies during the period 1980–2010"

Union activists have been making this fairly obvious argument for decades. It is fascinating that the institution associated with neoliberal structural adjustment programs throughout the world is now recognizing that unions play an essential role in redistributing wealth.  What is your take?   

Student blog #5: Transportation Tribulation

I dreamed a dream last night. In this dream, there were hardly any cars. There was no driver training, no driver exams, and no extensive hours of practicing to become a diligent and effective motorist. People were spending their time doing other things. Like engineering safe and efficient bullet trains. Or building eco-friendly solar powered buses. Or spending more time walking, running, and cycling places.

A little ambitious for North America? Most likely, but it’s my subconscious and I’m entitled to do whatever I want in there. Yet imagine if people were able to pool their resources together to create a transit system that all could share in. Imagine a system that benefited everyone beyond just addressing issues of mobility. With more developed public transport there would be less traffic in cities, which would reduce street congestion and engine emissions. There would be less need for vast parking lots, which would give opportunity to build more condensed infrastructure and allow for additional parks, community gardens, or recreational areas. There would be less vehicular collisions because finding a “safe” option home from the pub would be the only option. That is not to say there would not be unfortunate accidents with a highly developed public transit system, but these just might pale in comparison to our current mode of transportation (check out the statistics of American motor vehicle accidents in comparison to public transit and the Japanese high-speed rail safety record).

So what is a significant downfall of creating a communal system of mobility? Independence. Or rather lack thereof. How could people conveniently drive to 7-Eleven whenever a taquito craving hit, or leave five minutes early for school because that last “snooze” makes all the difference? In fact, this notion of convenience is often what drives us to drive. People who can afford cars can do a lot at the whim of a fancy, with a vehicle that takes them wherever they want to go whenever they want to go there. This is a great freedom, and why would there be a demand for a better public transit system when it is much, much nicer to commute and run errands in the comfort of a climate controlled Escalade rather than waiting for a transfer on a muggy side-street or in minus 40° weather.

But what about those people who cannot afford their own automobile? In a society structured so that not everyone can attain the level of financial security necessary to purchase and maintain a vehicle, the options of getting around become acutely limited. Especially in a city where the importance of well-developed public transportation can be summed up in one callow phrase: “People can just carpool more.” To be sure, individual car-culture plays an important part in the economy because people use their vehicles to drive to work (or use them for work).  Yet, there are also those who struggle to make it to their jobs with a system that does not cater to public commuter needs. A lack of effective public transport means that people who cannot afford a car to commute hours of their day to making transfers, meticulously planning routes, or limiting themselves to employment close to home if there are no routes in their area.

And what about the environmental costs paid for a little convenience? If decimating the Northern boreal forest to make room for extractive industry, pipeline spills, or using unquantifiable amounts of precious freshwater is not enough to scare you off from the oil dependency necessary to sustain individual transportation—think about all the fracking currently underway next to the Yellowstone Caldera (also known as “Supervolcano”).

Sure, most of us would say we value all citizens in society and value the environment. But do we value them as much as instant-taquito-gratification? Of course, there are complex personal, political, and economic challenges to building infrastructure for a highly integrated public transit system, taking much time, forethought, and investment. These questions, however are not an obstacle.  Rather they should push us to seriously reconsider how we organize our communities, not just on larger social levels but at the personal level as well.  Addressing these challenges would point us in the direction of more sustainable methods of transport, rather than continuing to build up a system that disadvantages some and promotes environmental exploitation.

The need for mobility is a reality, but like all needs, there are a plethora of alternatives for how to meet it. Individual car-culture is no different. Yet, is car-culture a necessary life requirement? Are we willing to re-think how our current desire for independent mobility ripples through the rest of our social and environmental world? Are we willing to relinquish some present-day personal convenience and freedom for a healthier future? And are we willing to seek out and invest in sustainable alternatives? Perhaps the goal of revolutionizing our mobility-needs seems out of reach, or entirely unfeasible.

But I encourage people to tear down those normative boundaries of what is possible, and what is permissible. And even if you do not agree with my hypothetical vision of transport alternatives, I encourage you to come up with your own vision for more sustainable methods of mobility. I encourage you to dream.

-Michelle McLean

Student Blog #4: An Unexpected Combination: torture tactics and celebrity worship

Earlier this week, an article appeared on The Independent United Kingdom with the headline “If Amal Clooney wins the 'Hooded Man' case, the embarrassment for the UK would be huge” and featured a large photo of a very stern and intimidating looking Amal Clooney. This article is about the case of the Irish “hooded men” who state that they were tortured 1971 by authorities in a British Army camp. As someone going to law school in the fall, the article peaked my interest and left me with two interesting takeaways.
   
First, regardless of the outcome of this particular case, it is very important for a number of reasons. The decision will further define what is considered ‘torture’ and what is considered ‘inhuman and degrading treatment’ in international law. There is currently a large grey area between the two legal concepts and the more that cases like this call for a distinction, the more precedent is set for the future. A clearer definition of torture will not abolish it all together – it very well could push it further into hiding – but it would still force lawmakers to be explicit and not rely on legal or political grey area to avoid prosecution.
   
If the legal team representing the surviving men are successful, it will also have grave implications for the UK. Proving the British government lied in the court of law and engaged in torture tactics against Irish citizens will not bode well for what has historically been a turbulent relationship. Any discussion around torture tactics calls into question notions of the common good and whether or not there can be a version of it that allows the blatant disregard for basic human rights. Further, if torture tactics were considered to me permissible within the common good, would the governments be nervous to be associated with these types of actions?
   
Finally, as a sociology major, I found the framing of this article to be particularly interesting. Amal Clooney is an incredibly successful human rights lawyer that anyone living a privileged life likely has not heard of. Yet, she became known in the media when she married Hollywood actor George Clooney. Suddenly, everything she does makes headlines. This is not necessarily a bad thing – she is doing amazing work and deserves airtime over some other things I see regularly – but it is an interesting change. It invokes many commentaries on our society, from celebrity worship to the fact that a successful woman did not receive wide public recognition until she married a famous man. Even this specific legal case – which has been in the works for some time – did not receive wide media attention in North America until Amal Clooney joined the legal team. More importantly, in the article she was constantly referred to as “Amal Clooney and the rest of the hooded men’s legal team” as if she has been leading it since the beginning.  Based on her celebrity, she has become the figurehead of this case, despite only recently joining the legal team. Why was the article photo not of the men at the center of the case? Would this article have reached me in Canada before Amal Alamuddin became Amal Clooney? It is hard to say. What is important is to consider these socially constructed undertones in the media and keep what is important at the centre of our analysis: striving for a better understanding of the common good and ensuring justice for those people victimized by the state.

-Justine Shenher

Greece, Syriza and the "Grexit"

If you are not following the situation in Greece, you are missing one of the most important political and economic events since the great recession in 2008.  The election of Syriza in the last Greek election was a clear demonstration by the Greek people against the austerity provisions imposed by the Eurozone.  Since the election, Syriza has been in intense negotiations to get a new deal on its outstanding financial obligations to the Eurozone.  So far, Germany has relented (which Phillipe LeGrain at Foreign Policy has described as outright bullying) and Greece (and Syriza) are in a bind. You can read about those tensions between democracy and globalization by the great Leo Panitch here. The people at the Socialist Project have put together a great Hot Topics tab on Greece here.  So what do you think, should Greece leave the Eurozone? What would be the implications of such a move?

Malcolm X

Today is the fiftieth anniversary of Malcolm X's death.  Looking at the twentieth century it is difficult to find a more inspiring leader rallying against the forces of oppression in the name of social justice.  In the words of Zaheer Ali "Malcolm X wielded history like a sword in his verbal assaults on American racism and European colonialism. He understood that a nation is first founded, not on land, but on the stories that it tells — and silences — to justify its existence."